Digest - (5th Batch) Salonga vs. Hermoso

8/19/2019 Digest - (5th Batch) Salonga vs. Hermoso

1/33

1 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo

1. SALONGA vs HERMOSO

FACTS: During the time of Martial Law, Jovito Salonga filed a case for mandamus against Rolando

Hermoso of the Travel Processing Center to compel the latter to issue a certificate of eligiilit! to

travel in favor of Salonga"

ISSUE: #hether or not the right to travel ma! e prohiited during martial law"

HELD: $o" This issue ecame moot and academic ecause it appears that Hermoso did issue and did

not den! Salonga%s re&uest for a certificate of eligiilit! to travel"

The issuance of the certificate was in pursuant to the 'niversal Declaration of Human Rights on the

Right to Travel" The Philippines, even though it is under martial law, shall in no instance facilitate the

erosion of human rights" The Travel Processing Center should e(ercise the utmost care to avoid theimpression that certain citi)ens desirous of e(ercising their constitutional right to travel could e

su*ected to inconvenience or anno!ance + this is to avoid such similar cases to face the Court which

needlessl! e(pire the Court%s effort and time"

G.R. No. L-53622 pril -., /012

JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner,

vs"

CAPTAIN ROLANDO HERMOSO, TRAVEL PROCESSING CENTER, an GENERAL

FA!IAN VER, respondents"

D E C I S I O N

FERNANDO, C.J.:

This is not the first time petitioner Jovito R" Salonga came to this Triunal ! wa! of a mandamus

proceeding to compel the issuance to him of a certificate of eligiilit! to travel" 3n the first

case, Salonga v. adella, " the case ecame moot and academic as the 4ffice of the Solicitor 5eneral,

in its answer to the petition, stated that the travel eligiilit! certificate was not denied and, as a matter

of fact, had een granted" $onetheless, a rief separate opinion was filed, concurring in the resolution,

and worded thus6 7Clearl! this petition had assumed a moot and academic character" 3ts dismissal is

thus indicated" Ma! 3 *ust add these few words as m! response to the plea of petitioner in his

Manifestation and Repl! dated 4ctoer -1, /081" This is how 3 would view the matter not onl! where

petitioner is concerned ut in all other similar cases" Respondent Travel Processing Center should

discharge its in*unction conformal! to the mandate of the 'niversal Declaration of Human Rights on

the right to travel" 4ne of the highlights of the 9e!note address of President Marcos in the Manila

#orld Law Conference in celeration of the #orld Peace Through Law Da! on ugust -/, /088 was


2/33

2 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalothe lifting of :the an on international travel"% There should e fidelit! to such a pronouncement" 3t is

the e(perience of the undersigned in his lectures aroad the last few !ears, in the 'nited States as well

as in Mala!sia, Singapore and ustralia, that respect accorded constitutional rights under the present

emergenc! regime had elicited the commendation of memers of the ench, the ar, and the academe

in foreign lands" 3t is li9ewise worth! of notice that in his 9e!note address to the 3nternational Law

ssociation, President Marcos made reference to martial law eing instituted in accordance with law

and that the Constitution had een applied in appropriate cases" s an agenc! of the e(ecutive ranch,

therefore, the Travel Processing Center should ever e on its guard, lest the impression e created that

such declarations amount, to paraphrase Justice Jac9son, to no more than munificent e&uests in a

pauper%s will" Petitioner, to m! mind, is *ustified, the more so in the light of the nswer of cting

Solicitor 5eneral ;icente Mendo)a, to an affirmative response to his pra!er in his Manifestation and

Repl! :that under the circumstances mentioned in the Petition, Petitioner is entitled to travel aroad,

and that it is in recognition of this right that Respondents have issued his Certificate of


3/33

3 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo=CTS6

Petitioner was the editor of the Manila Post, who sought the inspection of real estates sold to aliens

and registered with the RD" He was denied to do so which prompted him to file a petition for

mandamus"

H


4/33

4 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloI11*':

Do)n' an H'0: The right of inspection of title records is a su*ect of e(press statutor!

regulation in the Philippines" Section .F of ct $o" G0F, as amended ! ct $o" 22, provides that

All records relating to registered lands in the office of the Register of Deeds shall e open to the

pulic su*ect to such reasonale regulations as ma! e prescried ! the Chief of the 5eneral LandRegistration 4ffice with the approval of the Secretar! of Justice"A The Chief of the 5eneral Land

Registration 4ffice does not seem to have adopted an! regulations in pursuance of this provision"

$evertheless, we do not elieve this omission relevant" The Register of Deeds has inherent power to

control his office and the records under his custod! and has some discretion to e(ercise as to the

manner in which persons desiring to inspect, e(amine, or cop! the records ma! e(ercise their rights"

BG. m" Jur", ./" The &uestion at issue oils down to a determination of the scope of this discretion"

=rom the language of section .F of ct $o" G0F, as amended, it is our opinion that the regulations

which the Register of Deeds, or the Chief of the 5eneral Land Registration 4ffice, or the Secretar! of

Justice is empowered to promulgate are confined to prescriing the manner and hours of e(amination

to the end that damage to, or loss of, the records ma! e avoided, that undue interference with the

duties of the custodian of the oo9s and documents and other emplo!ees ma! e prevented, that the

right of other persons entitled to ma9e inspection ma! e insured, and the li9e"


5/33

5 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalosu*ect to such restriction and limitation as ma! e deemed necessar! not incompatile with his

decision, without costs"

3. CHAVEZ vs PCGG

=rancisco Chave) vs PC55 et"al",

5"R" $o" /28/F, Decemer 20, /001

=acts6 Petitioner, instituted a case against pulic respondent to ma9e pulic an! negotiations andIor

agreements pertaining to the latter%s tas9 of recovering the Marcoses% ill@gotten wealth" The

respondents argued that the action was premature since he has not shown that he has as9ed the

respondents to disclose the negotiations and agreements efore filing the case"

