Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336

8/9/2019 Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/republic-vs-castellvi-58-scra-336 1/22

G.R. No. L-20620 August 15, 1974

REPUBLIC OF TE PILIPPINE!, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

CAR"EN ". #$A. $E CA!TELL#I, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellant.

C.A. Mendoza & A. V. Raquiza and Alberto Cacnio & Associates for defendant-appellees.

%AL$I#AR, J.: p

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in its Civil Case No. 162, an

e!propriation proceeding.

Plaintiff-appellant, the "epu#lic of the Philippines, $hereinafter referred to as the "epu#lic% filed, on

&une 26, 1'(', a complaint for eminent domain against defendant-appellee, Carmen ). *da. de

Castellvi, +udicial administratri! of the estate of the late Alfonso de Castellvi $hereinafter referred to

as Castellvi%, over a parcel of land situated in the #arrio of an &ose, Florida#lanca, Pampanga,

descri#ed as follos

A parcel of land, /ot No. 1''-0 0ureau of /ands Plan o 2666. 0ounded on the

N # )aria Nieves 3oledo-4o5un on the # national road on the 7 # AFP

reservation, and on the N7 # AFP reservation. Containing an area of 8(',2''

s9uare meters, more or less, and registered in the name of Alfonso Castellvi under

3C3 No. 161 of the "egister of Pampanga ...

and against defendant-appellee )aria Nieves 3oledo 4o5un $hereinafter referred to as 3oledo-

4o5un over to parcels of land descri#ed as follos

A parcel of land $Portion /ot 0l:-1, 0ureau of /ands Plan Psd, 262(;. 0ounded on

the N # /ot , on the # /ot on the 7 # /ot 1-0, 0l:. 2 $e9uivalent to /ot

1''-0 o 2666 on the N7 # AFP militar reservation. Containing an area of

;(<,28 s9uare meters, more or less and registered in the name of )aria Nieves

3oledo-4o5un under 3C3 No. =8<= of the "egister of >eeds of Pampanga. ..., and

A parcel of land $Portion of lot , 0l:-1, 0ureau of /ands Plan Psd 262(;. 0oundedon the N # /ot No. , on the # school lot and national road, on the 7 # /ot

1-0 0l: 2 $e9uivalent to /ot 1''-0 o 2666%, on the N7 # /ot 1-0, 0l:-1.

Containing an area of ==,882 s9uare meters, more or less, and registered in the

name of )aria Nieves 3oledo 4o5un under 3C3 No. =8<= of the "egister of >eeds of

Pampanga, ....



In its complaint, the "epu#lic alleged, among other things, that the fair mar:et value of the a#ove-

mentioned lands, according to the Committee on Appraisal for the Province of Pampanga, as not

more than P2,<<< per hectare, or a total mar:et value of P2(',66'.1< and praed, that the

provisional value of the lands #e fi!ed at P2('.66'.1<, that the court authori5es plaintiff to ta:e

immediate possession of the lands upon deposit of that amount ith the Provincial 3reasurer of

Pampanga that the court appoints three commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the +ustcompensation for the propert sought to #e e!propriated, and that the court issues thereafter a final

order of condemnation.

?n &une 2', 1'(' the trial court issued an order fi!ing the provisional value of the lands at

P2(',66'.1<.

In her @motion to dismiss@ filed on &ul 1;, 1'(', Castellvi alleged, among other things, that the land

under her administration, #eing a residential land, had a fair mar:et value of P1(.<< per s9uare

meter, so it had a total mar:et value of P11,=',;=(.<< that the "epu#lic, through the Armed Forces

of the Philippines, particularl the Philippine Air Force, had #een, despite repeated demands, illegall

occuping her propert since &ul 1, 1'(6, there# preventing her from using and disposing of it,thus causing her damages # a of unreali5ed profits. 3his defendant praed that the complaint #e

dismissed, or that the "epu#lic #e ordered to pa her P1(.<< per s9uare meter, or a total of

P11,=',;=(.<<, plus interest thereon at 6 per annum from &ul 1, 1'(6 that the "epu#lic #e

ordered to pa her P(,<<<,<<<.<< as unreali5ed profits, and the costs of the suit.

0 order of the trial court, dated August, 1'(', Amparo C. >ia5, >olores 4. viuda de 4il, Paloma

Castellvi, Carmen Castellvi, "afael Castellvi, /uis Castellvi, Natividad Castellvi de "a9ui5a, &ose

Castellvi and Consuelo Castellvi ere alloed to intervene as parties defendants. u#se9uentl,

&oa9uin *. 4o5un, &r., hus#and of defendant Nieves 3oledo 4o5un, as also alloed # the court to

intervene as a part defendant.

After the "epu#lic had deposited ith the Provincial 3reasurer of Pampanga the amount of

P2(',66'.1<, the trial court ordered that the "epu#lic #e placed in possession of the lands. 3he

"epu#lic as actuall placed in possession of the lands on August 1<,

1'('. 1

In her @motion to dismiss@, dated ?cto#er 22, 1'(', 3oledo-4o5un alleged, among other things, that

her to parcels of land ere residential lands, in fact a portion ith an area of ;,< s9uare

meters had alread #een su#divided into different lots for sale to the general pu#lic, and the

remaining portion had alread #een set aside for e!pansion sites of the alread completed

su#divisions that the fair mar:et value of said lands as P1(.<< per s9uare meter, so the had a

total mar:et value of P=,<=(,68(.<< and she praed that the complaint #e dismissed, or that she #epaid the amount of P=,<=(,68(.<<, plus interest thereon at the rate of 6 per annum from ?cto#er

1, 1'(', and attorneBs fees in the amount of P(<,<<<.<<.

Intervenors &ose Castellvi and Consuelo Castellvi in their anser, filed on Fe#ruar 11, 1'6<, and

also intervenor &oa9uin 4o5un, &r., hus#and of defendant )aria Nieves 3oledo-4o5un, in his motion

to dismiss, dated )a 28, 1'6<, all alleged that the value of the lands sought to #e e!propriated as

at the rate of P1(.<< per s9uare meter.



?n Novem#er ;, 1'(', the trial court authori5ed the Provincial 3reasurer of Pampanga to pa

defendant 3oledo-4o5un the sum of P1<8,6<'.<< as provisional value of her lands. 2 ?n )a 16,

1'6< the trial Court authori5ed the Provincial 3reasurer of Pampanga to pa defendant Castellvi the

amount of P1(1,=('.=< as provisional value of the land under her administration, and ordered said

defendant to deposit the amount ith the Philippine National 0an: under the supervision of the >eput

Cler: of Court. In another order of )a 16, 1'6< the trial Court entered an order of condemnation. &

3he trial Court appointed three commissioners Att. Amadeo u5on, Cler: of Court, as

commissioner for the court Att. Felicisimo 4. Pamandanan, counsel of the Philippine National 0an:

0ranch at Florida#lanca, for the plaintiff and Att. /eonardo F. /ansangan, Filipino legal counsel at

Clar: Air 0ase, for the defendants. 3he Commissioners, after having 9ualified themselves,

proceeded to the performance of their duties.

?n )arch 1(,1'61 the Commissioners su#mitted their report and recommendation, herein, after

having determined that the lands sought to #e e!propriated ere residential lands, the

recommended unanimousl that the loest price that should #e paid as P1<.<< per s9uare meter,

for #oth the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un that an additional P(,<<<.<< #e paid to 3oledo-

4o5un for improvements found on her land that legal interest on the compensation, computed from

August 1<, 1'(', #e paid after deducting the amounts alread paid to the oners, and that no

conse9uential damages #e aarded. 4 3he CommissionersB report as o#+ected to # all the parties in

the case D # defendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un, ho insisted that the fair mar:et value of their

lands should #e fi!ed at P1(.<< per s9uare meter and # the "epu#lic, hich insisted that the price to #e

paid for the lands should #e fi!ed at P<.2< per s9uare meter. 5

After the parties-defendants and intervenors had filed their respective memoranda, and the

"epu#lic, after several e!tensions of time, had adopted as its memorandum its o#+ections to the

report of the Commissioners, the trial court, on )a 26, 1'61, rendered its decision 6 the dispositive

portion of hich reads as follos

7E"F?", ta:ing into account all the foregoing circumstances, and that the

lands are titled, ... the rising trend of land values ..., and the loered purchasing

poer of the Philippine peso, the court finds that the unanimous recommendation of

the commissioners of ten $P1<.<<% pesos per s9uare meter for the three lots of the

defendants su#+ect of this action is fair and +ust.

