G.R. No. L-8429; October 16, 1913
THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EVARISTO BATLLE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The City of Manila initiated condemnation proceedings against Evaristo Batlle and his wife. The condemnation commission awarded them P119,173.40. Both parties submitted the commission’s report to the court with a verbal request for its approval. However, the Court of First Instance, on its own motion, reduced the award to P105,144.50. The defendants appealed from this reduction. After filing the notice of appeal, the City moved for execution of the judgment and tendered payment of the reduced award via a city warrant. The defendants’ attorney accepted the warrant, stating it was received as a partial payment and expressly reserving the right to appeal. The warrant contained an endorsement acknowledging “full satisfaction” of the claim, which the defendants signed. The City now moves to dismiss the appeal, arguing the acceptance of payment constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants’ acceptance of the payment awarded by the judgment of the Court of First Instance, under the circumstances of this condemnation proceeding, constitutes a waiver of their right to appeal from that judgment.

RULING

No. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. In condemnation proceedings, the plaintiff has the statutory right to execute the judgment immediately upon its rendition by paying the assessed value to the owner. The owner’s acceptance of this payment is merely the consideration he receives for the plaintiff’s exercise of its privilege to take possession of the property before final adjudication. This acceptance, compelled by the plaintiff’s own act, does not constitute a waiver of the owner’s right to appeal the sufficiency of the award. There is no consideration for such a waiver, as the payment is the exact legal equivalent for the property taken, not an additional benefit. The endorsement on the warrant acknowledging “full satisfaction” is not controlling under these circumstances, as the proceeding was not for the settlement of a disputed claim but for the immediate possession of the property, and the defendants’ attorney explicitly reserved the right to appeal upon acceptance. The defendants did not thereby relinquish their valuable right to appeal.