3ssue6 Does the petitioner have the personalit! of legal standing to file the instant petition

Held6 The instant petition is anchored on the right of the people to information and access to

government records, documents and papers + a right guaranteed under section 8, article 333 of the

Philippine Constitution" The petitioner a former solicitor general, is a =ilipino citi)en, and ecause of

the satisfaction of the two asic re&uisites laid down ! decisional law to sustain petitioner%s standing

i"e"

/"


6/33

6 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo greement etween the Pulic


7/33

7 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalointended clearl! indicates that the dues are not in the concept of a propert! ta( as claimed ! the

petitioner" The! are shares in the common e(penses for necessar! services" propert! ta( is assessed

according to the value of the propert! ut the asis of the sharing in this case is the area of the lot"

The dues are fees which a memer of the respondent association is re&uired in hiring securit! guards,

cleaning and maintaining streets, street lights and other communit! pro*ects for the enefit of all

residents within the ?el@ir ;illage" These e(penses are necessar!, valid and reasonale for the

particular communit! involved" The limitations upon the ownership of the petitioner do not

contravene provisions of laws, morals, good customs, pulic order or pulic polic!" The

constitutional proscription than no person can e compelled to e a memer of an association against

his will applies onl! to governmental acts and not to private transactions li9e the one in &uestion" The

petitioner cannot legall! maintain that he is compelled to e a memer of the association against his

will ecause the limitation is imposed upon his ownership of propert!" 3f he does not desire to compl!

with the annotation or lien in &uestion, he can at an! time e(ercise his inviolale freedom of disposing

of the propert! and free himself from the urden of ecoming a memer of the association"

6. REPUBLIC vs JUAN (!"" #$s%&

G.R. No. L-2#$# J*0+ 3, "$

REPU!LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff@appellee, vs"

CELESTINO C. JUAN an ANA TANSECO JUAN, defendants@appellants"

Celestino C. J&an -, Associates )or appellants.

Solicitor #enerals O))ice )or t'e appellee.

MA7ASIAR, J.')*+,-./0

ppeal ! defendants@appellants from the decision dated Septemer -1, /0FG of the Court of =irst3nstance of La 'nion in Civil Case $o" /1. for the e(propriation of 1"8G12 hectares of land owned ! spouses Celestino C" Juan and na Tanseco as the site for the La 'nion Regional griculturalSchool, directing the plaintiff Repulic of the Philippines tot/0.2'3(4

""" pa! the legal owners Celestino C" Juan and na Tanseco the amount of P/02,222"22 which is the *ust and reasonale compensation that the Court rules inthis case in favor of the defendantsE and it appearing that on Ma! 8, /0F,P/22,222"22 had alread! een paid, it is therefore ordered that upon this decision ecoming final the alance of P02,222"22 plus interest of F from Ma! G, /0F shall


8/33

8 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo e paid to defendants Celestino C" Juan and na Tanseco,A aside from the costs of thesuit"

Defendants@appellants are the registered owners of two B- ad*oining parcels of land located at ?arrioSapilang, ?acnotan, La 'nion with an aggregate area of ,18,G12 s&uare meters or 1"8G12hectares, more or less, and covered ! 4riginal Certificate of Title $o" 2@G-2 issued on pril /G, /0.0Bpp, 0@/G, GF@G8, R4E ;ol" /, rec""

Pursuant to the authori)ation issued on March /., /0F ! the President of the Philippines throughthe


9/33

9 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo3n an order dated pril /., /0F, the trial court authori)ed the 5overnment to enter and ta9eimmediate possession of the propert! after depositing the amount of P02,80"82 with the provincialtreasurer of La 'nion as provisional value Bp" -2, R4, ;ol" 3, rec",

Defendants on pril -G, /0F filed their A'rgent Motion for Reconsideration andIor to Lift #rit of PossessionA &uestioning among others, the propriet! and correctness of Resolution $o" /, series of /0F-, of the Provincial ppraisal Committee and pointing out that Athe fair and reasonale mar9et value """ should e at least fift! centavos BP2".2 per s&uare meter of P.,222"22 per hectareA and

pra!ed that the complaint for e(propriation e dismissed for lac9 of *urisdictionE to set aside the orderdated pril /., /0F and instead order plainti)) to deposit t'e amo&nt o) !899,999.99 as provisional val&eE and to set aside the writ of possession dated pril /F, /0F until the court has decided the issueof *urisdiction andIor until plaintiff has deposited the amount of P22,222"22 as provisional value of the propert! Bpp" --@-, R4, ;ol" 3, rec"" 4n the same date, the lower court lifted the writ of possession until further orders"

cting on the aforesaid motion on pril -F, /0F, the lower court found the e(propriation proceedingsin order and the provisional value made ! the Provincial ppraisal Committee inade&uate andordered the plaintiff Repulic of the Philippines to deposit the amount of P/22,222"22 as provisional value until the true valuation of the lots can e determined in accordance with law and furtherdirected Athat for the est interest of the defendants whose improvements ma! e vandali)ed for lac9 of protection, let the writ e effected without pre*udice to the final determination of the true value of

the propert! to e determined in due courseA and forthwith ordered the issuance of the writ of possession after the deposit ! plaintiff of the amount of P/22,222"22 is made Bp" G., R4, ;ol" 3,rec""

4n Ma! G, /0F, plaintiff Repulic of the Philippines too9 possession and occupied the lots undere(propriation Bp" 1F, R4, ;ol" 3, rec" and deposited on Ma! 8, /0F the amount of P/22,222"22 which the appellants withdrew that same da!"