!!! !!! !!!

3he plaintiff ill pa 6 interest per annum on the total value of the lands of

defendant 3oledo-4o5un since $sic% the amount deposited as provisional value from

August 1<, 1'(' until full pament is made to said defendant or deposit therefor is

made in court.

In respect to the defendant Castellvi, interest at 6 per annum ill also #e paid #

the plaintiff to defendant Castellvi from &ul 1, 1'(6 hen plaintiff commenced its

illegal possession of the Castellvi land hen the instant action had not et #een

commenced to &ul 1<, 1'(' hen the provisional value thereof as actuall

deposited in court, on the total value of the said $Castellvi% land as herein ad+udged.



3he same rate of interest shall #e paid from &ul 11, 1'(' on the total value of the

land herein ad+udged minus the amount deposited as provisional value, or

P1(1,=('.=<, such interest to run until full pament is made to said defendant or

deposit therefor is made in court. All the intervenors having failed to produce

evidence in support of their respective interventions, said interventions are ordered

dismissed.

3he costs shall #e charged to the plaintiff.

?n &une 21, 1'61 the "epu#lic filed a motion for a ne trial andor reconsideration, upon the

grounds of nel-discovered evidence, that the decision as not supported # the evidence, and

that the decision as against the la, against hich motion defendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un

filed their respective oppositions. ?n &ul =, 1'61 hen the motion of the "epu#lic for ne trial

andor reconsideration as called for hearing, the "epu#lic filed a supplemental motion for ne trial

upon the ground of additional nel-discovered evidence. 3his motion for ne trial andor

reconsideration as denied # the court on &ul 12, 1'61.

?n &ul 18, 1'61 the "epu#lic gave notice of its intention to appeal from the decision of )a 26,

1'61 and the order of &ul 12, 1'61. >efendant Castellvi also filed, on &ul 18, 1'61, her notice of

appeal from the decision of the trial court.

3he "epu#lic filed various e!-parte motions for e!tension of time ithin hich to file its record on

appeal. 3he "epu#licBs record on appeal as finall su#mitted on >ecem#er 6, 1'61.

>efendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un filed not onl a +oint opposition to the approval of the

"epu#licBs record on appeal, #ut also a +oint memorandum in support of their opposition. 3he

"epu#lic also filed a memorandum in support of its praer for the approval of its record on appeal.

?n >ecem#er 28, 1'61 the trial court issued an order declaring #oth the record on appeal filed #the "epu#lic, and the record on appeal filed # defendant Castellvi as having #een filed out of time,

there# dismissing #oth appeals.

?n &anuar 11, 1'62 the "epu#lic filed a @motion to stri:e out the order of >ecem#er 28, 1'61 and

for reconsideration@, and su#se9uentl an amended record on appeal, against hich motion the

defendants Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un filed their opposition. ?n &ul 26, 1'62 the trial court issued

an order, stating that @in the interest of e!pedienc, the 9uestions raised ma #e properl and finall

determined # the upreme Court,@ and at the same time it ordered the olicitor 4eneral to su#mit a

record on appeal containing copies of orders and pleadings specified therein. In an order dated

Novem#er 1', 1'62, the trial court approved the "epu#licBs record on appeal as amended.

>efendant Castellvi did not insist on her appeal. >efendant 3oledo-4o5un did not appeal.

3he motion to dismiss the "epu#licBs appeal as reiterated # appellees Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un

#efore this Court, #ut this Court denied the motion.



In her motion of August 11, 1'6;, appellee Castellvi sought to increase the provisional value of her

land. 3he "epu#lic, in its comment on CastellviBs motion, opposed the same. 3his Court denied

CastellviBs motion in a resolution dated ?cto#er 2,1'6;.

3he motion of appellees, Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un, dated ?cto#er 6, 1'6', praing that the #e

authori5ed to mortgage the lands su#+ect of e!propriation, as denied # this Court or ?cto#er 1;,1'6'.

?n Fe#ruar 1;, 1'82, Atts. Al#erto Cacnio, and Associates, counsel for the estate of the late >on

Alfonso de Castellvi in the e!propriation proceedings, filed a notice of attorneBs lien, stating that as

per agreement ith the administrator of the estate of >on Alfonso de Castellvi the shall receive #

a of attorneBs fees, @the sum e9uivalent to ten per centum of hatever the court ma finall

decide as the e!propriated price of the propert su#+ect matter of the case.@

---------

0efore this Court, the "epu#lic contends that the loer court erred

1. In finding the price of P1< per s9uare meter of the lands su#+ect of the instant

proceedings as +ust compensation

2. In holding that the @ta:ing@ of the properties under e!propriation commenced ith

the filing of this action

. In ordering plaintiff-appellant to pa 6 interest on the ad+udged value of the

Castellvi propert to start from &ul of 1'(6

;. In dening plaintiff-appellantBs motion for ne trial #ased on nel discoveredevidence.

In its #rief, the "epu#lic discusses the second error assigned as the first issue to #e considered. 7e

shall follo the se9uence of the "epu#licBs discussion.

1. In support of the assigned error that the loer court erred in holding that the @ta:ing@ of the

properties under e!propriation commenced ith the filing of the complaint in this case, the "epu#lic

argues that the @ta:ing@ should #e rec:oned from the ear 1';8 hen # virtue of a special lease

agreement #eteen the "epu#lic and appellee Castellvi, the former as granted the @right and

privilege@ to #u the propert should the lessor ish to terminate the lease, and that in the event of

such sale, it as stipulated that the fair mar:et value should #e as of the time of occupanc and thatthe permanent improvements amounting to more that half a million pesos constructed during a

period of telve ears on the land, su#+ect of e!propriation, ere indicative of an agreed pattern of

permanenc and sta#ilit of occupanc # the Philippine Air Force in the interest of national

ecurit. 7

Appellee Castellvi, on the other hand, maintains that the @ta:ing@ of propert under the poer of

eminent domain re9uires to essential elements, to it $1% entrance and occupation # condemn or



upon the private propert for more than a momentar or limited period, and $2% devoting it to a pu#lic

use in such a a as to oust the oner and deprive him of all #eneficial en+oment of the propert.

3his appellee argues that in the instant case the first element is anting, for the contract of lease

relied upon provides for a lease from ear to ear that the second element is also anting, #ecause

the "epu#lic as paing the lessor Castellvi a monthl rental of P;;(.(= and that the contract of

lease does not grant the "epu#lic the @right and privilege@ to #u the premises @at the value at thetime of occupanc.@ '

Appellee 3oledo-4o5un did not comment on the "epu#licBs argument in support of the second error

assigned, #ecause as far as she as concerned the "epu#lic had not ta:en possession of her lands

prior to August 1<, 1'('. 9

In order to #etter comprehend the issues raised in the appeal, in so far as the Castellvi propert is

concerned, it should #e noted that the Castellvi propert had #een occupied # the Philippine Air

Force since 1';8 under a contract of lease, tpified # the contract mar:ed !h. ;-Castellvi, the

pertinent portions of hich read

C?N3"AC3 ?F /A

3his A4")N3 ?F /A )A> AN> N3"> into # and #eteen

IN33A3 3A3 ?F A/F?N? > CA3//*I, represented # CA")N ).

> CA3//*I, &udicial Administratri! ... hereinafter called the /?" and 3E

"PG0/IC ?F 3E PEI/IPPIN represented # )A&. 4N. CA/IH3? >GG,

Chief of taff of the A")> F?"C ?F 3E PEI/IPPIN, hereinafter called the

/,

7I3N3E

1. For and in consideration of the rentals hereinafter reserved and the mutual terms,

covenants and conditions of the parties, the /?" has, and # these presents

does, lease and let unto the / the folloing descri#ed land together ith the

improvements thereon and appurtenances thereof, viz

Gn 3erreno, /ote No. 28 del Plano de su#division Psu ;8(2, parte de la hacienda

de Campauit, situado en el 0arrio de an &ose, )unicipio de Florida#lanca

Pampanga. ... midiendo una e!tension superficial de cuatro milliones once mil cuatro

cientos trienta cinco $;,<<1,;(% JsicK metros cuadrados, mas o menos.

