Republic of the Philippines, represented by Air Transportation Office, versus Sarabia

Facts:

In 1956, ATO justly expropriated a portion of the property of Sarabia ATO took possession and control of the portion of respondents’ property ATO utilized the property for parking area, control tower, airport fire rescue

station, terminal, and HQ of PNP aviation security ATO assured respondents payment. However, the parties did not agree on the amount

for just compensation. In 1998, Republic filed with RTC an action for the expropriation of the whole

property In 1999, RTC appointed commissioners to ascertain just compensation

Commissioners submitted report On hearing, the court required ATO to prove that portions not occupied by the

government is still needed for public purpose. ATO did not present evidence as they countered there was no need to do so, being that almost 1/2 of the entire property has already been devoted to public purpose

RTC held against ATO, ruling that the additional area submitted for expropriation is not needed by ATO for public purpose RTC adopted commissioner’s report which fixed the just compensation using the

current market value of the lot in 1999 (at the time of the issuance of the writ of possession - because this is the time of legal acquisition of property).

ATO filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal, the entire records were then transmitted to the CA. CA affirmed RTC decision. MR was denied. PR under Rule 45 was filed. ATO contends that the just compensation fixed by the trial court based on the

market value of the property after the commencement of the expropriation proceedings contradicts established jurisprudence

ATO also contends that the just compensation for the entire lot should be fixed in the amount based on its assessed value in 1956

Issue:WON just compensation should be reckoned from the time of actual taking or at the issuance of the writ of possession WON just compensation for the entire property should be fixed in the amount based on its assessed value in 1956

Held:1. SC agrees with ATO. It said that the value of the property as it was when the government took possession of the land represents its true value for just compensation, not as of the time of the institution of the expropriation proceeding.2. SC disagreed with ATO. It ruled that there is nothing on record that ATO occupied the remaining portion of the property (back in 1956, only a portion of the lot was occupied). To add to that, neither did it ever present proof that said unoccupied portion is necessary

for public use.

Therefore, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED - CA decision is modified in the sense that it was wrong in computing just compensation based on the market value at the time of the issuance of the writ of possession.