4n Ma! 8, /0F, defendants filed two simultaneous pleadings6 motion for reconsideration of theprovisional value on the ground that the value fi(ed ! the court is still inade&uateE and a motion todismiss which li9ewise emodied defendants answer to the complaint for e(propriation Bpp" GF@FF,R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

3n an order dated June /, /0F, the court denied the motion to dismiss of defendants for lac9 of meritBp" FF, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

3n order dated Januar! 1, /0FG, the trial court directed the condemnation of the propert!, t/0.2'3(4

it appearing that the plaintiff has alread! deposited the amount of P/22,222"22 theprovisional value of the propert! sought to e condemned, ('ic' amo&nt 'asalready %een (it'dra(n %y t'e de)endants and t'e property accordingly t&rned over to t'e Rep&%lic o) t'e !'ilippines )or t'e &se o) t'e a ;nion Agric&lt&ral Sc'ool, """A Bpp" FF@F8, R4, emphasis supplied"

and appointed as commissioners of appraisal B/ tt!" Rogelio ?alagot, for the lower court and aschairmanE B- tt!"


10/33

10 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo tt!" Palito M" Ro*as, commissioner for the defendants, in his report of Jul! /, /0FG,recommendedt/0.2'3(4

""" as the price of the land to e paid ! the plaintiff to the defendants the amount of P/,G28,1.F"22 the same to ear interest at the legal rate from the date of possession ! the plaintiff to the date the amount is actuall! paid"

Commissioner Rogelio =" ?alagot for the court and chairman recommended6t/0.2'3(4

""" that the *ust compensation to e paid the defendants landowners e the following6

;alue of the Land""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" P/,2GG,/F"82 ;alue of 3mprovements"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" /,8/-"F2

Total mount"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" P/,2G.,18F"2

That the alance of P0G.,18F"2 Bdeducting P/22,222"22, the amount paid asprovisional value earn legal interest BF until full! paid"

Defendants@appellants filed their o*ection to the reports of Commissioners Ro*as, ?alagot andMolina, claiming that the true value of the land is P/,8F,-21"- or P/,F0,8G2"22 Bpp" -1G, 8G,R4, ;ol" /" rec""

4n Septemer G, /0FG, defendants filed a petition entitled APetition to Sumit Case for DecisionA without an! hearing on the reports Bp" 81, R4, ;ol, 3, rec"

4n Septemer -1, /0FG, the lower court rendered its decision Bpp" 12@ G-F, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

motion for reconsideration was filed ! defendants on 4ctoer -F, /0FG Bpp" [email protected], R4" ;ol" 3,rec", ut the same was denied ! the Court in an order dated ay 19, 176


11/33

11 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalocompliance with said administrative procedures the whole proceeding shall have to edismissed" This cannot e done"A Bpp" .//@./-, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

To egin with, it must e emphasi)ed that plaintiff@appellee in this instant case is the Repulic of thePhilippines which is e(ercising its right of eminent domain inherent in it as a od! sovereign" 3n thee(ercise of his sovereign right the state is not su*ect to an! limitation other than those imposed ! the Constitution which are6 first, the ta9ing must e for a pulic useE secondl!, the pa!ment of *ustcompensation must e madeE and thirdl!, due process must e oserved in the ta9ing" ?e!ond these

conditions, the e(ercise ! the State of its right of eminent domain is su*ect to no restraint" SectionFGBh of the Revised dministrative Code confers upon the Chief


12/33

12 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloThe three commissioners appointed ! the trial court to determine the fair mar9et value of the lots didnot reach aconsens&s as to the classi)ication o) t'e land, t'e allocation o) areas as to eac' class , andthe )air maret val&e o) eac' class o) land.

Commissioner Rogelio =" ?alagot found and recommended as follows6

/

" 3rrigated Riceland 82 P1,.22"22 P.0.,222"22

-" 'pland Rice FF ,.22"22 -/,222"22

" 4rchard Land .-"281. /,-22"22 .2,G0G"-2

G" Pasture Land 02"FF0. /,222"22 02,FF0".2

." =orestland 82 /,222"22 88,222"22

T4TL 1"8G12 has" /,2GG,/F"82

and, after adding to the aove amount the sum of P/,8/-"22, representing improvements, finall! recommended the amount of P/,2G.,18F"2 less P/22,222"22 earlier withdrawn ! appellants, toearn legal interest until full! paid Bpp" -8/@-1-, R4, ;ol" 3, rec" Commissioner Palito M" Ro*asappraised the land as follows6

Commissioner Palito M" Ro*as appraised the land as follows6

Land Classification Total Mar9et Total

Hectares ;alue s&" meter Mar9et ;alue

3rrigated Pala! Land F."2222 P/"22 PF.2,222"22

'pland Pala! FF"2222 2"2 /01,222"22

4rchard 1"281. -. 01,-22"22

Pasture Land 0."FF0. /2 0-,FF0".2


13/33


=orestr! Compound 1"2222 2 0.,222"22

=orest Land F."2222 /. 08,.22"22

?arrio Compound G"2222 ".2 -2,222"22

T4TL 1"8G12 /,/8/,F0".2

and after considering some factors, li9e the fact that the lots are titled, said commissioner finall! recommended Athe amount of P/,G28,1.F"22, the same to ear interest at the legal rate from the dateof possession ! the plaintiff to the date the amount is actuall! paidA Bpp" /F2@/FF, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

Commissioner


14/33

14 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloBp" /., R4, ;ol" 3" rec"" The aforesaid resolution was re*ected as having een done in haste Bpp" /.@/F, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

ccording to Provincial ssessor andueta, the amount of P10,1/-"-2 is the assessed value of thepropert!, which assessed value is the appraised value in e(propriation cases Bp" /G/, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

La 'nion griculturist Pio " Tadina was re&uested ! Provincial ssessor Ramon andueta toappraise the propert!" Pursuant to said re&uest, Mr" Tadina went to the propert! thrice and thereafter

sumitted his classification and valuation, as follows6

/" G2 hectares riceland PF2,222"22 P-22,222"22

-" -2 hectares riceland -2,222"22 F2,222"22

" 12 hectares pasture land G2,222"22 12,222"22

G" /-2 hectares fruit trees F2,222"22 /-2,222"22

." 8- hectares -nd growth forest 81,222"22 /.F,222"22

T4TL P-.1,222"22 PF/F,222"22

Bp" /G., R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

#hen the complaint was filed, the improvements on the propert! consisted of the following6

