rem2 cases rule 67

8/9/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 67

1/35

Remedial Law Review 2 || Rule 67: Expropria tion

G.R. No. 142304 June 20, 2001

CITY OF MANILA, petitioner, vs.OSCAR, FELICITAS, JOSE, BENJAMIN,ESTELITA, LEONORA AND ADELAIDA, ALL SURNAMED SERRANO,respondents.

Mendoz, J .!

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated November 1, 1!!!,and reso"#tion, dated $ebr#ar% &', &(((, of the )o#rt of Appea"s reversin* the

order, dated December 1+, 1!!, of the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt, -ranch 1, Mani"aand perpet#a""% enoinin* it from proceedin* with the petitioner/s comp"aint for eminent domain in )ivi" )ase No. !02&&&.

The facts are as fo""ows3

4n December &1, 1!!', the )it% )o#nci" of Mani"a enacted the 4rdinance No.2'', a#thori5in* the e6propriation of certain properties in Mani"a /s $irst District inTondo, covered b% T)T Nos. 2(!, 1(+&(1, 1(+&(&, and 1'&2' of the Re*ister of Deeds of Mani"a, which are to be so"d and distrib#ted to 7#a"ified occ#pantsp#rs#ant to the Land Use Deve"opment 8ro*ram of the )it% of Mani"a.

4ne of the properties so#*ht to be e6propriated, denominated as Lot 1), consistsof '0'.1( s7#are meters. 9t is covered b% T)T No. 1'&2& which was derived fromT)T No. 2(! iss#ed in the name of $e"i5a De :#ia. 1 After her death, the estateof $e"i5a De :#ia was sett"ed amon* her heirs b% virt#e of a compromisea*reement, which was d#"% approved b% the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt, -ranch +',Mani"a in its decision, dated Ma% , 1!.& 9n 1!!, A"berto De :#ia, one of theheirs of $e"i5a De :#ia, died, as a res#"t of which his estate, consistin* of his sharein the properties "eft b% his mother, was partitioned amon* his heirs. Lot 1) wasassi*ned to Ed*ardo De :#ia, one of the heirs of A"berto De :#ia.' 4n Apri" 1+,1!!0, Ed*ardo De :#ia was iss#ed T)T No. &1++!', coverin* Lot 1). 0 4n ;#"%&!, 1!!0, the said propert% was transferred to Lee of T)T No. &&(0, re*ardin* the pendenc% of )ivi" )ase No. !02&&&. for eminent domain fi"ed b% petitioner.!

Upon motion b% petitioner, the tria" co#rt iss#ed an order, dated 4ctober !, 1!!,directin* petitioner to deposit the amo#nt of 8",&+,&01.(( e7#iva"ent to theassessed va"#e of the properties.1( After petitioner had made the deposit, the tria"co#rt iss#ed another order, dated December 1+, 1!!, directin* the iss#ance of awrit of possession in favor of petitioner.""

Respondents fi"ed a petition for certiorari with the )o#rt of Appea"s, a""e*in* that thee6propriation of Lot ") wo#"d render respondents, who are act#a" occ#pantsthereof, "and"ess that Lot ") is e6empt from e6propriation beca#se R.A. No. 2&2!

provides that properties consistin* of residentia" "ands not e6ceedin* '(( s7#aremeters in hi*h"% #rbani5ed cities are e6empt from e6propriations that respondentswo#"d on"% receive aro#nd 0! s7#are meters each after the partition of Lot ")which consists of on"% '0'.1( s7#are meters and that R.A. No. 2&2! was notmeant to deprive an owner of the entire residentia" "and b#t on"% that in e6cess of '(( s7#are meters.1&

