G.R. No. L-15141; November 16, 1920
THE MANILA RAILROAD CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL., defendant-appellees.

FACTS:
The Manila Railroad Company filed an expropriation case in the Court of First Instance of Albay to acquire lands necessary for the construction of a railway branch from Legaspi to Nueva Caceres, pursuant to its legislative franchise. The plaintiff alleged it could not acquire the lands through private negotiation because some owners were unknown and others demanded excessive prices. Several landowners appeared and answered, admitting the plaintiff’s right to expropriate but contesting the compensation. The court appointed commissioners to assess the value of the lands and damages. The majority commissioners submitted a report fixing the compensation for various parcels (Nos. 280, 282, 330, 334, and 353) owned by different individuals, valuing the land and improvements separately and awarding consequential damages. A third commissioner submitted a dissenting report with different valuations. The trial court approved the majority report and rendered judgment condemning the plaintiff to pay the fixed amounts with legal interest from the date of filing the complaint (February 17, 1914). For another parcel (No. 14) owned by Florencia Quijano, not covered by the commissioners’ report, the court also adjudicated ownership to the plaintiff and fixed compensation. The plaintiff appealed, assigning errors in the approval of the commissioners’ report, the grant of legal interest, and the denial of its motion for a new trial.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in approving the commissioners’ report on the valuation of the expropriated properties.
2. Whether the trial court erred in granting legal interest on the compensation from the date of the filing of the complaint.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment, with the modification that the appeal regarding parcel No. 14 (Florencia Quijano) was DISMISSED.

1. On the Commissioners’ Report: The Court found no error in the trial court’s approval. It examined the evidence for each parcel and held that the commissioners’ valuations were supported by competent evidence, primarily the testimony of witnesses with knowledge of local land values and comparable sales. The appellant’s claim that the evidence was mere opinion was rejected. The Court specifically sustained the valuations for:
Parcel No. 280 (Gutierrez Hermanos): Valued at P0.20 per sq.m., based on a comparable sale (Exhibit 1).
Parcel No. 282 (Eleuteria Diaz): Valued at P1.00 per sq.m., supported by witness testimony.
Parcels Nos. 330 & 334 (Eugenia Pinilla & Domingo Valenciano): Valued at P2.50 per sq.m., as these were lots near the new public market, with the value supported by a relevant sale (Exhibit 24).
Parcel No. 353 (Ceferino Guanzon): Valued at P2.00 per sq.m., being farther from the commercial center.
The awards for improvements and consequential damages were also upheld as based on uncontradicted testimony.

2. On Legal Interest: The Court affirmed the award of legal interest from the date the company took possession of the lands (coinciding with the filing of the complaint), citing its precedents in Philippine Railway Co. vs. Solon and Philippine Railway Co. vs. Duran. Interest accrues until the compensation is paid or deposited in court.

3. On Parcel No. 14 and the Motion for New Trial: The appeal regarding Florencia Quijano’s parcel was dismissed because the appellant failed to include the relevant evidence in the record on appeal and did not serve a copy of its brief on her counsel as required by the Rules of Court. The denial of the motion for a new trial was impliedly upheld as the judgment was found to be in accordance with the evidence and the law.

Costs were taxed against the appellant.