-2 mango Bearing P2 ea" P122"22

-/ coconut Bearing P. ea" /2."22

G coconut Bnon@earing P- ea" 1"22

G caimito Bstar apple P1 ea" -"22

- Chesa P. ea" /2"22


15/33


G Nasu! P- ea" 1"22

/- amoos Bheav! P2"2 ea" "F2

/ amoo Blight P2"/2 ea" 2"/2

/ readfruit P. ea" ."22

/ *ac9fruit PG ea" G"22

/ gua!aano P/ ea" /"22

F orange Bnon@earing P/ ea" F"22

T4TL P01-"82

Bpp" /F@/8, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

Mr" Luis ;ictor, principal of the La 'nion Regional gricultural School, testified that there werearound 2 fruit@earing mango trees, once coconut fruit@earing trees and anana plants Bp" /0,R4, ;ol" 3, rec""

?oth tt!s" Palito M" Ro*as and Rogelio ?alagot, commissioners representing respectivel! thedefendants@appellants and the trial court, agreed that the value of the improvements on the propert! was then P/,8/-"F2 Bpp" /F, -12@-1/, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""t/0.2'3(4

""" Starting from the town proper of ?acnotan, one can reach the propert! ! passingthrough the arrios of Caaroan, Sa!oan, Salinco, Casiaman and finall! Sapilang"The place is aout -". 9ilometers north of the Polacion along the $ational Highwa! up to the so@called Caaroan *unction" =rom this *unction is aout a -@9ilometerfeeder road going eastward" nd from this lateral road is an unsurfaced road of appro(imatel! /". 9ilometers leading to the site of the gricutural School" However, efore the school too9 possession of the land on Ma! G, /0F, the place was notaccessile at all ! an! motor vehicles, and that the onl! means was to hi9e over ricepaddies, trails and cree9s"

Topographicall!, the propert! of defendant is situated on a high elevation" 3t consistsof mountains and hills forming a semi@circle, and sloping on the sides towards anelongated portion or valle! li9e depression which is level and developed into

ridefields" ?ecause of its high elevation or location, the climate of the place ishealthful, temperate and especiall! invigorating when one is near or within the vicinit! of the waterfall or spring" The climate is of the 9ind which the #eather?ureau would call the T!pe 3 climateE that is, the place has two distinct seasons, a dr! season from Decemer to June, when there are light rains or no rains at all and wetseason, from June to Decemer, when rains are aundant, heav! and fre&uent" Thesoil to the place is good" 3t has a lu(urient vegetation"


16/33

16 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloThe propert! as per 4riginal Certificate of Title $o" 2@G-2 B


17/33

17 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloan! motor vehicle and can onl! e reached ! hi9ing through rice paddies, trailsE and cree9sE that it was not full! developed6 and that it was then assessed at PG-,/-2"22 BP10,1/-"-2 according toProvincial ssessor andueta, although it has a waterfall or@ spring,

ccording to Commissioner Molina, the propert! has -G hectares of 'nirrigated rice land and /8hectares dedicated to upland rice with the greater portion of -08"8G1 hectares as pasture land Bpp, 8/@8-, R4, ;ol" 3, rec"" Pio Tadina reported that F2 hectares are riceland, 12 hectares pasture land /-2hectares with fruit trees and 81 hectares second growth forest Bp" /GF, R4, ;ol" 3" rec"" ccording to

Rafael 3" David,, who was re&uested ! appellant Juan to ma9e an appraisal Bp" /G., R4, ;ol" 3" rec",82 hectares are riceland, FF hectares for upland rice, 1"281. hectares for orchard, 02"FF0. hectarespasture land, . hectares forestr! compound, F. hectares forest land and G hectares arrio compoundBp" /.2, R4, ;ol" 3, rec""


18/33

18 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo=urthermore, it can e *ustifial! inferred that when appellants themselves proposed on pril -G,/0F the amount of P22,222"22 as the provisional value of their lots, the! were referring actuall! tothe highest value their lots could command at that time, notwithstanding their ver! speculative ande(travagant claim in the same pleading Bwhere the! made the P22,222"22 proposal that the Afairmar9et value of Bthe propert! should at least e fift! centavos " " per s&uare meter or P.,222"22 perhectare"

Consider the following circumstances6 t/0.2'3(4

/" 3n his repl! dated Januar! -1,/0F to the letter of Mr" ;ictor Luis, appellant Juanstated that the selling price of his land was AP/82,222"22 net to me e(clusive of theamount of m! oligation to the China ?an9ing Corporation where the propert! ismortgagedA, or P/02,222"22 including the mortgaged det of P-2,222"22 Bpp" 1-@1G, R4"

-" ppellants@spouses ac&uired the lots in /0.F Bas claimed ! appellants or /0.8 Basstated in the decision of the trial court from =elipe $eri*a and his children for onl! P.2,222"22"

" The lots in &uestion were ta(ed on the asis of an assessment of onl! PG-,/-2"22"

G" 3n his letter dated Januar! -, /0F to the Provincial ppraisal Committee,appellant Celestino Juan evaluated his lots at appro(imatel! P/0,8G"22"

s a matter of fact, appellant should e ound ! his P/02,222"22 admission" 3n the light of theaove@mentioned circumstances, the said amount of P/02,222"22 is alread! *ust and reasonale"

ppellants claim that the! were forced to ma9e the P/02,222"22 offer ecause the! were then under apressing need for mone! to defra! e(penses in connection with certain criminal case involvingappellant na to settle said cases, can hardl! invite eliefE ecause B/ appellant Celestino Juan did notaver this alleged urgent need for mone! in his letter of Januar! -1, /0F, and B- notwithstandingappellant Juans claim in that same letter of Januar! -1, /0F that an interested u!er of the said lots was Aread! to sign the contract for a price of P-22,222"22 pa!ale in cash or at least a period of ten

