G.R. No. L-21593; April 29, 1966
RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN, in her capacity as Administratrix of Estate of Deceased Ruperta Cabucos, petitioner, vs. AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS and CITY ENGINEER OF CEBU CITY, respondents.

FACTS

On June 22, 1909, Ruperta Cabucos bought and fully paid for Lot No. 638 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City from the Government, receiving a deed of conveyance on November 27, 1915, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3918 (T-320) on February 28, 1916. Sometime in 1914 or 1915, the government constructed Mango Avenue (now General Maxilom Avenue, a national road) through a portion of Lot No. 638 without prior expropriation proceedings. A claim for compensation was filed with the Municipality of Cebu but remained unpaid. In 1927, Ruperta Cabucos subdivided the lot, with Lot No. 638-B being the portion traversed by the road. She died in 1940. In 1951, her heirs subdivided the property further, and the Court of First Instance of Cebu, approving the partition on May 30, 1953, ordered an annotation on the title of Lot No. 638-B stating it “shall not be closed nor disposed of to the prejudice of the using public as such highway.” On April 20, 1961, Candido Samson, the estate’s administrator, filed a claim for compensation for Lot No. 638-B with the City Appraisal Committee of Cebu, which appraised it at P13,245.00. The claim was denied by the Commissioner of Public Highways and, upon referral, by the Deputy Auditor General on February 18, 1963, on grounds including failure to register the claim with the Committee on Claims, laches, prescription, presumed consent, title subject to the road encumbrance per the Land Registration Act, and the annotation on the title. Raymunda S. Digran, who became administratrix on February 16, 1963, filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. She appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the heirs of Ruperta Cabucos are entitled to compensation for Lot No. 638-B, the portion taken for the public road (Mango Avenue) without expropriation proceedings.

RULING

Yes, the heirs are entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Deputy Auditor General. The government’s defenses were rejected. Firstly, Sections 19, 20, and 21 of Act 1120 (the Friar Lands Act) did not authorize the taking of private lands for public use without just compensation; the road construction was not the type of servitude contemplated, and there was no showing the lot was declared nonalienable prior to sale. Secondly, Section 39 of the Land Registration Act was inapplicable because the road was constructed after Ruperta Cabucos acquired the land; it was not a subsisting encumbrance at the time of purchase. Thirdly, laches and prescription cannot divest a registered owner of title under the Torrens System, nor the right to compensation for taking. Fourthly, failure to register the claim with the Committee on Claims created by Administrative Order No. 6 did not bar the claim, as the order did not provide for such a bar. The Court held it would be unfair and a violation of constitutional rights for the government to take the land without compensation after having sold and received full payment for it. The Court awarded compensation in the amount of P13,245.00 (the appraisal value), plus legal interest from the date of filing of the claim (April 20, 1961) until full payment, and attorney’s fees of P1,500.00. The administratrix was ordered to execute a deed of conveyance for Lot No. 638-B in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.