City of Manila v. Estrada, G.R. No. 7749, September 9, 1913

7/26/2019 City of Manila v. Estrada, G.R. No. 7749, September 9, 1913

1/21

G.R. No. 7749 September 9, 1913

THE CITY OF MANILA,plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

BALBINA ESTRAA Y SARMIENTO, m!"or #"$ o"%& 'e!re(( o) Co"*ep*!o" S#rm!e"to,

$e*e#(e$, #"$ ARISTON ESTRAA, per(o"#%%&, #"$ #( #$m!"!(tr#tor, defendants-appellants.

City Attorney Adams for plaintiff-appellant.

Ariston Estrada for defendants-appellants.

TRENT, J.:

After a careful examination of the entire record in this case and the law applicable to the questions

raised therein, we are of the opinion that P10 per square meter is a just compensation for the land taken.

ithout prejudice to filin! a more extended opinion in which our reasons will be set forth in full,

jud!ment will be entered accordin!l", without costs. #o ordered.

A short opinion was handed down in this case on $ebruar" 1%, 1&1', and in accordance with thereservation made therein, the court now proceeds to write an extended opinion settin! forth the reasons

for its jud!ment in the case.

(he cit" of )anila sou!ht to expropriate an entire parcel of land with its improvements for use in

connection with a new market at that time bein! erected in the district of Paco. A complaint was filed

settin! forth the necessar" alle!ations, answer joined, and commissioners were appointed, who, after

viewin! the premises and receivin! evidence, and bein! unable to a!ree, submitted two reports to the

court. (he court dul" rendered its decision, confirmin! the majorit" report as to the improvements, but

reducin! the price of the land from P*0 per square meter, as fixed b" the majorit" report, to P1+ per

square meter. )otions for a new trial havin! been made b" both parties and denied b" the court, bothparties appealed from that part of the decision fixin! the value of the land at P1+ per square meter. (he

record was therefore elevated to this court for a review of the evidence and assi!ned errors of the

parties. (his court held that P10 per square meter wasjust compensation for the land, and rendered its

decision accordin!l".

(he court justifies such action, first, upon the !round that the !reat preponderance of the evidence

submitted to the commissioners showed that P10 per square meter was just compensation for the land

taken, and, second, upon the power of the court to revise the report of the commissioners when the

amount awarded is !rossl" inadequate or !rossl" excessive.

A brief resume of the evidence in re!ard to the value of the land will first be made. (he land was

bounded b" alle erran, the Paco stero, the market site, and alle /ooban.

(he several sessions of the commissioners at which evidence was heard took place between #eptember

1& and ctober ', 1&11.

eor!e . #ellner, a real estate a!ent, testified that he was familiar with real estate values in the cit" of

)anila. e stated that the land in question, frontin! as it did on alles erran and /ooban and the Paco


2/21

stero, was worth 20 per cent more than other land near b", and placed its value at P10 per square

meter. e stated that he had carried on ne!otiations with re!ard to a parcel of land situated on the

opposite side of the estero and frontin! erran3 that he was offerin! this land for sale at P+.+0 per

square meter, but that the owner succeeded in obtainin! P2 per square meter, and that the sale had been

consummated onl" about thirt" da"s prior to the date of the hearin!. (he witness stated that this land

was of about the same elevation as the parcel sou!ht to be expropriated, but that it had noimprovements, bein! used for the stora!e of coal.

nrique 4rias, another real estate man, testified that P10 was a !ood price for the land. e stated that

he was the owner of the land on the opposite side of the estero which had been sold for P2 per square

meter about one month prior to the hearin!, but that this land was not in such a !ood commercial

location.

)r. Powell, of the 5nternal 6evenue 4ureau, testified that the strada land was appraised for taxation at

P2 per square meter3 that prior to 1&11 it had been appraised at about P7 per square meter.