B/2 da!s,A appellant did not dispose of the same to said interested u!er, despite the lapse of ten da!s during which he could have had the mone! from the receipt ! ;ictor Luis of said letter"Moreover, the same letter elies his alleged dire need for mone! to settle the alleged criminal casesagainst his wife for he stated therein that he had then a pending D?P loan application forPG,/2-,222"22 for a dair! farm, and that ! reason of his connection with D?P officials, hisapplication would e favoral! considered for P/,222,222"22 with the e(propriated propert! ascollateral together with the dair! farm e&uipment, facilities and stoc9"

?eing a law!er, appellant Celestino Juan 9new that the reputation of his wife and for that matter hisfamil! would e etter protected and preserved ! her ac&uittal after trial than ! settlement of thecase Bsee pp" /28@/21, ppellants rief" Compromise of a criminal case, other than a private offense,does not remove the criminal liailit! and the concomitant stigma" Settlement of a criminal case,unli9e ac&uittal, will not stop the people from tal9ing aout the guilt of the accused therein"

4f course A*udicial or non@*udicial admissions made ! condemnees as to the value of their propertiesthat are to e e(propriated should not e deemed conclusive if such admitted value e un*ust, ecausethe Constitution imperativel! re&uires the pa!ment of *ust compensationA" ?ut in the instant case, itcould hardl! e said that the amount of P22,222"22 is un*ust to the appellants" The dela! in thepa!ment is compensated ! the liailit! for F "interest per annum, covering si(teen B/F !ears from /0F to /080 on the alance of P-22,222"22 Bon Ma! 8, /0F, appellants withdrew theP/22,222"22 deposit amounting to P/0-,222"22" The total alance due appellants would eP0-,222"22" The total pa!ment to them then would e PG0-,222"22" ?e!ond this price, the value would e e(cessive and un*ust to the State and the ta(pa!er B-8 m" Jur" -d .-@. -FF, footnote /8"

3t must e pointed out that the most reliale pieces of evidence in the records relative to the *ust

compensation to e paid herein appellants are those hereinefore enumerated, namel!, appellantsown evaluation in /0F, the ac&uisition cost the ta( assessment" This is so ecause the Committeefailed to arrive at an acceptale valuation, not to mention the fact that the individual reports of thecommissioners of the ppraisal Committee did not undergo the indispensale re&uirement of hearing efore the trial court" 3t must e herein stressed that almost all the evidence enumerated earlier are inthe nature of admissions ! the owner, which 9ind of evidence under e(isting *urisprudence occupiesa preferred position in the realm of proof of *ust compensation and valuation in eminent domain"


19/33



20/33

20 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloagriculture and not )or p&rposes o) determining t'e )air and reasona%le val&e Btsn,pp" [email protected], pp" -2/, -2-, R4E see also pp" /21@/20" R4" His appointment asChairman of the ppraisal Committee for pulic lands in La 'nion did not &ualif! him as an Ae(perienced and competent appraiserA in e(propriation casesE ecauselands involved therein are pulic lands and the appraisal or determination of the fairmar9et value of said lots are not for purposes of e(propriation cases Bp" -2-, R4"$either would his participation in the Poro Point e(propriation add to his&ualifications as an appraiser in e(propriation cases, ecause he was merel! therein

consulted Bp" -2-" R4"

G" His classifications were made ! estimates and not ! actual measurements Btsn, p"./GE p" -2G, R4"

That the land Ahad potential for conversion into sudivisionA should not e considered in the valuation of the lots in &uestionE ecause B/ the records of the case do not show conclusive evidenceas to the sudivision potentialit! of the lotsE and B- as held in Manila


21/33

21 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalothis court that *ust compensation is the value of the propert! ta9en at the time of theta9ing Bciting cases" nd, if the ta9ing precedes the pa!ment of compensation, theowner is entitled to such addition to the value at the time of the ta9ing as will producethe full e&uivalent of such value paid contemporaneousl!" >nterest at a proper rate isa good meas&re o) t'e amo&nt to %e added Bnumerous cases cited omitted" 3n thesecases and others, the proper rate o) interest is 'eld to %e t'e legal rate o) interest prevailing in the *urisdiction where the land is located" The Supreme Court of #est ;irginia holds on the authorit! of these decisions and also of Dohan! vs" Rogers, -1/,

'"S" F-, .2 S5t" -00" 8G L"


22/33

22 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo3n this connection, it must e pointed out that the *udicial notice ta9en ! this Court in the Castelvicase Bsupra, F A""" of the fact that the value of the Philippine peso has consideral! gone down sincethe !ear /0.0,A was premised not on the par value of the peso to the dollar, ut on the dollarpesoe(change rates at the time of the ta9ing of the lots and at the time of the pa!ment thereof"

3n the case of Manuel U Co" vs" C? B1 SCR" [email protected] Q/08/, #e distinguished etween par val&e o) t'e pesoand the dollar@peso e*c'ange rate" The par value of the peso to the dollar@two pesos to onedollar@is fi(ed ! law and remains intact Bsee G1, R"" -F., /0G1E Sec" F, C $o" F00, /0G." Hence,

while there was a change of the e(change rate, the par value of the peso as estalished ! law remainsunchanged"

Such par value can onl! e altered ! the President of the Philippines upon proposal of the Monetar! ?oard with five memers concurring and approved ! Congress BSec" G0Q R $o" -F."