?ut of the a#ove descri#ed propert, 8(.' hectares thereof are actuall occupiedand covered # this contract. .

A#ove lot is more particularl descri#ed in 3C3 No. 1<16, province of

Pampanga ...

of hich premises, the /?" arrants that heshetheisare the registered oner$s% and ith

full authorit to e!ecute a contract of this nature.



2. 3he term of this lease shall #e for the period #eginning &ul 1, 1'(2 the date the

premises ere occupied # the PEI/IPPIN AI" F?"C, AFP until &une <, 1'(,

su#+ect to reneal for another ear at the option of the / or unless sooner

terminated # the / as hereinafter provided.

. 3he /?" here# arrants that the / shall have 9uiet, peaceful andundistur#ed possession of the demised premises throughout the full term or period of

this lease and the /?" underta:es ithout cost to the / to e+ect all

trespassers, #ut should the /?" fail to do so, the / at its option ma

proceed to do so at the e!pense of the /?". 3he /?" further agrees that

should heshethe sell or encum#er all or an part of the herein descri#ed premises

during the period of this lease, an conveance ill #e conditioned on the right of the

/ hereunder.

;. 3he / shall pa to the /?" as monthl rentals under this lease the

sum of F?G" EGN>"> FIF3-FI* P? L (=1<< $P;((.(=% ...

(. 3he / ma, at an time prior to the termination of this lease, use the

propert for an purpose or purposes and, at its on costs and e!pense ma:e

alteration, install facilities and fi!tures and errect additions ... hich facilities or

fi!tures ... so placed in, upon or attached to the said premises shall #e and remain

propert of the / and ma #e removed therefrom # the / prior to the

termination of this lease. 3he / shall surrender possession of the premises

upon the e!piration or termination of this lease and if so re9uired # the /?",

shall return the premises in su#stantiall the same condition as that e!isting at the

time same ere first occupied # the AFP, reasona#le and ordinar ear and tear

and damages # the elements or # circumstances over hich the / has no

control e!cepted P"?*I>>, that if the /?" so re9uires the return of thepremises in such condition, the /?" shall give ritten notice thereof to the

/ at least tent $2<% das #efore the termination of the lease and provided,

further, that should the /?" give notice ithin the time specified a#ove, the

/ shall have the right and privilege to compensate the /?" at the fair

value or the e9uivalent, in lieu of performance of its o#ligation, if an, to restore the

premises. Fair value is to #e determined as the value at the time of occupanc less

fair ear and tear and depreciation during the period of this lease.

6. 3he / ma terminate this lease at an time during the term hereof # giving

ritten notice to the /?" at least thirt $<% das in advance ...

8. 3he / should not #e responsi#le, e!cept under special legislation for an

damages to the premises # reason of com#at operations, acts of 4?>, the

elements or other acts and deeds not due to the negligence on the part of the

/.

=. 3his /A A4")N3 supersedes and voids an and all agreements and

underta:ings, oral or ritten, previousl entered into #eteen the parties covering the



propert herein leased, the same having #een merged herein. 3his A4")N3

ma not #e modified or altered e!cept # instrument in riting onl dul signed # the

parties. 10

It as stipulated # the parties, that @the foregoing contract of lease $!h. ;, Castellvi% is Bsimilar in

terms and conditions, including the dateB, ith the annual contracts entered into from ear to ear#eteen defendant Castellvi and the "epu#lic of the Philippines $p. 18, t.s.n., *ol. III%@. 11 It is

undisputed, therefore, that the "epu#lic occupied CastellviBs land from &ul 1, 1';8, # virtue of the

a#ove-mentioned contract, on a ear to ear #asis $from &ul 1 of each ear to &une < of the succeeding

ear% under the terms and conditions therein stated.

0efore the e!piration of the contract of lease on &une <, 1'(6 the "epu#lic sought to rene the

same #ut Castellvi refused. 7hen the AFP refused to vacate the leased premises after the

termination of the contract, on &ul 11, 1'(6, Castellvi rote to the Chief of taff, AFP, informing the

latter that the heirs of the propert had decided not to continue leasing the propert in 9uestion

#ecause the had decided to su#divide the land for sale to the general pu#lic, demanding that the

propert #e vacated ithin < das from receipt of the letter, and that the premises #e returned in

su#stantiall the same condition as #efore occupanc $!h. ( D Castellvi%. A follo-up letter as

sent on &anuar 12, 1'(8, demanding the deliver and return of the propert ithin one month from

said date $!h. 6 Castellvi%. ?n &anuar <, 1'(8, /ieutenant 4eneral Alfonso Arellano, Chief of

taff, ansered the letter of Castellvi, saing that it as difficult for the arm to vacate the premises

in vie of the permanent installations and other facilities orth almost P(<<,<<<.<< that ere

erected and alread esta#lished on the propert, and that, there #eing no other recourse, the

ac9uisition of the propert # means of e!propriation proceedings ould #e recommended to the

President $!hi#it @8@ D Castellvi%.

>efendant Castellvi then #rought suit in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in Civil Case No.

1;(=, to e+ect the Philippine Air Force from the land. 7hile this e+ectment case as pending, the

"epu#lic instituted these e!propriation proceedings, and, as stated earlier in this opinion, the

"epu#lic as placed in possession of the lands on August 1<, 1'(', ?n Novem#er 21, 1'(', the

Court of First Instance of Pampanga, dismissed Civil Case No. 1;(=, upon petition of the parties, in

an order hich, in part, reads as follos

1. Plaintiff has agreed, as a matter of fact has alread signed an agreement ith

defendants, here# she has agreed to receive the rent of the lands, su#+ect matter

of the instant case from &une <, 1'66 up to 1'(' hen the Philippine Air Force as

placed in possession # virtue of an order of the Court upon depositing the

provisional amount as fi!ed # the Provincial Appraisal Committee ith the Provincial

3reasurer of Pampanga

2. 3hat #ecause of the a#ove-cited agreement herein the administratri! decided to

get the rent corresponding to the rent from 1'(6 up to 1'(' and considering that this

action is one of illegal detainer andor to recover the possession of said land # virtue

of non-pament of rents, the instant case no has #ecome moot and academic

andor # virtue of the agreement signed # plaintiff, she has aived her cause of

action in the a#ove-entitled case. 12



3he "epu#lic urges that the @ta:ing @ of CastellviBs propert should #e deemed as of the ear 1';8

# virtue of afore-9uoted lease agreement. In American &urisprudence, *ol. 26, 2nd edition, ection

1(8, on the su#+ect of @minent >omain, e read the definition of @ta:ing@ $in eminent domain% as

follos

3a:ingB under the poer of eminent domain ma #e defined generall as enteringupon private propert for more than a momentar period, and, under the arrant or

color of legal authorit, devoting it to a pu#lic use, or otherise informall

appropriating or in+uriousl affecting it in such a a as su#stantiall to oust the

oner and deprive him of all #eneficial en+oment thereof. 1&

Pursuant to the aforecited authorit, a num#er of circumstances must #e present in the @ta:ing@ of

propert for purposes of eminent domain.