4n November 1, 1!!!, the )o#rt of Appea"s rendered a decision ho"din* that Lot") is not e6empt from e6propriation beca#se it #ndeniab"% e6ceeds '(( s7#aremeters which is no "on*er considered a sma"" propert% within the framewor> of R.A.No. 2&2!. =owever, it he"d that in accordance with the r#"in* in FilstreamInternational Inc. v. Court of Appeals,1' the other modes of ac7#isition of "andsen#merated in BB!1( of the "aw m#st first be tried b% the cit% *overnment before itcan resort to e6propriation. As petitioner fai"ed to show that it had done so, the

)o#rt of Appea"s *ave #d*ment for respondents and enoined petitioner frome6propriatin* Lot 1). The dispositive portion of its decision reads3

C=ERE$4RE, in view of a"" the fore*oin*, the instant petition is hereb% :9ENDUE )4URSE and accordin*"% :RANTED. The 4rder, dated December 1+, 1!!,den%in* petitioner/s motion for reconsideration iss#ed b% the respondent Re*iona"Tria" )o#rt of Mani"a, -ranch 1, in )ivi" )ase No. !02&&& is hereb% REERSEDand SET AS9DE. Let a writ of in#nction iss#e perpet#a""% enoinin* the samerespondent co#rt from proceedin* with the comp"aint for eminent domain in )ivi")ase No. !02&&&,10

9n its reso"#tion, dated $ebr#ar% &', &(((, the )o#rt of Appea"s "i>ewise denied twomotions for reconsideration fi"ed b% petitioner."+ =ence this petition. 8etitioner contends that the )o#rt of Appea"s erred in

1@ :ivin* d#e co#rse to the petition of the Serranos #nder R#"e + notwithstandin*its own dec"aration of the impropriet% of the resort to the writ and fi"in* thereof withthe wron* appe""ate co#rt

&@ )onc"#din* that the 4rder of 4ctober !, 1!! which a#thori5es the immediateentr% of the )it% as the e6propriatin* a*enc% into the propert% so#*h to bee6propriated #pon the deposit of the provisiona""% fi6ed fair mar>et va"#e thereof astantamo#nt to condemnation of the propert% witho#t prior showin* of comp"iancewith the ac7#isition of other "ands en#merated in Sec. ! of R.A. 2&2! er*o avio"ation of d#e process of the Serranos b% the doctrinaire app"ication of $9LSTREAM r#"in* and corro""ari"%,

'@ 9n prohibitin* permanent"%, b% writ of in#nction, the tria" co#rt from proceedin*with a comp"aint for e6propriation of the )it% in )ivi" )ase No. !02&&&.1

Ce wi"" dea" with these contentions in the order the% are presented.


2/35


First. 8etitioner contends that the respondents/ remed% a*ainst the order of the tria"co#rt *rantin* a writ of possession was not to fi"e a petition for certiorari #nder R#"e+ b#t a petition for review #nder R#"e 0+ which sho#"d have been fi"ed in theS#preme )o#rt.12

This contention has no merit. A petition for review #nder R#"e 0+ is a mode of appea". Accordin*"%, it co#"d not have been resorted to b% the respondentsinasm#ch as the order of the tria" co#rt *rantin* a writ of possession was mere"%inter"oc#tor% from which no appea" co#"d be ta>en. R#"e 0+, B1 of the 1!!2 R#"es

for )ivi" 8roced#re app"ies on"% to fina" #d*ments or orders of the )o#rt of Appea"s,the Sandi*anba%an, and the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt. 4n the other hand, a petition for certiorari is the s#itab"e remed% in view of R#"e +, B1 which provides3

Chen an% trib#na", board or officer e6ercisin* #dicia" or 7#asi#dicia" f#nctions hasacted witho#t or in e6cess of its or his #risdiction, or with *rave ab#se of discretionamo#ntin* to "ac> or e6cess of #risdiction, and there is no appea", nor an% p"ain,speed%, and ade7#ate remed% in the ordinar% co#rse of "aw, a person a**rievedthereb% ma% fi"e a verified petition in the proper co#rt, a""e*in* the facts withcertain"% and pra%in* that #d*ment be rendered ann#""in* or modif%in* theproceedin*s of s#ch trib#na", board or officer, and *rantin* s#ch incidenta" re"iefsas "aws and #stice ma% re7#ire.