4n the other hand, the rate o) e*c'ange or e*c'ange rate is the Aprice, or the indication of the price,at which one can sell or u! with ones own domestic currenc! a foreign currenc! unit" $ormall!, therate is deterniined ! the law of suppl! and demand for a particular currenc!A B1 SCR [email protected]"

3t is sumitted that the Castelvi doctrine on the value of our peso is of doutful legalit!, considered inthe conte(t of the Central ?an9 case, aove discussed" 3n effect, the Castelvi ruling has devalued our

pesoE a case of devaluation ! *udicial fiat"

3n the light of the foregoing, the de )acto devaluation of our peso should not e ta9en into account inthe final determination of the value of the lots, su*ect matter of the case"

3n the /082 case of Di$on@Rivera v. Di$on B SCR [email protected] Q/082, #< ruled against appellants andheld that the decrease in the purchasing value of the Philippine peso provides no legal asis or *ustification for completing their legitime with real properties of the estate instead of eing paid incash, reasoning thus6 t/0.2'3(4

$either ma! the appellants legall! insist on their legitime eing completed with realproperties of the estate instead of eing paid in cash, per the approved pro*ect of partition" The properties are not availale for the purpose, as the testatri( had

specificall! partitioned and distriuted them to her heirs, and the heirs are calledupon, as far as feasile to compl! with and give effect to the intention of the testatri(as solemni)ed in her will, ! implementing her manifest wish of transmitting the realproperties intact to her named eneficiaries, principall! the e(ecutri(@appellee" Theappraisal report of the properties of the estate as filed ! the commissioner appointed ! the lower court was approved in toto upon *oint petition of the parties, and hence,there cannot e said to e an! &uestion@and none is presented@as to fairness of the valuation thereof or that the legitimate of the heirs in terms of cash has eenunderstated" The plaint of oppositors that the purchasing value of the Philippine pesohas greatl! declined since the testatri( death in Januar!, /0F/ provides no legal asisof *ustification for overturning the wishes and intent of the testatri(" The transmissionof rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedentBrticle 888, and accordingl!, the value thereof must e rec9oned as of then, as

otherwise, estates would never e settled if there were to e a revaluation with ever! suse&uent flucluation in the values of the currenc! and properties of the estate"There is evidence in the record that prior to $ovemer -., /0FG, one of theoppositors, ?ernardita, accepted the suin of P.2,222"22 on account of herinheritance, which, per the parties manifestation, Adoes not in an! wa! affect thead*udication made to her in the pro*ects of partition"A The pa!ment in cash ! wa! of ma9ing the proper ad*ustments in order to meet the re&uirements of the law on non@impairment of legitimes as well as to give effect to the last will of the testatri( hasinvarial! een availed of and sanctioned see rticles 0.., /212 and //2G, CivilCode" "'at 'er co@oppositors (o&ld receive t'eir cas' di))erentials only no( ('ent'e val&e o) t'e c&rrency 'as declined )&rt'er, ('ereas t'ey co&ld 'ave received t'em earlier, lie ernardita, at t'e time o) approval o) t'e pro?ect o) partition and ('en t'e pesos p&rc'asing val&e (as 'ig'er, is d&e to t'eir o(n decision o)

p&rs&ing t'e present appeal Bemp'asis s&pplied.

dditional distinction etween the present case and the Castelvi case6

The proceedings efore the commissioners and efore the trial court in the Castelvi case were all inaccordance with the provisions of the rules, while this is not so in the present caseE ecause the


23/33

23 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalocommissioners herein did not turn out a valid report, as the commissioners made their own andseparate reports and no consensus was reached ! them on the classification of the lots, allocation of areas to each class, and the fair mar9et value of each class and the lots as a whole" =urtherinore, nohearing on the reports of the commissioners was made ! the trial court in the case at ar, ecause of the motion of the herein appellants to sumit the same without an! Bhearing"

The finding of the trial court, which was sustained ! this Court, that the lots involved in the Castelvicase were residential, was supported ! and ased on the factual findings of the commissioners, who

were unanimous thereon, and the Provincial ppraisal Committee of Pampanga B.1 SCR [email protected] while in the present case no one among the commissioners classified the lots or an! portion thereof asresidential or one with residentialIsudivision potentialit!" #ith respect to Provincial ?oardResolution $o" / on the report of the Provincial ppraisal Committee of La 'nion, the same wasdisregarded tor having een passed in haste"

3n the present case, commissioner ?alagot classified the two lots into irrigated riceland, uplandriceland, orchard land, pasture land and forest land, Commissioner Ro*as similarl! classified the landsas aove, ut adding thereto forestr! compound and arrio compoundE while Commissioner Molinaclassified the lots into unirrigated riceland, upland riceland and pasture land" 3t cannot e seriousl! claimed that the lots involved in the present case is suitale as, or have potentials tor conversion into,a residential sudivision simpl! ecause a G@hectare area of the same was considered ! a memer of the provincial appraisal committee as residential" 3n fact, said G@hectare area was reflected in the

Provincial ppraisal Committee Report, Resolution / Bn 17


24/33

24 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo""" Starting )rom t'e to(n prop(er o) acnotan, one can reac' t'e property %y passing t'ro&g' t'e %arrios o) Ca%aroan, Sayoan, Salinco%, Casianan and )inally Sapilang. "'e place is a%o&t 5.< ilometers nort' o) t'e t'e !o%lacion along t'e National Gig'(ay &p to t'e so@called Ca%aroan ?&nction. From t'is ?&nction isa%o&t a 5@ilometer )eeder road going east(ard. And )rom t'is lateral road is an&ns&r)aced road o) appro*imately 1.< ilometers leading to t'e site o) t'e Agric&lt&ral Sc'ool. Go(ever, %e)ore t'e sc'ool too possession o) t'e land on ay, 1768, t'e place (as not accessi%le at all %y any motor ve'icles, and t'at t'e only

means (as to 'ie over paddies, trails and crees.