First, the e!propriator must enter a private propert. 3his circumstance is present in the instant case,

hen # virtue of the lease agreement the "epu#lic, through the AFP, too: possession of the

propert of Castellvi.

econd, the entrance into private propert must #e for more than a momentar period. @)omentar@

means, @lasting #ut a moment of #ut a momentBs duration@ $3he ?!ford nglish >ictionar, *olume

*I, page ('6% @lasting a ver short time transitor having a ver #rief life operative or recurring at

ever moment@ $7e#sterBs 3hird International >ictionar, 1'6 edition.% 3he ord @momentar@ hen

applied to possession or occupanc of $real% propert should #e construed to mean @a limited period@

D not indefinite or permanent. 3he aforecited lease contract as for a period of one ear, renea#le

from ear to ear. 3he entr on the propert, under the lease, is temporar, and considered

transitor. 3he fact that the "epu#lic, through the AFP, constructed some installations of a

permanent nature does not alter the fact that the entr into the land as transitor, or intended to last

a ear, although renea#le from ear to ear # consent of B3he oner of the land. 0 e!pressprovision of the lease agreement the "epu#lic, as lessee, undertoo: to return the preises in

su#stantiall the same condition as at the time the propert as first occupied # the AFP. It is

claimed that the intention of the lessee as to occup the land permanentl, as ma #e inferred from

the construction of permanent improvements. 0ut this @intention@ cannot prevail over the clear and

e!press terms of the lease contract. Intent is to #e deduced from the language emploed # the

parties, and the terms Bof the contract, hen unam#iguous, as in the instant case, are conclusive in

the a#sence of averment and proof of mista:e or fraud D the 9uestion #eing not hat the intention

as, #ut hat is e!pressed in the language used. $Cit of )anila v. "i5al Par: Co., Inc., ( Phil. (1(,

(2(% )agdalena state, Inc. v. )ric:, 81 Phil. ;;, ;=%. )oreover, in order to +udge the intention

of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and su#se9uent acts shall #e principall

considered $Art. 181, Civil Code%. If the intention of the lessee $"epu#lic% in 1';8 as reall tooccup permanentl CastellviBs propert, h as the contract of lease entered into on ear to ear

#asisM 7h as the lease agreement reneed from ear to earM 7h did not the "epu#lic

e!propriate this land of Castellvi in 1';' hen, according to the "epu#lic itself, it e!propriated the

other parcels of land that it occupied at the same time as the Castellvi land, for the purpose of

converting them into a +et air #aseM 14 It might reall have #een the intention of the "epu#lic to

e!propriate the lands in 9uestion at some future time, #ut certainl mere notice - much less an implied

notice D of such intention on the part of the "epu#lic to e!propriate the lands in the future did not, and



could not, #ind the landoner, nor #ind the land itself. 3he e!propriation must #e actuall commenced in

court $"epu#lic vs. 0alosis, et al., '6 Phil. ;61, ;=;%.

3hird, the entr into the propert should #e under arrant or color of legal authorit. 3his

circumstance in the @ta:ing@ ma #e considered as present in the instant case, #ecause the "epu#lic

entered the Castellvi propert as lessee.

Fourth, the propert must #e devoted to a pu#lic use or otherise informall appropriated or

in+uriousl affected. It ma #e conceded that the circumstance of the propert #eing devoted to

pu#lic use is present #ecause the propert as used # the air force of the AFP.

Fifth, the utili5ation of the propert for pu#lic use must #e in such a a as to oust the oner and

deprive him of all #eneficial en+oment of the propert. In the instant case, the entr of the "epu#lic

into the propert and its utili5ation of the same for pu#lic use did not oust Castellvi and deprive her of

all #eneficial en+oment of the propert. Castellvi remained as oner, and as continuousl

recogni5ed as oner # the "epu#lic, as shon # the reneal of the lease contract from ear to

ear, and # the provision in the lease contract here# the "epu#lic undertoo: to return the

propert to Castellvi hen the lease as terminated. Neither as Castellvi deprived of all the

#eneficial en+oment of the propert, #ecause the "epu#lic as #ound to pa, and had #een paing,

Castellvi the agreed monthl rentals until the time hen it filed the complaint for eminent domain on

&une 26, 1'('.

It is clear, therefore, that the @ta:ing@ of CatellviBs propert for purposes of eminent domain cannot #e

considered to have ta:en place in 1';8 hen the "epu#lic commenced to occup the propert as

lessee thereof. 7e find merit in the contention of Castellvi that to essential elements in the @ta:ing@

of propert under the poer of eminent domain, namel $1% that the entrance and occupation # the

condemnor must #e for a permanent, or indefinite period, and $2% that in devoting the propert to

pu#lic use the oner as ousted from the propert and deprived of its #eneficial use, ere not

present hen the "epu#lic entered and occupied the Castellvi propert in 1';8.

Gntena#le also is the "epu#licBs contention that although the contract #eteen the parties as one

of lease on a ear to ear #asis, it as @in realit a more or less permanent right to occup the

premises under the guise of lease ith the Bright and privilegeB to #u the propert should the lessor

ish to terminate the lease,@ and @the right to #u the propert is merged as an integral part of the

lease relationship ... so much so that the fair mar:et value has #een agreed upon, not, as of the time

of purchase, #ut as of the time of occupanc@ 15 7e cannot accept the "epu#licBs contention that a

lease on a ear to ear #asis can give rise to a permanent right to occup, since # e!press legal

provision a lease made for a determinate time, as as the lease of CastellviBs land in the instant case,

ceases upon the da fi!ed, ithout need of a demand $Article 166', Civil Code%. Neither can it #e said

that the right of eminent domain ma #e e!ercised # simpl leasing the premises to #e e!propriated

$"ule 68, ection 1, "ules of Court%. Nor can it #e accepted that the "epu#lic ould enter into a contract

of lease here its real intention as to #u, or h the "epu#lic should enter into a simulated contract of

lease $@under the guise of lease@, as e!pressed # counsel for the "epu#lic% hen all the time the

"epu#lic had the right of eminent domain, and could e!propriate CastellviBs land if it anted to ithout

resorting to an guise hatsoever. Neither can e see ho a right to #u could #e merged in a contract of

lease in the a#sence of an agreement #eteen the parties to that effect. 3o sustain the contention of the

"epu#lic is to sanction a practice here# in order to secure a lo price for a land hich the government



intends to e!propriate $or ould eventuall e!propriate% it ould first negotiate ith the oner of the land

to lease the land $for sa ten or tent ears% then e!propriate the same hen the lease is a#out to

terminate, then claim that the @ta:ing@ of the propert for the purposes of the e!propriation #e rec:oned as

of the date hen the 4overnment started to occup the propert under the lease, and then assert that the

value of the propert #eing e!propriated #e rec:oned as of the start of the lease, in spite of the fact that

the value of the propert, for man good reasons, had in the meantime increased during the period of the

lease. 3his ould #e sanctioning hat o#viousl is a deceptive scheme, hich ould have the effect of

depriving the oner of the propert of its true and fair mar:et value at the time hen the e!propriation

proceedings ere actuall instituted in court. !he Republic"s clai that it had the #ri$ht and privile$e# to

bu% the propert% at the value that it had at the tie hen it first occupied the propert% as lessee nohere

appears in the lease contract . 7hat as agreed e!pressl in paragraph No. ( of the lease agreement as

that, should the lessor re9uire the lessee to return the premises in the same condition as at the time the

same as first occupied # the AFP, the lessee ould have the @right and privilege@ $or option% of paing

the lessor hat it ould fairl cost to put the premises in the same condition as it as at the

commencement of the lease, in lieu of the lesseeBs performance of the underta:ing to put the land in said

condition. 3he @fair value@ at the time of occupanc, mentioned in the lease agreement, does not refer to

the value of the propert if #ought # the lessee, #ut refers to the cost of restoring the propert in the

same condition as of the time hen the lessee too: possession of the propert. uch fair value cannotrefer to the purchase price, for purchase as never intended # the parties to the lease contract. It is a

rule in the interpretation of contracts that @Eoever general the terms of a contract ma #e, the shall not

#e understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon hich

the parties intended to agree@ $Art. 182, Civil Code%.

7e hold, therefore, that the @ta:ing@ of the Castellvi propert should not #e rec:oned as of the ear

1';8 hen the "epu#lic first occupied the same pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the +ust

compensation to #e paid for the Castellvi propert should not #e determined on the #asis of the

value of the propert as of that ear. 3he loer court did not commit an error hen it held that the

@ta:ing@ of the propert under e!propriation commenced ith the filing of the complaint in this case.

Gnder ection ; of "ule 68 of the "ules of Court, 16 the @+ust compensation@ is to #e determined as of

the date of the filing of the complaint. 3his Court has ruled that hen the ta:ing of the propert sought to

#e e!propriated coincides ith the commencement of the e!propriation proceedings, or ta:es place

su#se9uent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the +ust compensation should #e determined

as of the date of the filing of the complaint. $"epu#lic vs. Philippine National 0an:, /-1;1(=, April 12,

1'61, 1 C"A '(8, '61-'62%. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the "epu#lic as placed in

possession of the Castellvi propert, # authorit of the court, on August 1<, 1'('. 3he @ta:ing@ of the

Castellvi propert for the purposes of determining the +ust compensation to #e paid must, therefore, #e

rec:oned as of &une 26, 1'(' hen the complaint for eminent domain as filed.