(he president of the )unicipal 4oard of the cit" of )anila testified that a parcel of land on theopposite side of alle erran but on the same side of the Paco stero, owned b" one larke, had been

expropriated b" the cit" in 1&0%. e stated that commissioners were appointed who dul" rendered their

report to the court, but as it was accepted b" both parties, no further liti!ation was necessar". 5n this

case it seems that the land desired b" the cit" was part of a parcel frontin! on alle erran, whose

other boundaries were the Paco stero, some private propert", and a small callejon. (he portion desired

b" the cit" compromised the entire erran fronta!e of the owner. (he commissioners appraised the

total area, consistin! of 1,'&&.0' square meters at P2.+0 per square meter. (he cit" desired onl" '+'.*1

square meters facin! on alle erran, and the commissioners therefore found consequential dama!es to

the remained, due to deprivin! it of its erran fronta!e, to be P7.+0 per square meter. (hese

consequential dama!es were included in the price paid b" the cit" for the land taken, makin! the

apparent price of the '+'.*1 square meters P8,00*.0+, or P1&.%+ per square meter.

(o the same effect was the testimon" of 9ud!e amus of the municipal court, who at the time of the

larke transaction was cit" attorne".

Ariston strada, one of the defendants, testified as follows:

As to the market value of the land ;the subject of the present case


3/21

land and this was three "ears a!o3 and, on the one hand, propert" values have increased in the

last three "ears, and, on other hand, with the openin! of the market, propert" values alon!

alles erran and /ooban have increased.

$rom the record it appears that the improvements on the land consisted of a camarin in fairl" !ood

condition, appraised at P7,+003 a dwellin! house in ver" bad condition, appraised at P1,+003 the former

bein! occupied b" tenants and the latter b" the defendants strada and his famil". (he remainin!improvements consisted of a stone wall surroundin! the lot, appraised at P1,0*0, and some trees,

appraised at P1+0.

(he majorit" report of the committee, fixin! the value of the land at P*0 per square meter, states:

And lastl", with respect to the value of the land, the evidence is ver" contradictor". hile the

evidence of the plaintiff tends to show that the value of the land does not exceed P10 per square

meter, that of the defendants, on the contrar", maintains that the value of the land is more than

P1&.%+ per square meter, and it is contended b" the defendants that the true market value of the

land in question is P*+ per square meter.(he lower court, in arrivin! at its decision to reduce the price of the land to P1+, discussed the larke

transaction at some len!th and concluded as follows:

(he court therefore understands that the price which the plaintiff accepted three "ears a!o for a

piece of land less suited for commercial purposes than that in question, without proof that since

then the price of land in the place where the tract here considered is situated has fallen, ou!ht to

serve as criterion for fixin! the value of the land that is the subject matter of the present

expropriation.

xxx xxx xxx#o, the court holds it just and equitable to take as a compromise between the two conflictin!

majorit" and minorit" opinions of the three commissioners the avera!e of the two prices the"

have fixed per square meter for the land in question, P*0 and P10, respectivel", fixin! upon P1+

per square meter.

$rom this review of the evidence it appears that two disinterested witnesses for the plaintiff corporation

testified that the land was worth P10 per square meter, their statements bein! based upon the prices

obtained for land in the open market in the vicinit". (he defendant strada testified that it was worth

P*+ per square meter, basin! his statement on the price obtained three "ears previousl" b" the owner of

the parcel on the opposite side of alle erran of P1&.%+ per square meter. 5t also clearl" appears that

the price fixed in the majorit" report of the commissioners was based principall" upon this same

transaction, and that the compromise price fixed b" the court was based upon the evidence of this sale

and the testimon" of the two witnesses for the plaintiff who fixed the price of P10 per square meter.

Attorne" for the plaintiff corporation objected to the introduction of all evidence with reference to the

larke transaction, and so much dependin! upon it, it is proper to inquire as to its competenc" and

relevanc".