Topographicall!, t'e property o) de)endants is sit&ated on a 'ig' elevation. >t consists o) mo&ntains and 'ills )orming a semi@circle, and sloping on t'e sidesto(ards an elongated portion o) valley@lie depression ('ic' is level and developed into rice)ields. ?ecause of its high elevation or location, the climate of the placeishealthful, temperate and especiall! invigorating when one is near or within the vicinit! of the waterfall or spring" The climate is of the 9ind which the #eather?ureau would call the T!pe 3 climateE that is, the place has two distinct reasons, a dr! season from Decemer to June, when there are light rains or no raisn at all, and wetseason, from June to Decemer, when rains are aundant, heav! and fre&uent" Thesoil of the place is good" 3t has a lu(uriant vegetation Bpp" F0@82, R4, emphasissupplied"

The presence of the houses of twent!@three B- tenants in a G@hectare area at the time thegovernment too9 possession of the lots herein involved, is not sufficient proof of that portionspotentialitv for conversion into a residential sudivision, much less of the whole parcel of aout 1hectares" There was no evidence that the houses of the tenants were there constructed ecause of itsresidential nature" 3n all li9elihood, the tenants were forced ! necessit! to construct their Rousestherein to e close to their respective toacco farms" The fact that under the leasehold s!stem of landtenure, a tenant is allotted a portion for his dwelling does not render the entire landholding no longeragricultural and there! convert the same into a residential land"

#H


25/33

25 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloB/ That the respondent RP BRural Progress dministration acted without *urisdiction or

corporate power in filling the e(propriation complaint and has no authorit! to negotiate with

the R=C a loan of P/22,222 to e used as part pa!ment of the value of the land"

B- That the land sought to e e(propriated is commercial and therefore e(cluded within the

purview of the provisions of ct .0"

B That ma*orit! of the tenants have entered with the petitioner valid contracts for lease, oroption to u! at an agreed price, and e(propriation would impair those e(isting oligation of

contract"

BG That respondent Judge erred in fi(ing the provisional value of the land at P//1,812 onl!

and in ordering its deliver! to the respondent RP"

#e will ta9e up onl! ground $o" -" 4ur conclusion on this ranch of the case will ma9e superfluous a

decision on the other &uestions raised"

Sections / and - of Commonwealth ct $o" .0, copied veratim, are as follows6

S


26/33

26 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanalo3f we are to e true to our trust, if it is our purpose in drafting our constitution to insure

domestic tran&uilit! and to provide for the well@eing of our people, we cannot, we must fail

to prohiit the ownership of large estates, to ma9e it the dut! of the government to rea9 up

e(isting large estates, and to provide for their ac&uisition ! purchase or through

e(propriation and sale to their occupants, as has een provided in the Constitutions of Me(ico

and Jugoslavia"

$o amendment was offered and there was no deate" ccording to Dean ruego, Mr" Cuadernos

resolution was readil! and totall! approved ! the Convention" Mr" Cuadernos speech therefore ma!

e ta9en as emod!ing the intention of the framers of the organic law, and ct $o" .0 should e

construed in a manner consonant with that intention" 3t is to e presumed that the $ational sseml!

did not intend to go e!ond the constitutional scope of its powers"

There are indeed powerful considerations, aside from the intrinsic meaning of section G of rticle 333

of the Constitution, for interpreting ct $o" .0 in a restrictive sense" Carried to e(tremes, this ct

would e suversive of the Philippine political and social structure" 3t would e in derogation of

individual rights and the time@honored constitutional guarantee that no private propert! of law" The

protection against deprivation of propert! without due process for pulic use without *ust

compensation occupies the forefront positions Bparagraph / and - in the ?ill for private use relieves

the owner of his propert! without due process of lawE and the prohiition that Aprivate propert! should not e ta9en for pulic use without *ust compensationA BSection / Qpar" -, rticle 333, of the

Constitution forids necessar! implication the appropriation of private propert! for private uses B-0

C"J"S", 1/0" 3t has een trul! said that the assertion of the right on the part of the legislature to ta9e

the propert! of and citi)en and transfer it to another, even for a full compensation, when the pulic

interest is not promoted there!, is claiming a despotic power, and one inconsistent with ver! *ust

principle and fundamental ma(im of a free government" B-0 C"J"S", 1-2"

Hand in hand with the announced principle, herein invo9ed, that Athe promotion of social *ustice to

insure the well@eing and economic securit! of all the people should e the concern of the state,A is a

declaration, with which the former should e reconciled, that Athe Philippines is a Repulican stateA

created to secure to the =ilipino people Athe lessings of independence under a regime of *ustice,

liert! and democrac!"A Democrac!, as a wa! of life enshrined in the Constitution, emraces as itsnecessar! components freedom of conscience, freedom of e(pression, and freedom in the pursuit of

happiness" long with these freedoms are included economic freedom and freedom of enterprise

within reasonale ounds and under proper control" 3n paving the wa! for the rea9ing up of e(isting

large estates, trust in perpetuit!, feudalism, and their concomitant evils, the Constitution did not

propose to destro! or undermine the propert! right or to advocate e&ual distriution of wealth or to

authori)e of what is in e(cess of ones personal needs and the giving of it to another"


27/33

27 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloat costs to the tenant@dwellers thereof in the event that in the future it would seem such e(propriation

necessar! to the solution of agrarian prolems therein"A

3n a road sense, e(propriation of large estates, trusts in perpetuit!, and land that emraces a whole

town, or a large section of a town or cit!, ears direct relation to the pulic welfare" The si)e of the

land e(propriated, the large numer of people enefited, and the e(tent of social and economic reform

secured ! the condemnation, clothes the e(propriation with pulic interest and pulic use" The

e(propriation in such cases tends to aolish economic slaver!, feudalistic practices, and other evils

inimical to communit! prosperit! and contentment and pulic peace and order" lthough courts are

not in agreement as to the tests to e applied in determining whether the use is pulic or not, some go

far in the direction of a lieral construction as to hold that pulic advantage, and to authori)e the

e(ercise of the power of eminent domain to promote such pulic enefit, etc", especiall! where the

interest involved are considerale magnitude" B-0 C"J"S", 1-, 1-G" See also People of Puerto Rico vs.


