GR 223334; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 223334, June 7, 2017
DANILO BARTOLATA, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact REBECCA R. PILOT and/or DIONISIO P. PILOT, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, and TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Danilo Bartolata acquired a 400-square-meter lot in Taguig through a Bureau of Lands Order of Award dated December 14, 1987, following a public auction. The award was expressly made subject to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), including the conditions for easements under Sections 109-114. In 1997, respondents acquired 223 square meters of this property for the Metro Manila Skyway Project. The parties agreed on compensation based on an appraisal of ₱55,000 per square meter. Respondents made a partial payment of ₱1,480,000 but refused to pay the balance, prompting petitioner to file a complaint for sum of money.
In defense, respondents invoked Section 112 of CA 141, which subjects awarded public lands to a government right-of-way easement not exceeding sixty meters in width, requiring payment only for improvements, not the land itself. They argued the taking fell within this statutory easement, negating any obligation to pay just compensation for the land, and counterclaimed for the return of the partial payment. Petitioner contended that Presidential Decree No. 2004 removed all encumbrances on lands acquired under such awards.
ISSUE
Whether the government is obligated to pay just compensation for the taking of a portion of petitioner’s land for the Skyway Project, or if the taking is covered by a non-compensable easement of right-of-way under Section 112 of CA 141.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The taking is governed by the easement under Section 112 of CA 141, for which no compensation for the land is due. The Court explained that the Order of Award from the Bureau of Lands explicitly subjected the property to the easements under CA 141. This encumbrance is a statutory lien that runs with the land. The government’s use of a portion for the Skyway Project, a public highway, falls squarely within the 60-meter right-of-way easement contemplated by law. Consequently, the government is only liable for the value of any improvements, not for the land itself.
The Court rejected the argument that PD 2004 removed this encumbrance. PD 2004 amended Republic Act No. 730 to remove restrictions against alienation and encumbrance for residential lands sold without public auction. Petitioner’s land, however, was acquired through public auction, placing it outside the scope of the amendatory law. Therefore, the original encumbrance under CA 141 remained effective. Since the partial payment of ₱1,480,000 was made for the land value—to which petitioner had no right under the easement—it constituted an undue payment. The obligation to return it arises under the principle of solutio indebiti. Petitioner, having received payment for a claim not legally demandable, must return the amount to the government.