4/21

(he !eneral rule that the market value of the land taken is the just compensation to which the owner of

condemned propert" is entitled under the law meets with our unqualified approval. #uch was our

holdin! inManila R. Co. vs. Fabie;18 Phil. 6ep., *02. 9. /., ++'3 *+ A., +02or, on the other hand, is it to be limited

to that price which the propert" would brin! when forced off at auction under the hammer. (he

question is, if the defendant wanted to sell its propert", what could be obtained for it upon the

market from the parties who wanted to bu" and would !ive its full value. ;Approved in )et.

#treet 6". o. vs.alsh, 1&8 )o., '&*, 71%3 &7 #. ., %20.


5/21

(hese views are practicall" in accord with /ewis on minent Comain ;*d ed.. 9. /., ++8.. ., ++0.ev., 12+.ew Bork ;1*' >. B. #., 1001%


13/21

tribunal is justified in assumin! that the admission is not true, without at least pointin! out the reason

for discreditin! it3 it carries within the presumption of truth, and this presumption is not to be overcome

b" the mere fact that the commissioners mi!ht themselves have reached a different conclusion upon the

viewin! of the premises. . . . (his view of the commissioners, it seems to us, is for the purpose of

enablin! the commissioners to !ive proper wei!ht and effect to the evidence before them, and it mi!ht

justif" them in !ivin! lar!er dama!es than some of the witnesses thou!ht proper3 or even less thansome of them declared to be sustained. 4ut where the evidence produced b" the movin! part" in a

proceedin! for takin! propert" for public purposes fixes a sum, without an" disa!reement in the

testimon" on that side, we are of the opinion that the cases do not justif" a holdin! that the

commissioners are authoriEed to i!nore such testimon" and to substitute their own opinion in such

manner as to preclude the supreme court from reviewin! the determination. (hat is not in harmon"

with that due process of law which is alwa"s demanded where ri!hts of propert" are involved, and

would make it possible for a corrupt commission to entirel" disre!ard the ri!hts of the individual to the

undisturbed enjo"ment of his propert" or its equivalent.H

$rom these authoriEes, and keepin! in mind the local law on the subject, we think the correct rule to bethat, if the testimon" of value and dama!es is conflictin!, the commissioners ma" resort to their

knowled!e of the elements which affect the assessment and which were obtained from a view of the

premises, in order to determine the relative wei!ht of conflictin! testimon", but their award must be

supported b" the evidence adduced at their hearin!s and made of record or it cannot stand3 or, in other

words, the view is intended solel" for the purposes of better understandin! the evidence submitted. (o

allow the commissioners to make up their jud!ment on their own individual knowled!e of disputed

facts material to the case, or upon their private opinions, would be most dan!erous and unjust. 5t would

deprive the losin! part" of the ri!ht of cross-examination and the benefit of all the tests of credibilit"

which the law affords. 5t would make each commissioners the absolute jud!e of the accurac" and value

of his own knowled!e or opinions and compel the court to affirm the report on the facts when all of

such facts were not before it. (he evidence of such knowled!e or of the !rounds of such opinions could

not be preserved on a bill of exceptions or questioned upon appeal.

5t those cases where the testimon" as to value and dama!es is conflictin!, the commissioners should

alwa"s set forth in full their reasons for acceptin! the testimon" of certain witnesses and rejectin! that

of others, especiall" in those cases where a view of the premises has been made.

(he commissioners, bein! disinterested landowners of the province, selected b" the court for their

abilit" to arrive at a judicious decision in the assessment of dama!es, their report is entitled to !reater

wei!ht than that of an ordinar" trier of facts. A mere numerical superiorit" of the witnesses on the one

side or the other should not be sufficient to overturn the decision arrived at b" the commissioners, as

such witnesses are not required to be either landowners on judicious and disinterested parties, as are the

commissioners. (he wei!ht to be !iven to the testimon" of a witness mi!ht be considerable or it mi!ht

be almost ne!li!ible, accordin! to his standin! in the communit" and his abilit" and experience in real

estate values. 4ut where experts fixed the value of the propert", the lowest estimate bein! J+,+'' and

the hi!hest J12,000, and the commissioners allowed onl" J8+0, the court held that the award was