28/33



29/33



30/33


. CIT O MANILA vs CHINESE COMMUNIT O MANILA

City o) anila v C'inese Comm&nity 9 !G> 87 B1717

Ie*propriation o) C'inese cemetery

=acts6 The Cit! of Manila wants to e(propriate a land owned ! the Chinese communit! as cemeter!

for the purpose of e(tending

Ri$al Aven&efor pulic use" The respondents contend that the land alread! ac&uires a &uasi@pulic

character and man! dead odies are alread! uried there" The! stress that there is no necessit! of ta9ing the land for pulic purpose since such is under Torrens title and the e(propriation will distur

the resting place of the dead" The plaintiff contends that under the Charter of Cit! of Manila, the! ma!

condemn private lands for pulic purpose, such eing an e(clusive function of the legislature and the

onl! function of the court is to assess the value of the land e(propriated"

3ssue6 #hether or not the court can in&uire into the necessit! of e(propriation"

Held6 The court ruled that the power of *udicial review on e(propriation is not limited to the in&uir! of

the e(istence of law that grants a municipal corporation to e(propriate private lands for pulic

purpose" The court has the responsiilit! to B/ ensure that a law or authorit! e(ists for the e(ercise of

the right of eminent domain, and B- that the right or authorit! is eing e(ercised in accordance with

the law" There are two conditions imposed upon the authorit! conceded to the Cit! of Manila6 B/ the

land must e privateE and, B- the purpose must e pulic" The ta9ing of land in the e(ercise of power

of eminent domain of the state is not a *udicial &uestion ut the court is ound to interfere to

prevent an ause of the discretion delegated ! the legislature" The ver! foundation of the right to

e(ercise eminent domain is a genuine necessit!, and that necessit! must e of a pulic character" The

ascertainment of the necessit! must precede or accompan!, and not follow, the ta9ing of the land" The

court ruled that the cemeter! is a pulic propert! and it found no great necessit! to allow the

e(propriation of the land ! the Cit! of Manila thus there! affirmed the decision of the lower court"

. CABRERA vs COURT O APPEALS

Carera vs" C /F SCR -/G

Carera vs" Court of ppeals, and =elisa 5on)aga, =ernando 5on)aga, urora 5on)aga, et al"

63R -/G June 2, /011


31/33

31 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloFa1: The parcel of land in dispute was originall! owned ! Diego and Patricio 5on)aga, the

grandparents of the private respondents herein" 3n /0-/, the ta( declaration was in the name of the

spouses 5on)aga" 3n /0GG it was made in the name of their child 1 0a9 /a )'1


32/33


5o vs" 3ntermediate ppellate Court

5"R" $o" L@F1/1

Ma! /, /00/

73n &uasi@delict cases, the defendant shall e liale for all damages which are the natural and proale

conse&uences of the act or omission complained of" 3t is not necessar! that such damages have een

foreseen or could have reasonal! een foreseen ! the defendant">

=acts6

=loverto Ja)min, a visitor residing at Maravilla St" Mangatarem, Pangasinan, is an merican citi)en

and a retiree of the 'nited States =ederal 5overnment" ?eing a pensionado of the 'S 5overnment, he

received annuit! chec9s through Mangatarem Post 4ffice and used to encash it at the Prudential ?an9 ?ranch at Clar9 ir ?ase, Pampanga" However, there was a time that he was not ale to receive the

chec9s on time, thus prompted him to write a complaint due to the dela!" Thereafter he received a

sustitute chec9 and encashed it at the Prudential ?an9"

Meanwhile, gustin 5o in his capacit! as the manager of the Solidan9 Bnow Consolidated ?an9 and

Trust Corporation, allowed a person, in the name of =loverto Jasmin, to open a savings account

there! depositing two 'S Treasur! Chec9s" Deposited chec9s were sent to the drawee an9 B=irst

$ational Cit! ?an9" Having no repl! from the drawee an9, the Solidan9 allowed the depositor to

withdraw the amount indicated in the chec9s"

!ear later, the two dollar chec9s were returned to Solidan9 with the notation that there was an

alteration" #ith that, Ja)min received radio messages re&uiring him to appear efore the Philippine

Constaular! regarding the complaint filed ! 5o against him for estafa" 3t was then found out that

the depositor who withdrew the amount from Solidan9 was an impostor" Thus, Ja)min filed a case

against 5o at the C=3 Pangasinan for moral and e(emplar! damages"

The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff" Defendants appealed to the 3C" Li9e the lower court,

3C ruled in favor of the plaintiff ut awarded nominal damages instead of moral and e(emplar!

damages" Thus, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court"

3ssue6

#hether or not 5o and the Solidan9 are liale for nominal damages"

Ruling6

Kes, 5o and the Solidan9 are solidaril! liale for nominal damages"

'nder the law, &uasi@delict cases are one of the sources of oligation"

3n this case, the defendant shall e liale for all damages which are the natural and proaleconse&uences of the act or omission complained of" 3t is not necessar! that such damages have een

foreseen or could have reasonal! een foreseen ! the defendant" 5o has the oligation to pa!

nominal damages ecause of the Ja)min%s right eing violated and invaded in the case of estafa

instituted at the Philippine Constaular!" $ominal damages are awarded instead of moral and


33/33

33 | P a g e carlotroyacelotttapadomanaloe(emplar! damages ecause Ja)min did not suffer an! loss from the action made ! the plaintiff and

such damages do not intend to indemnif! an! loss to the latter" 3n fact, he was still ale to receive the

amount through the sustitute chec9 sent to him" Therefore, Ja)min is not entitled to moral damages

and as well as e(emplar! damages" 3n the same wa!, the an9 is co@e&uall! liale with 5o ecause it

has een grossl! negligent, through its emplo!ee, in handling the usiness transaction involved"

Documents

Digest - (5th Batch) Salonga vs. Hermoso