"egarding the to parcels of land of 3oledo-4o5un, also sought to #e e!propriated, hich had never

#een under lease to the "epu#lic, the "epu#lic as placed in possession of said lands, also #authorit of the court, on August 1<, 1'(', 3he ta:ing of those lands, therefore, must also #e

rec:oned as of &une 26, 1'(', the date of the filing of the complaint for eminent domain.

2. "egarding the first assigned error D discussed as the second issue D the "epu#lic maintains

that, even assuming that the value of the e!propriated lands is to #e determined as of &une 26,

1'(', the price of P1<.<< per s9uare meter fi!ed # the loer court @is not onl e!hor#itant #ut also

unconsciona#le, and almost fantastic@. ?n the other hand, #oth Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un maintain



that their lands are residential lands ith a fair mar:et value of not less than P1(.<< per s9uare

meter.

3he loer court found, and declared, that the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un are residential

lands. 3he finding of the loer court is in consonance ith the unanimous opinion of the three

commissioners ho, in their report to the court, declared that the lands are residential lands.

3he "epu#lic assails the finding that the lands are residential, contending that the plans of the

appellees to convert the lands into su#division for residential purposes ere onl on paper, there

#eing no overt acts on the part of the appellees hich indicated that the su#division pro+ect had #een

commenced, so that an compensation to #e aarded on the #asis of the plans ould #e

speculative. 3he "epu#licBs contention is not ell ta:en. 7e find evidence shoing that the lands in

9uestion had ceased to #e devoted to the production of agricultural crops, that the had #ecome

adapta#le for residential purposes, and that the appellees had actuall ta:en steps to convert their

lands into residential su#divisions even #efore the "epu#lic filed the complaint for eminent domain.

In the case of Cit of Manila vs. Corrales $2 Phil. =2, '=% this Court laid don #asic guidelines in

determining the value of the propert e!propriated for pu#lic purposes. 3his Court said

In determining the value of land appropriated for pu#lic purposes, the sae

consideration are to be re$arded as in a sale of propert% beteen private parties.

!he inquir%' in such cases, must #e hat is the propert orth in the mar:et, vieed

not merel ith reference to the uses to hich it is at the time applied, #ut ith

reference to the uses to hich it is plainl adapted, that is to sa, 7hat is it orth

from its availa#ilit for valua#le usesM

o man and varied are the circumstances to #e ta:en into account in determining

the value of propert condemned for pu#lic purposes, that it is practicall impossi#le

to formulate a rule to govern its appraisement in all cases. !ceptionalcircumstances ill modif the most carefull guarded rule, #ut, as a general thing, e

should sa that the compensation of the oner is to #e estimated # reference to the

use for hich the propert is suita#le, having regard to the e!isting #usiness or ants

of the communit, or such as ma #e reasona#l e!pected in the immediate future.

$)iss. and "um "iver 0oom Co. vs. Patterson, '= G.., ;<%.

In e!propriation proceedings, therefore, the oner of the land has the right to its value for the use for

hich it ould #ring the most in the mar:et. 17 3he oner ma thus sho ever advantage that his

propert possesses, present and prospective, in order that the price it could #e sold for in the mar:et ma

#e satisfactoril determined. 1' 3he oner ma also sho that the propert is suita#le for division into

village or ton lots. 19

3he trial court, therefore, correctl considered, among other circumstances, the proposed

su#division plans of the lands sought to #e e!propriated in finding that those lands are residential

lots. 3his finding of the loer court is supported not onl # the unanimous opinion of the

commissioners, as em#odied in their report, #ut also # the Provincial Appraisal Committee of the

province of Pampanga composed of the Provincial 3reasurer, the Provincial Auditor and the >istrict



ngineer. In the minutes of the meeting of the Provincial Appraisal Committee, held on )a 1;, 1'('

$!h. 1-Castellvi% 7e read in its "esolution No. 1< the folloing

. ince 1'(8 the land has #een classified as residential in vie of its pro!imit to the

air #ase and due to the fact that it as not #eing devoted to agriculture. In fact, there

is a plan to convert it into a su#division for residential purposes. 3he ta!es due onthe propert have #een paid #ased on its classification as residential land

3he evidence shos that Castellvi #roached the idea of su#dividing her land into residential lots as

earl as &ul 11, 1'(6 in her letter to the Chief of taff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. $!h.

(-Castellvi% As a matter of fact, the laout of the su#division plan as tentativel approved # the

National Planning Commission on eptem#er 8, 1'(6. $!h. =-Castellvi%. 3he land of Castellvi had

not #een devoted to agriculture since 1';8 hen it as leased to the Philippine Arm. In 1'(8 said

land as classified as residential, and ta!es #ased on its classification as residential had #een paid

since then $!h. 1-Castellvi%. 3he location of the Castellvi land +ustifies its suita#ilit for a residential

su#division. As found # the trial court, @It is at the left side of the entrance of the 0asa Air 0ase and

#ounded on to sides # roads $!h. 1-Castellvi%, paragraphs 1 and 2, !h. 12-Castellvi%, thepo#lacion, $of Florida#lanca% the municipal #uilding, and the Pampanga ugar )ills are closed #.

3he #arrio schoolhouse and chapel are also near $3..N. Novem#er 2,1'6<, p. 6=%.@ 20

3he lands of 3oledo-4o5un $/ot 1-0 and /ot % are practicall of the same condition as the land of

Castellvi. 3he lands of 3oledo-4o5un ad+oin the land of Castellvi. 3he are also contiguous to the

0asa Air 0ase, and are along the road. 3hese lands are near the #arrio schoolhouse, the #arrio

chapel, the Pampanga ugar )ills, and the po#lacion of Florida#lanca $!hs. 1, and ;-3oledo-

4o5un%. As a matter of fact, regarding lot 1-0 it had alread #een surveed and su#divided, and its

conversion into a residential su#division as tentativel approved # the National Planning

Commission on &ul =, 1'(' $!hs. ( and 6 3oledo-4o5un%. As earl as &une, 1'(=, no less than 2

man connected ith the Philippine Air Force among them commissioned officers, non-commissionofficers, and enlisted men had re9uested )r. and )rs. &oa9uin >. 4o5un to open a su#division on

their lands in 9uestion $!hs. =, =-A to =--3oledo-4o5un%. 21

7e agree ith the findings, and the conclusions, of the loer court that the lands that are the su#+ect

of e!propriation in the present case, as of August 1<, 1'(' hen the same ere ta:en possession of

# the "epu#lic, ere residential lands and ere adapta#le for use as residential su#divisions.

Indeed, the oners of these lands have the right to their value for the use for hich the ould #ring

the most in the mar:et at the time the same ere ta:en from them. 3he most important issue to #e

resolved in the present case relates to the 9uestion of hat is the +ust compensation that should #e

paid to the appellees.

3he "epu#lic asserts that the fair mar:et value of the lands of the appellees is P.2< per s9uare

meter. 3he "epu#lic cites the case of Republic vs. (arciso' et al ., /-6(';, hich this Court decided

on )a 1=, 1'(6. 3he Narciso case involved lands that #elonged to Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un, and

to one >onata )ontemaor, hich ere e!propriated # the "epu#lic in 1';' and hich are no the

site of the 0asa Air 0ase. In the Narciso case this Court fi!ed the fair mar:et value at P.2< per

s9uare meter. 3he lands that are sought to #e e!propriated in the present case #eing contiguous to



the lands involved in the Narciso case, it is the stand of the "epu#lic that the price that should #e

fi!ed for the lands no in 9uestion should also #e at P.2< per s9uare meter.

