7/28/2019 Republic+vs+Castellvi
1/1
Republic vs. Vda. de Castellvi
GR L-20620, 15 August 1974En Banc, Zaldivar (J): 7 concur, 4
took no part
FACTS:1 July1947 - Petitioner Republic of the Philippines
(Philippine Air Force) occupied the land situated in
Floridablanca, Pampanga of Carmen M. vda. de
Castellvi, the judicial administratrix of the estate of
the late Alfonso de Castellvi since by virtue of a
contract of lease.
30 June 1956 - Before the expiration of the contract
of lease, the Republic sought to renew the same but
Castellvi refused, intending to subdivide the lots for
sale to the general public; filed civil case for
ejectment of AFP.
26 June 1959In view of the difficulty for the army
to vacate the premises due to permanent installations
and other facilities, AFP filed expropriationproceedings and was
placed in possession of the
lands on 10 August 1959.
In its complaint, the Republic alleged, among other
things, that the fair market value of the above-
mentioned lands, according to the Committee on
Appraisal for the Province of Pampanga, was not
more than P2,000 per hectare (P.20/sqm), or a total
market value of P259,669.10 when AFP first had the
taking of the said property by virtue of the special
lease agreement. Respondents allege that their lands
are residential with a fair market value of not less
than P15/sqm.
The trial court rendered its decision, finding that the
unanimous recommendation of the commissioners of
P10.00 per square meter for the 3 lots subject of the
action is fair and just compensation
ISSUE:1. WON the taking of the properties under
expropriation commenced with the filing of the
action
2. WON the P10/sqm is fair and just compensation.HELD:1. The
"taking" of Catellvi's property for purposes
of eminent domain cannot be considered to have
taken place in 1947 when the Republic
commenced to occupy the property as lessee.
Elements B & E were not present when Republic
entered the properties in 1947.
Elements/Requisites of taking of property for
purposes of eminent domain:
A. Expropriator must enter a private property.B. Entrance into
private property must be for more
than a momentary period.
C. Entry into the property should be under warrantor color of
legal authority.
D. Property must be devoted to a public use orotherwise
informally appropriated or injuriously
affected.
E. Utilization of the property for public use must bein such a
way as to oust the owner and deprive
him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
2. Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules ofCourt, the just
compensation is to be
determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint.
This Court has ruled that when the taking of the
property sought to be expropriated coincides with the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or
takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaintfor eminent
domain, the just compensation should be
determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint. Herein, it is undisputed that the Republic
was placed in possession of the Castellvi property, by
authority of the court, on 10 August 1959.
The taking of the Castellvi property for the
purposes of determining the just compensation to be
paid should not be paid based on 1947 fair market
value amount.
Basic guidelines in determining the value of the
land to be expropriated: Same considerations are to be regarded
as in a
sale of property between private parties.
Estimated by reference to the use for which theproperty is
suitable, having regard to the existing
business or wants of the community, or such as
may be reasonably expected in the immediate
future.
In expropriation proceedings, therefore, the owner of
the land has the right to its value for the use for
which it would bring the most in the market.
We have arrived at the conclusion that the price ofP10/sqm is
quite high. The price of P5/sqm would be
a fair valuation and would constitute a just
compensation. We considered the resolution of the
Provincial Committee on Appraisal of the province of
Pampanga informing, that in the year 1959 the lands
could be sold for from P2.50- P4/sqm, and the Court
arrived at a happy medium between the price as
recommended by the commissioners and approved by
the court, and the price advocated by the Republic.