14/21

inadequate. ;$n re )etropolitan l. 6". o., *8 >. B. #., 8+2.< And where a lessee of a buildin! was

allowed dama!es in an extrava!ant sum for his unexpired lease, when compared with the allowance

made to the owner of the propert", the award was set aside. ;$n re )anhattan /oop >o. 1, 1'+ >. B. #.,

1+'. B. #., ++1o allowances

havin! been made for consequential dama!es, the report of the commissioners was set aside.

;illiamson vs.6ead, 102 Da., 7+'3 +2 #. ., 187.< And where a deed was so construed as embracin!

more land than it actuall" did embrace, resultin! in excessive dama!es bein! awarded, the report was

set aside. ;)orris F ssex 6. o. vs.4onnell, '7 >. 9. /., 787.< (he report has also been set aside for

refusal to consider competent evidence. ;#tate vs.#huffield F (hompsonville 4rid!e o., %* onn.,

7203 87 A., 88+.o. 8&'*


18/21

reduced this amount and allowed the appellant P&,2'8.8+. (he commissioners took a lar!e amount of

evidence relative to the amount of dama!es. (he testimon" was conflictin! as to the value of the house,

two witnesses fixin! it at over P1*,0003 another at over P17,000.003 one at P%,8+03 another at P2,*+03

and another at P8,0+0.&+. (he commissioners fixed the value of the house alone at P&,+00, and the

court at P%,8&*.+0. (his court said:

>or do we decide, whether, in a case where the dama!es awarded b" the commissioners are!rossl" excessive or !rossl" insufficient, the court can, upon the same evidence presented

before the commissioners, itself chan!e the award. e restrict ourselves to decidin! the precise

question presented b" this case, in which it is apparent that, in the opinion of the court below,

the dama!es were not !rossl" excessive, for its own allowance was onl" P10,000 less than the

amount allowed b" the commissioners, and the question is whether in such a case the court can

substitute its own opinion upon the evidence presented before the commissioners for the

opinion which the commissioners themselves formed, not onl" from the evidence but also from

a view of the premises which b" law the" were required to make.

6eferrin! to the manner in which the trial court arrived at its valuation of the various items, includin!

the house, this court said:

ithout considerin! the correctness of the rule adopted b" the court for determinin! the value

of the propert", it is sufficient to sa" that the evidence before the commissioners as to the value

of the propert" taken was contradictor" and that their award was not palpabl" excessive or

inadequate. ?nder such circumstances, we are of the opinion of the court had no ri!ht to

interfere with it.

$rom the fore!oin! it is clear that ;1< the testimon" was conflictin!3 ;*< that the award as allowed b"

the commissioners was well within the amounts fixed b" the witnesses3 ;'< that the award was not!rossl" excessive. (hat it was not !rossl" excessive is shown b" the difference between the amount

fixed b" the commissioners and that fixed b" the court, this difference bein! P1,118.+0, a reduction of a

little over 10 per cent.

$rom the above review of the cases, it will be seen that this court has not onl" not decided that the

courts cannot interfere with the report of the commissioners unless prejudice or fraud has been shown,

but the decisions tend to show the contrar"3 that is, an award which is !rossl" excessive or !rossl"

insufficient cannot stand, althou!h there be nothin! which even tends to indicate prejudice or fraud on

the part of the commissioners. (he case at bar is the first one wherein the court chan!ed the award and

rendered a final jud!ment upon the record. ad the court the power to thus dispose of the case@

#ection *72 of the ode of ivil Procedure reads as follows: H?pon the filin! of such report in court,

the court shall, upon hearin!, accept the same and render jud!ment in accordance therewith3 or for

cause shown, it ma" recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of facts3 or it ma" set

aside the report and appoint new commissioners3 or it ma" accept the report in part and reject it in part,

and ma" make such final order and jud!ment as shall secure to the plaintiff the propert" essential to the

exercise of his ri!hts under the law, and to the defendant just compensation for the land so taken3 and