7e can not sustain the stand of the "epu#lic. 7e find that the price of P.2< per s9uare meter, as

fi!ed # this Court in the Narciso case, as #ased on the allegation of the defendants $oners% in

their anser to the complaint for eminent domain in that case that the price of their lands asP2,<<<.<< per hectare and that as the price that the as:ed the court to pa them. 3his Court said,

then, that the oners of the land could not #e given more than hat the had as:ed, notithstanding

the recommendation of the ma+orit of the Commission on Appraisal D hich as adopted # the

trial court D that the fair mar:et value of the lands as P,<<<.<< per hectare. 7e also find that the

price of P.2< per s9uare meter in the Narciso case as considered the fair mar:et value of the lands

as of the ear 1';' hen the e!propriation proceedings ere instituted, and at that time the lands

ere classified as sugar lands, and assessed for ta!ation purposes at around P;<<.<< per hectare,

or P.<; per s9uare meter. 22 7hile the lands involved in the present case, li:e the lands involved in

the Narciso case, might have a fair mar:et value of P.2< per s9uare meter in 1';', it can not #e

denied that ten ears later, in 1'(', hen the present proceedings ere instituted, the value of those

lands had increased considera#l. 3he evidence shos that since 1';' those lands ere no longercultivated as sugar lands, and in 1'(' those lands ere alread classified, and assessed for ta!ation

purposes, as residential lands. In 1'(' the land of Castellvi as assessed at P1.<< per s9uare

meter. 2&

3he "epu#lic also points out that the Provincial Appraisal Committee of Pampanga, in its resolution

No. ( of Fe#ruar 1(, 1'(8 $!hi#it >%, recommended the sum of P.2< per s9uare meter as the fair

valuation of the Castellvi propert. 7e find that this resolution as made # the "epu#lic the #asis in

as:ing the court to fi! the provisional value of the lands sought to #e e!propriated at P2(',66'.1<,

hich as approved # the court. 24 It must #e considered, hoever, that the amount fi!ed as the

provisional value of the lands that are #eing e!propriated does not necessaril represent the true and

correct value of the land. 3he value is onl @provisional@ or @tentative@, to serve as the #asis for the

immediate occupanc of the propert #eing e!propriated # the condemnor. 3he records sho that this

resolution No. ( as repealed # the same Provincial Committee on Appraisal in its resolution No. 1< of

)a 1;, 1'(' $!hi#it 1-Castellvi%. In that resolution No. 1<, the appraisal committee stated that @3he

Committee has o#served that the value of the land in this localit has increased since 1'(8 ...@, and

recommended the price of P1.(< per s9uare meter. It follos, therefore, that, contrar to the stand of the

"epu#lic, that resolution No. ( of the Provincial Appraisal Committee can not #e made the #asis for fi!ing

the fair mar:et value of the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un.

3he "epu#lic further relied on the certification of the Acting Assistant Provincial Assessor of

Pampanga, dated Fe#ruar =, 1'61 $!hi#it O%, to the effect that in 1'(< the lands of 3oledo-4o5un

ere classified partl as sugar land and partl as ur#an land, and that the sugar land as assessed

at P.;< per s9uare meter, hile part of the ur#an land as assessed at P.;< per s9uare meter andpart at P.2< per s9uare meter and that in 1'(6 the Castellvi land as classified as sugar land and

as assessed at P;(<.<< per hectare, or P.<;( per s9uare meter. 7e can not also consider this

certification of the Acting Assistant Provincial Assessor as a #asis for fi!ing the fair mar:et value of

the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un #ecause, as the evidence shos, the lands in 9uestion, in

1'(8, ere alread classified and assessed for ta!ation purposes as residential lands. 3he

certification of the assessor refers to the ear 1'(< as far as the lands of 3oledo-4o5un are

concerned, and to the ear 1'(6 as far as the land of Castellvi is concerned. )oreover, this Court



has held that the valuation fi!ed for the purposes of the assessment of the land for ta!ation purposes

can not #ind the landoner here the latter did not intervene in fi!ing it. 25

?n the other hand, the Commissioners, appointed # the court to appraise the lands that ere #eing

e!propriated, recommended to the court that the price of P1<.<< per s9uare meter ould #e the fair

mar:et value of the lands. 3he commissioners made their recommendation on the #asis of theiro#servation after several ocular inspections of the lands, of their on personal :noledge of land

values in the province of Pampanga, of the testimonies of the oners of the land, and other

itnesses, and of documentar evidence presented # the appellees. 0oth Castellvi and 3oledo-

4o5un testified that the fair mar:et value of their respective land as at P1(.<< per s9uare meter.

3he documentar evidence considered # the commissioners consisted of deeds of sale of

residential lands in the ton of an Fernando and in Angeles Cit, in the province of Pampanga,

hich ere sold at prices ranging from P=.<< to P2<.<< per s9uare meter $!hi#its 1(, 16, 18, 1=,

1', 2<, 21, 22, 2-Castellvi%. 3he commissioners also considered the decision in Civil Case No. 1(1

of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, entitled "epu#lic vs. a#ina 3a#lante, hich as

e!propriation case filed on &anuar 1, 1'(', involving a parcel of land ad+acent to the Clar: Air

0ase in Angeles Cit, here the court fi!ed the price at P1=.<< per s9uare meter $!hi#it 1;-Castellvi%. In their report, the commissioners, among other things, said

... 3his e!propriation case is speciall pointed out, #ecause the circumstances and

factors involved therein are similar in man respects to the defendantsB lands in this

case. 3he land in Civil Case No. 1(1 of this Court and the lands in the present case

$Civil Case No. 162% are #oth near the air #ases, the Clar: Air 0ase and the 0asa

Air 0ase respectivel. 3here is a national road fronting them and are situated in a

first-class municipalit. As added advantage it ma #e said that the 0asa Air 0ase

land is ver near the sugar mill at >el Carmen, Florida#lanca, Pampanga, oned #

the Pampanga ugar )ills. Also +ust stoneBs thro aa from the same lands is a

#eautiful vacation spot at Palacol, a sitio of the ton of Florida#lanca, hich countsith a natural simming pool for vacationists on ee:ends. 3hese advantages are

not found in the case of the Clar: Air 0ase. 3he defendantsB lands are nearer to the

po#lacion of Florida#lanca then Clar: Air 0ase is nearer $sic% to the po#lacion of

Angeles, Pampanga.

3he deeds of a#solute sale, according to the undersigned commissioners, as ell as

the land in Civil Case No. 1(1 are competent evidence, #ecause the ere

e!ecuted during the ear 1'(' and #efore August 1< of the same ear. )ore

specificall so the land at Clar: Air 0ase hich coincidentall is the su#+ect matter in

the complaint in said Civil Case No. 1(1, it having #een filed on &anuar 1, 1'('

and the ta:ing of the land involved therein as ordered # the Court of First Instanceof Pampanga on &anuar 1(, 1'(', several months #efore the lands in this case

ere ta:en # the plaintiffs ....

From the a#ove and considering further that the loest as ell as the highest price

per s9uare meter o#taina#le in the mar:et of Pampanga relative to su#division lots

ithin its +urisdiction in the ear 1'(' is ver ell :non # the Commissioners, the



Commission finds that the loest price that can #e aarded to the lands in 9uestion

is P1<.<< per s9uare meter. 26

3he loer court did not altogether accept the findings of the Commissioners #ased on the

documentar evidence, #ut it considered the documentar evidence as #asis for comparison in

determining land values. 3he loer court arrived at the conclusion that @the unanimousrecommendation of the commissioners of ten $P1<.<<% pesos per s9uare meter for the three lots of

the defendants su#+ect of this action is fair and +ust@. 27 In arriving at its conclusion, the loer court too:

into consideration, among other circumstances, that the lands are titled, that there is a rising trend of land

values, and the loered purchasing poer of the Philippine peso.

In the case of Manila Railroad Co. vs. Cali$sihan, ;< Phil. 26, 2=, this Court said

A court of first instance or, on appeal, the upreme Court, ma change or modif the

report of the commissioners # increasing or reducing the amount of the aard if the

facts of the case so +ustif. 7hile great eight is attached to the report of the

commissioners, et a court ma su#stitute therefor its estimate of the value of the

propert as gathered from the record in certain cases, as, here the commissioners

have applied illegal principles to the evidence su#mitted to them, or here the have

disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or here the amount alloed is

either palpa#l inade9uate or e!cessive. 2'

3he report of the commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings are not #inding, #ut

merel advisor in character, as far as the court is concerned. 29 In our analsis of the report of the

commissioners, 7e find points that merit serious consideration in the determination of the +ust

compensation that should #e paid to Castellvi and 3oledo-4o5un for their lands. It should #e noted that

the commissioners had made ocular inspections of the lands and had considered the nature and

similarities of said lands in relation to the lands in other places in the province of Pampanga, li:e an

Fernando and Angeles Cit. 7e cannot disregard the o#servations of the commissioners regarding the

circumstances that ma:e the lands in 9uestion suited for residential purposes D their location near the

0asa Air 0ase, +ust li:e the lands in Angeles Cit that are near the Clar: Air 0ase, and the facilities that

o#tain #ecause of their nearness to the #ig sugar central of the Pampanga ugar mills, and to the

flourishing first class ton of Florida#lanca. It is true that the lands in 9uestion are not in the territor of

an Fernando and Angeles Cit, #ut, considering the facilities of modern communications, the ton of

Florida#lanca ma #e considered practicall ad+acent to an Fernando and Angeles Cit. It is not out of

place, therefore, to compare the land values in Florida#lanca to the land values in an Fernando and

Angeles Cit, and form an idea of the value of the lands in Florida#lanca ith reference to the land values

in those to other communities.