Respondents/ petition before the )o#rt of Appea"s a""e*ed that the tria" co#rt hadacted witho#t or in e6cess of its #risdiction or with *rave ab#se of discretion

amo#ntin* to "ac> of #risdiction in iss#in* the order, dated December 1+, 1!!,reso"vin* that Lot 1) is not e6empt from e6propriation and orderin* the iss#ance of the writ of possession in favor of petitioner.1

Second. 8etitioner fa#"ts the )o#rt of Appea"s for decidin* iss#es not raised in thetria" co#rt, specifica""% the 7#estion of whether or not there was comp"iance with BB!and 1( of RA. No. 2&2!. 9t ar*#es that the so"e defense set #p b% respondents intheir petition before the )o#rt of Appea"s was that their propert% was e6emptedfrom e6propriation beca#se it comes within the p#rview of a sma"" propert% asdefined b% R.A. No. 2&2! . Accordin*"%, the )o#rt of Appea"s sho#"d not haveapp"ied the doctrine "aid down b% this )o#rt in the Filstream1! case as s#ch iss#ewas not raised b% respondents in their petition before the )o#rt of Appea"s.

This contention "i>ewise has no merit. 9n their petition before the )o#rt of Appea"s,

respondents raised the fo""owin* iss#es31. Chether or not the s#bect Lot 1) with an area of '0'.1( s7#are meterscovered b% T.).T. No. &&(0 in the name of petitioners/ mother, the "ate DemetriaFDe :#iaG Serrano, ma% be "awf#""% e6propriated for the p#b"ic p#rpose of providin* "and"ess occ#pants thereof home"ots of their own #nder the "andforthe"and"ess pro*ram of respondent )it% of Mani"a.

&. Chether or not the e6propriation of the said Lot ") b% respondent )it% of Mani"avio"ates the e7#a" protection c"a#se of the )onstit#tion, since petitioners, with thee6emption of petitioner 4scar :. Serranno, who are "i>ewise "and"ess are act#a"occ#pants hereof.

'. Chether or not Lot 1) is or ma% be e6empted from e6propriation p#rs#ant toR.A. 2&2!, otherwise >nown as the Urban Deve"opment and =o#sin* Act of 1!!&.&(

9t is c"ear that respondents raised in iss#e the propriet% of the e6propriation of their

propert% in connection with RA. No. 2&2!. A"tho#*h what was disc#ssed at "en*th intheir petition before the )o#rt of Appea"s was whether or not the said propert%co#"d be considered a sma"" propert% within the p#rview of the e6emption #nder thesaid "aw, the other provisions of the said "aw concernin* e6propriation proceedin*sneed a"so be "oo>ed into to address the first iss#e raised b% the respondents and todetermine whether or not e6propriation of Lot 1) was proper #nder thecirc#mstances. The )o#rt of Appea"s proper"% considered re"evant provisions of R A. No.2&2! to determine the iss#es raised b% respondents. Chether or not itcorrect"% app"ied the doctrine "aid down in Filstream in reso"vin* the iss#es raisedb% respondents, however, is a different matter a"to*ether, and this brin*s #s to thene6t point.

Third. 8etitioner contends that the )o#rt of Appea"s erroneo#s"% pres#med that Lot1) has been ordered condemned in its favor when the fact is that the order of thetria" co#rt, dated December 1+, 1!!, mere"% a#thori5ed the iss#ance of a writ of possession and petitioner/s entr% into the propert% p#rs#ant to R#"e 2, B&. At thatsta*e, it was premat#re to determine whether the re7#irements of RA. No. 2&2!,BB! 1( have been comp"ied with since no evidentiar% hearin* had %et beencond#cted b% the tria" co#rt.&1