19/21

the jud!ment shall require pa"ment of the sum awarded as provided in the next section before the

plaintiff can enter upon the !round and appropriate it to the public use.H

$rom this section it clearl" appears that the report of the commissioners is not final. (he jud!ment of

the court is necessar" to !ive to the proceedin!s. >or is the report of the commissioners conclusive,

under an" circumstance, so that the jud!ment of the court is a mere detail or formalit" requisite to the

proceedin!s. (he jud!ment of the court is rendered after a consideration of the commissioners= reportand the exceptions thereto submitted upon the hearin! of the report. 4" this jud!ment the court ma"

accept the commissioners= report unreservedl"3 it ma" return the report for additional facts or it ma" set

the report aside and appoint new commissioners3 or it ma" accept the report in part and reject it in part,

and Hmake such final order and jud!ment as shall secure to the plaintiff the propert" essential to the

exercise of his ri!hts under the law, and to the defendant just compensation for the land so taken.H An"

one of these methods of disposin! of the report is available to and ma" be adopted b" the court

accordin! as the" are deemed suited to secure to the plaintiff the necessar" propert" and to the

defendant just compensation therefor. 4ut can the latter method produce a different result in reference

to an" part of the report from that recommended b" the commissioners@ (he purpose of this discussionis solel" to determine this question.

#ection *72 expressl" authoriEes the court to Haccept the report in part and reject it in part.H 5f this

phrase stood alone, it mi!ht be said that the court is onl" empowered to accept as a whole certain parts

of the report and reject as a whole other parts. (hat is, if the commissioners fixed the value of the land

taken at P+,000, the improvements at P1,000, and the consequential dama!es at P+00, the court could

accept the report in full as to an" one item and reject it as to an" other item, but could not accept or

reject a part of the report in such a wa" as to chan!e an" one of the amounts. 4ut the court is also

empowered Hto make suc' final order and judment as s'all secure to t'e plaintiff t'e property

essential to t'e e(ercise of 'is ri'ts under t'e la+ and to t'e defendant just compensation for t'e landso taken.H (he court is here expressl" authoriEes to issue such orders and render such jud!ment as will

produce these results. 5f individual items which make up the total amount of the award in the

commissioners= report could onl" be accepted or rejected in their entiret", it would be necessar" to

return to the case, so far as the rejected portions of the report were concerned, for further consideration

before the same or new commissioners, and the court could not make a Hfinal order and jud!mentH in

the cause until the rejected portions of the report had been re-reported to it. (hus, in order to !ive the

italiciEed quotation from section *72 an" meanin! at all, it is obvious that the court ma", in its

discretion, correct the commissioners= report in an" manner deemed suitable to the occasion so that

final jud!ment ma" be rendered and thus end the liti!ation. (he Hfinal order and jud!mentH arereviewable b" this court b" means of a bill of exceptions in the same wa" as an" ordinar" action.

#ection 7&2 provides that the #upreme ourt ma", in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, affirm,

reverse, or modif" an" final jud!ment, order, or decree of the ourt of $irst 5nstance, and section 7&8,

as amended b" Act >o. 1+&2, provides that if the exceptin! part" filed a motion in the ourt of $irst

5nstance for a new trial upon the !round that the evidence was insufficient to justif" the decision and

the jud!e overruled said motion and due exception was taken to his rulin!, the #upreme ourt ma"

review the evidence and make such findin!s upon the facts b" a preponderance of the evidence and


20/21

render such final jud!ment as justice and equit" ma" require. #o it is clear from these provisions that

this court, in those cases where the ri!ht of eminent domain has been exercised and where the

provisions of the above section have been complied with, ma" examine the testimon" and decide the

case b" a preponderance of the evidence3 or, in other words, retr" the case upon the merits and render

such order or jud!ment as justice and equit" ma" require. (he result is that, in our opinion, there is

ample authorit" in the statute to authoriEe the courts to chan!e or modif" the report of thecommissioners b" increasin! or decreasin! the amount of the award, if the facts of the case will justif"

such chan!e or modification.