3he important factor in e!propriation proceeding is that the oner is aarded the +ust compensationfor his propert. 7e have carefull studied the record, and the evidence, in this case, and after

considering the circumstances attending the lands in 9uestion 7e have arrived at the conclusion

that the price of P1<.<< per s9uare meter, as recommended # the commissioners and adopted #

the loer court, is 9uite high. It is ?ur considered vie that the price of P(.<< per s9uare meter

ould #e a fair valuation of the lands in 9uestion and ould constitute a +ust compensation to the

oners thereof. In arriving at this conclusion 7e have particularl ta:en into consideration the

resolution of the Provincial Committee on Appraisal of the province of Pampanga informing, among



others, that in the ear 1'(' the land of Castellvi could #e sold for from P.<< to P;.<< per s9uare

meter, hile the land of 3oledo-4o5un could #e sold for from P2.(< to P.<< per s9uare meter. 3he

Court has eighed all the circumstances relating to this e!propriations proceedings, and in fi!ing the

price of the lands that are #eing e!propriated the Court arrived at a happ medium #eteen the price

as recommended # the commissioners and approved # the court, and the price advocated # the

"epu#lic. 3his Court has also ta:en +udicial notice of the fact that the value of the Philippine pesohas considera#l gone don since the ear 1'('. &0Considering that the lands of Castellvi and 3oledo-

4o5un are ad+oining each other, and are of the same nature, the Court has deemed it proper to fi! the

same price for all these lands.

. 3he third issue raised # the "epu#lic relates to the pament of interest. 3he

"epu#lic maintains that the loer court erred hen it ordered the "epu#lic to pa

Castellvi interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the total amount ad+udged as the

value of the land of Castellvi, from &ul 1, 1'(6 to &ul 1<, 1'('. 7e find merit in this

assignment of error.

In ordering the "epu#lic to pa 6 interest on the total value of the land of Castellvi from &ul 1,

1'(6 to &ul 1<, 1'(', the loer court held that the "epu#lic had illegall possessed the land of

Castellvi from &ul 1, 1'(6, after its lease of the land had e!pired on &une <, 1'(6, until August 1<,

1'(' hen the "epu#lic as placed in possession of the land pursuant to the rit of possession

issued # the court. 7hat reall happened as that the "epu#lic continued to occup the land of

Castellvi after the e!piration of its lease on &une <, 1'(6, so much so that Castellvi filed an

e+ectment case against the "epu#lic in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. &1 Eoever, hile

that e+ectment case as pending, the "epu#lic filed the complaint for eminent domain in the present case

and as placed in possession of the land on August 1<, 1'(', and #ecause of the institution of the

e!propriation proceedings the e+ectment case as later dismissed. In the order dismissing the e+ectment

case, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga said

Plaintiff has agreed, as a matter of fact has alread signed an agreement ith

defendants, here# she had agreed to receive the rent of the lands, su#+ect matter

of the instant case from &une <, 1'(6 up to 1'(' hen the Philippine Air Force as

placed in possession # virtue of an order of the Court upon depositing the

provisional amount as fi!ed # the Provincial Appraisal Committee ith the Provincial

3reasurer of

Pampanga ...

If Castellvi had agreed to receive the rentals from &une <, 1'(6 to August 1<, 1'(', she should #e

considered as having alloed her land to #e leased to the "epu#lic until August 1<, 1'(', and she

could not at the same time #e entitled to the pament of interest during the same period on the

amount aarded her as the +ust compensation of her land. 3he "epu#lic, therefore, should pa

Castellvi interest at the rate of 6 per annum on the value of her land, minus the provisional value

that as deposited, onl from &ul 1<, 1'(' hen it deposited in court the provisional value of the

land.

;. 3he fourth error assigned # the "epu#lic relates to the denial # the loer court of its motion for

a ne trial #ased on nearl discovered evidence. 7e do not find merit in this assignment of error.



After the loer court had decided this case on )a 26, 1'61, the "epu#lic filed a motion for a ne

trial, supplemented # another motion, #oth #ased upon the ground of nel discovered evidence.

3he alleged nel discovered evidence in the motion filed on &une 21, 1'61 as a deed of a#solute

sale-e!ecuted on &anuar 2(, 1'61, shoing that a certain erafin Francisco had sold to Pa#lo /.

Narciso a parcel of sugar land having an area of 1<<,<<< s9uare meters ith a sugar 9uota of 1<<

piculs, covered # P.A. No. 18<1, situated in 0arrio Fortuna, Florida#lanca, for P1;,<<<, or P.1; pers9uare meter.

In the supplemental motion, the alleged nel discovered evidence ere $1% a deed of sale of some

(,<<< s9uare meters of land situated at Florida#lanca for P8,(<<.<< $or a#out P.21 per s9uare

meter% e!ecuted in &ul, 1'(', # the spouses veln >. /aird and Cornelio 4. /aird in favor of

spouses 0ienvenido . Aguas and &osefina . Aguas and $2% a deed of a#solute sale of a parcel of

land having an area of ;,12<,1<1 s9uare meters, including the sugar 9uota covered # Plantation

Audit No. 161 1;(, situated at Florida#lanca, Pampanga, for P=6<.<< per hectare $a little less than

P.<' per s9uare meter% e!ecuted on ?cto#er 22, 1'(8 # &esus 3oledo )endo5a in favor of the

/and 3enure Administration.

7e find that the loer court acted correctl hen it denied the motions for a ne trial.

3o arrant the granting of a ne trial #ased on the ground of nel discovered evidence, it must

appear that the evidence as discovered after the trial that even ith the e!ercise of due diligence,

the evidence could not have #een discovered and produced at the trial and that the evidence is of

such a nature as to alter the result of the case if admitted. &2 3he loer court correctl ruled that these

re9uisites ere not complied ith.

3he loer court, in a ell-reasoned order, found that the sales made # erafin Francisco to Pa#lo

Narciso and that made # &esus 3oledo to the /and 3enure Administration ere immaterial and

irrelevant, #ecause those sales covered sugarlands ith sugar 9uotas, hile the lands sought to #ee!propriated in the instant case are residential lands. 3he loer court also concluded that the land

sold # the spouses /aird to the spouses Aguas as a sugar land.

7e agree ith the trial court. In eminent domain proceedings, in order that evidence as to the sale

price of other lands ma #e admitted in evidence to prove the fair mar:et value of the land sought to

#e e!propriated, the lands must, among other things, #e shon to #e similar.

0ut even assuming, $ratia ar$uenti , that the lands mentioned in those deeds of sale ere

residential, the evidence ould still not arrant the grant of a ne trial, for said evidence could have

#een discovered and produced at the trial, and the cannot #e considered nel discovered

evidence as contemplated in ection 1$#% of "ule 8 of the "ules of Court. "egarding this point, thetrial court said

3he Court ill no sho that there as no reasona#le diligence emploed.