This contention is we"" ta>en. R#"e 2, B& provides3

Upon the fi"in* of the comp"aint or at an% time thereafter and after d#e notice to thedefendant, the p"aintiff sha"" have the ri*ht to ta>e or enter #pon possession of the

rea" propert% invo"ved if he deposits with the a#thori5ed *overnment depositor% anamo#nt e7#iva"ent to the assessed va"#e of the propert% for p#rposes of ta6ation tobe he"d b% s#ch ban> s#bect to the orders of the co#rt. S#ch deposit sha"" be inmone%, #n"ess in "ie# thereof the co#rt a#thori5es the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a *overnment ban> of the Rep#b"ic of the 8hi"ippines pa%ab"e ondemand to the a#thori5ed *overnment depositar%.

9f persona" propert% is invo"ved, its va"#e sha"" be provisiona""% ascertained and theamo#nt to be deposited sha"" be fi6ed b% the co#rt.

After s#ch deposit is made the co#rt sha"" order the sheriff or other proper officer toforthwith p"ace the p"aintiff in possession of the propert% invo"ved and prompt"%s#bmit a report thereof to the co#rt with service of copies to the parties.

Th#s, a writ of e6ec#tion ma% be iss#ed b% a co#rt #pon the fi"in* b% the

*overnment of a comp"aint for e6propriation s#fficient in form and s#bstance and#pon deposit made b% the *overnment of the amo#nt e7#iva"ent to the assessedva"#e of the propert% s#bect to e6propriation. Upon comp"iance with thesere7#irements, the iss#ance of the writ of possession becomes ministeria".&& 9n thiscase, these re7#irements were satisfied and, therefore, it became the ministeria"d#t% of the co#rt to iss#e the writ of possession.

The )o#rt of Appea"s, however, r#"ed that petitioner fai"ed to comp"% with there7#irements "aid down in BB! 1( of RA. No. 2&2! and reiterated in Filstreamr#"in*. This is error. The r#"in* in the Filstream was necessitated beca#se an order of condemnation had a"read% been iss#ed b% the tria" co#rt in that case. Th#s, the #d*ment in that case had a"read% become fina". 9n this case, the tria" co#rt has not*one be%ond the iss#ance of a writ of possession. =earin* is sti"" to be he"d todetermine whether or not petitioner indeed comp"ied with the re7#irements

provided in RA. No. 2&2!. 9t is, therefore, premat#re at this sta*e of the


3/35


proceedin*s to find that petitioner resorted e6propriation witho#t first tr%in* theother modes of ac7#isition en#merated in B 1( of the "aw.

RA. No 2&2! in pertinent parts provide3

SE). !. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land… Lands for socia"i5ed ho#sin* sha"" beac7#ired in the fo""owin* order3

?a@ Those owned b% the :overnment or an% of its s#bdivisions, instr#menta"ities, or a*encies, inc"#din* *overnment owned and contro""ed corporations and their

s#bsidiaries?b@ A"ienab"e "ands of the p#b"ic domain

?c@ Unre*istered or abandoned and id"e "ands

?d@ Those within the dec"ares Areas or 8riorit% Deve"opment, Hone 9mprovement8ro*ram sites, and S"#m 9mprovement and Resett"ement 8ro*rams sites whichhave not %et been ac7#ired

?e@ -a*on* Lip#nan 9mprovement and Sites and Services or -L9SS sites whichhave not %et been ac7#ired, and

?f@ 8rivate"%owned "ands.

Chere onsite deve"opment is fo#nd more practicab"e and advanta*eo#s"% to thebeneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section sha"" not app"%. The "oca"*overnment #nits sha"" *ive b#d*etar% priorit% onsite deve"opment of *overnment"ands.