(he question now arises, when ma" the court, with propriet", overrule the award of the commissioners

in whole or in part and substitute its own valuation of the condemned propert"@ $rom a mere readin! of

section *72 and the remarks just made, it should be clear that the court is permitted to act upon the

commissioners= report in one of several wa"s, at its o+n discretion. (he whole dut" of the court in

considerin! the commissioners= report is to satisf" itself that just compensation will be made to the

defendant b" its final jud!ment in the matter, and in order to fulfill its dut" in this respect the court will

be obli!ed to exercise its discretion in dealin! with the report as the particular circumstances of thecase ma" require. 4ut !enerall" speakin!, when the commissioners= report cannot with justice be

approved b" the court, one of three or four circumstances will usuall" present itself, each of which has

for its antidote one of the methods of dealin! with the report placed at the disposal of the court b"

section *72. (hus, if it be successfull" established that the commissioners refused to hear competent

evidence, then all the evidence in the case would not be before the court3 the court could not, with

reason, attempt to either approve or chan!e the report, as it stood, for the reason that all the evidence of

the case would not be before it3 and the remed" in this case would be to Hrecommit the report to the

commissioners for further report of facts.H A!ain, if improper conduct, fraud, or prejudice be char!ed

a!ainst the commissioners, and this char!e be sustained, it would be safer to set aside the award thus

vitiated and Happoint new commissionersH who could render a report not tainted b" these thin!s. 4ut it

is to be observed a!ain that this discussion is confined to a case were no competent evidence was

refused b" the commissioners and no suspicion rests upon the motives of the commissioners in makin!

the award. hen the onl" error of the commissioners is that the" have applied ille!al principles to the

evidence submitted to them3 or that the" have disre!arded a clear preponderance of the evidence3 or

that the" have used an improper rule of assessment in arrivin! at the amount of the award, then, in such

a case, if the evidence be clear and convincin!, the court should be able, b" the use of those correct

le!al principles which !overn the case, to determine upon the amount which should be awarded without

remandin! the cause. hen the matter stands in this li!ht, it becomes the dut" of the court to make

Hfinal order and jud!mentH in which the proper award will be made and thus end the liti!ation between

the parties.

5n /ouisiana, where the procedural law on this point is similar to our own, the supreme court has used

its powers in this respect quite frequentl". And in this connection, we think it proper to quote from a

case which, in some respects, is similar to the one at bar:

n the question of the value of the land, %.'7 acres, the commissioners have allowed J*,+00 or


21/21

J'00 per acre. (he defendant has put in the record the testimon" of witnesses claimed to

support the allowance. ithout disre!ardin! this testimon", it is sufficient to sa" that the

opinions of the witnesses do not seem to be based on an" fact calculated to show the value of

the land. . . . n the other hand the plaintiff has placed before us the titles of defendant of recent

date showin! the price paid b" him ;the defendant< for the entire bod" of land of which the %

acres are a part3 the acts of sale of land in the same nei!hborhood, and of the same qualit"3 theassessment of defendant=s propert", and other testimon" on this issue of value. . . . ivin! all

possible wei!ht, or rather restrictin! the testimon" of the plaintiff=s witnesses to its due

influence and !ivin!, we think, necessar" effect to the acts b" which defendant purchased, the

acts of sale of other land, the assessment of value, with due allowance for underassessment, and

the other testimon" of record, we reach the conclusion that the award !ives two-thirds more

than the value of the land. e fix the value of the land at J%''.''. ;)or!an=s /ouisiana F (exas

6. 6. o. vs.4arton, +1 /a. Ann., 1''%.

Documents

City of Manila v. Estrada, G.R. No. 7749, September 9, 1913