3he land descri#ed in the deed of sale e!ecuted # erafin Francisco, cop of hich

is attached to the original motion, is covered # a Certificate of 3itle issued # the

?ffice of the "egister of >eeds of Pampanga. 3here is no 9uestion in the mind of the



court #ut this document passed through the ?ffice of the "egister of >eeds for the

purpose of transferring the title or annotating the sale on the certificate of title. It is

true that Fiscal /agman ent to the ?ffice of the "egister of >eeds to chec:

conveances hich ma #e presented in the evidence in this case as it is no

sought to #e done # virtue of the motions at #ar, Fiscal /agman, one of the laers

of the plaintiff, did not e!ercise reasona#le diligence as re9uired # the rules. 3heassertion that he onl ent to the office of the "egister of >eeds Bno and thenB to

chec: the records in that office onl shos the half-ha5ard JsicK manner # hich the

plaintiff loo:ed for evidence to #e presented during the hearing #efore the

Commissioners, if it is at all true that Fiscal /agman did hat he is supposed to have

done according to olicitor Padua. It ould have #een the easiest matter for plaintiff

to move for the issuance of a su#poena duces tecu directing the "egister of >eeds

of Pampanga to come to testif and to #ring ith him all documents found in his

office pertaining to sales of land in Florida#lanca ad+acent to or near the lands in

9uestion e!ecuted or recorded from 1'(= to the present. ven this elementar

precaution as not done # plaintiffBs numerous attornes.

3he same can #e said of the deeds of sale attached to the supplementar motion.

3he refer to lands covered # certificate of title issued # the "egister of >eeds of

Pampanga. For the same reason the could have #een easil discovered if

reasona#le diligence has #een e!erted # the numerous laers of the plaintiff in this

case. It is noteorth that all these deeds of sale could #e found in several

government offices, namel, in the ?ffice of the "egister of >eeds of Pampanga, the

?ffice of the Provincial Assessor of Pampanga, the ?ffice of the Cler: of Court as a

part of notarial reports of notaries pu#lic that ac:noledged these documents, or in

the archives of the National /i#rar. In respect to Anne! B0B of the supplementar

motion cop of the document could also #e found in the ?ffice of the /and 3enure

Administration, another government entit. An laer ith a modicum of a#ilithandling this e!propriation case ould have right aa though JsicK of digging up

documents diligentl shoing conveances of lands near or around the parcels of

land sought to #e e!propriated in this case in the offices that ould have naturall

come to his mind such as the offices mentioned a#ove, and had counsel for the

movant reall e!ercised the reasona#le diligence re9uired # the "uleB undou#tedl

the ould have #een a#le to find these documents andor caused the issuance of

su#poena duces tecum. ...

It is also recalled that during the hearing #efore the Court of the "eport and

"ecommendation of the Commissioners and o#+ection thereto, olicitor Padua made

the o#servation

I understand, our Eonor, that there as a sale that too: place in this place of land

recentl here the land as sold for P<.2< hich is contiguous to this land.

3he Court gave him permission to su#mit said document su#+ect to the approval of

the Court. ... 3his as #efore the decision as rendered, and later promulgated on

)a 26, 1'61 or ore than one onth after olicitor Padua made the a#ove



o#servation. Ee could have, therefore, chec:ed up the alleged sale and moved for a

reopening to adduce further evidence. Ee did not do so. Ee forgot to present the

evidence at a more propitious time. No, he see:s to introduce said evidence under

the guise of nel-discovered evidence. Gnfortunatel the Court cannot classif it as

nel-discovered evidence, #ecause tinder the circumstances, the correct

9ualification that can #e given is Bforgotten evidenceB. Forgotten hoever, is notnel-discovered

evidence. &&

3he granting or denial of a motion for ne trial is, as a general rule, discretionar ith the trial court,

hose +udgment should not #e distur#ed unless there is a clear shoing of a#use of discretion. &4 7e

do not see an a#use of discretion on the part of the loer court hen it denied the motions for a ne

trial.

7E"F?", the decision appealed from is modified, as follos

$a% the lands of appellees Carmen *da. de Castellvi and )aria Nieves 3oledo-4o5un,

as descri#ed in the complaint, are declared e!propriated for pu#lic use

$#% the fair mar:et value of the lands of the appellees is fi!ed at P(.<< per s9uare

meter

$c% the "epu#lic must pa appellee Castellvi the sum of P,8'6,;'(.<< as +ust

compensation for her one parcel of land that has an area of 8(',2'' s9uare meters,

minus the sum of P1(1,=('.=< that she ithdre out of the amount that as

deposited in court as the provisional value of the land, ith interest at the rate of 6

per annum from &ul 1<, 1'(' until the da full pament is made or deposited in

court

$d% the "epu#lic must pa appellee 3oledo-4o5un the sum of P2,6'(,22(.<< as the

+ust compensation for her to parcels of land that have a total area of (',<;(

s9uare meters, minus the sum of P1<8,=<'.<< that she ithdre out of the amount

that as deposited in court as the provisional value of her lands, ith interest at the

rate of 6, per annum from &ul 1<, 1'(' until the da full pament is made or

deposited in court $e% the attorneBs lien of Att. Al#erto Cacnio is enforced and

$f% the costs should #e paid # appellant "epu#lic of the Philippines, as provided in

ection 12, "ule 68, and in ection 1, "ule 1;1, of the "ules of Court.

I3 I ? ?">">.

Ma)alintal' C.*.' +arredo' Antonio' ,s$uerra' ernandez' Muoz /ala and Aquino' **.' concur.

Castro' ernando' !eehan)ee and Ma)asiar' **.' too) no part.



Foot(ot)s

1 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. (-(6.

2 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. (-(6.

"ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. 121-12;.

; "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. 2(-261.

( "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. 26;-28<, 2=;-2'8 and 2'8-2''.

6 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pp. =8-;(6.

8 AppellantBs #rief, pp. 1=-< citing the case of Penn. vs. Carolina *irginia state

Corp., (8 2d =18.

= Appellee CastellviBs #rief, pp. 21-26.

' Appellee 3oledo-4o5unBs #rief, pp. 8-'. 3he issue raised in the second error

assigned should reall refer onl to the land of Castellvi. 7e find that the lands of

3oledo-4o5un, unli:e the land of Castellvi, ere never leased to the "epu#lic.

1< AppellantBs #rief, pp. 6-12.

11 AppellantBs #rief, p. 12.

12 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. II, pp. ;62-;6.

1 Among the cases cited under this ection is that of Penn. vs. Carolina *irginia

Coastal Corporation, (8 2d =18, hich is cited # the "epu#lic on p. 1= of its

#rief.

1; ee AppellantBs #rief, p. 6.

1( ee AppellantBs #rief, p. 22.

16 imilar to ection (, "ule 6' of the old "ules of Court, the rule in force hen the

complaint in this case as filed.

18 Oing vs. )ineapolis Gnion "aila Co., 2 )inn. 22;.

1= /ittle "oc: &unction ". vs. 7oodruff, ;' Ar:. =1 ( 7 8'2.

1' 28 Am. &ur. 2d pp. ;;-;( "othnam vs. Commonealth, ;<6 Pa. 86 7ichita

Falls and N.7. ". Co. vs. Eolloman, 2= ?:la. ;1', 11; P 8<<, 8<1. ee also



"epu#lic vs. *enturan5a, et al.,

/-2<;18, )a <,1'66, 18 C"A 22, 1.

2< >ecision of the loer court pp. ;;;-;;(, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.

21 >ecision of the loer court, pp. ;;6-;;', "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.

22 >ecision in the Narciso case, !hi#it E for the "epu#lic.

2 ee page ;81, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. II, and page ;1, AppellantBs 0rief.

2; Page 1<-16, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.

2( "epu#lic of the Philippines vs. Grtula, 11< Phil. 262-26;.

26 "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I, pages 2(8-26<.

28 /oer courtBs decision, p. ;(;, "ecord on Appeal, *ol. I.

2= ee also )anila "ailroad Compan vs. *elas9ue5, 2 Phil. 2=6 and Cit of

)anila vs. strada, 2( Phil. 2<=.

2' Cit of Ce#u vs. /edesma, 1; C"A 666, 66'.

< In 1'(' the mone value of to pesos $P2.<<%, Philippine currenc, as e9ual to

one G.. dollar $1.<<%. As pu#lished in the @>ail !press@ of August 6, 1'8;, the

Philippine National 0an: announced that the inter-#an: guiding rate as P6.8( to

one G.. dollar $1,<<%.

1 Civil Case No. 1(;=.

2 ec. 1 $#% of "ule 8 of the "ules of Court.

"ecord on Appeal, *ol. 11, pp. 6<8-61.

; )iranda vs. /egaspi, et al., '2 Phil. 2'<, 2'-2';.

Documents

Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336