SE). 1(. Modes of Lands Acquisition. The modes of ac7#irin* "ands for p#rposesof this Act sha"" inc"#de, amo#nt others, comm#nit% mort*a*e, "and swappin*, "andassemb"% or conso"idation, "and ban>in*, donation to the :overnment, ointvent#rea*reement, ne*otiated p#rchase, and e6propriation3 Provided, hoever! Thate6propriation sha"" be resorted to on"% when other modes of ac7#isition have beene6ha#sted3 Provided, further! That were e6propriation is resorted to, parce"s of "andowned b% sma"" propert% owners sha"" be e6empted for p#rposes of this Act3Provided finall", That abandoned propert%, as herein defined, sha"" be reverted andescheated to the State in a proceedin* ana"o*o#s to the proced#re "aid down inR#"e !1 of the R#"es of )o#rt.

$or the p#rpose of socia"i5ed ho#sin*, *overnmentowned and forec"osed

properties sha"" be ac7#ired b% the "oca" *overnment #nits, or b% the Nationa"=o#sin* A#thorit% primari"% thro#*h ne*otiated p#rchase3 Provided, That 7#a"ifiedbeneficiaries who are act#a" occ#pants of the "ands sha"" be *iven the ri*ht of firstref#sa".

Chether petitioner has comp"ied with these provisions re7#ires the presentation of evidence, a"tho#*h in its amended comp"aint petitioner did a""e*e that it hadcomp"ied with the re7#irements.&' The determination of this 7#estion m#st awaitthat hearin* on the comp"aint for e6propriation, partic#"ar"% the hearin* for thecondemnation of the properties so#*ht to be e6propriated. E6propriationproceedin*s consist of two sta*es3 first, condemnation of the propert% after it isdetermined that its ac7#isition wi"" be for a p#b"ic p#rpose or p#b"ic #se and,second, the determination of #st compensation to be paid for the ta>in* of theprivate propert% to be made b% the co#rt with the assistance of not more than three

commissioners.&0

C=ERE$4RE, the decision, dated November 1,1!!!, and reso"#tion, dated$ebr#ar% &', &(((, of the )o#rt of Appea"s are REERSED and the order of thetria" co#rt, dated December 1+,1!!, is RE9NSTATED. This case is REMANDED tothe tria" co#rt to f#rther proceedin*s.#$phi#.n%t

S4 4RDERED.


4/35


5/35


N8) appea"ed to the )o#rt of Appea"s. 4n '( March 1!!&, the )o#rt of Appea"s#phe"d the decision of the tria" co#rt b#t de"eted the award of attorne%/s fees. Thedispositive portion of the decision reads3

C=ERE$4RE, b% reason of the fore*oin*, the Decision appea"ed from is A$$9RMED with the modification that the award of attorne%/s fees is de"eted. Noprono#ncement as to costs.

S4 4RDERED.1(

The )o#rt of Appea"s denied N8)/s motion for reconsideration in a Reso"#tiondated 10 A#*#st 1!!&.

T*e Ru-n$ o &*e T/- Cou/&

9n its !pa*e decision, the tria" co#rt reco#nted in *reat detai" the sca"e and scopeof the dama*e N8) inf"icted on the 8ropert% that 8obre had deve"oped into aresorts#bdivision. 8obre/s 8ropert% s#ffered permanent in#r% beca#se of thenoise, water, air and "and po""#tion *enerated b% N8)/s *eotherma" p"ants. Theconstr#ction and operation of the *eotherma" p"ants drastica""% chan*ed thetopo*raph% of the 8ropert% ma>in* it no "on*er viab"e as a resorts#bdivision. Thechemica"s emitted b% the *eotherma" p"ants dama*ed the nat#ra" reso#rces in the8ropert% and endan*ered the "ives of the residents.

N8) did not on"% ta>e the ,'11.( s7#aremeter portion of the 8ropert%, b#t a"sothe remainin* area of the ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert%. N8) had rendered8obre/s entire 8ropert% #se"ess as a resorts#bdivision. The 8ropert% has become#sef#" on"% to N8). N8) m#st therefore ta>e 8obre/s entire 8ropert% and pa% for it.

The tria" co#rt fo#nd the fo""owin* bad*es of N8)/s bad faith3 ?1@ N8) a""owed five%ears to pass before it moved for the dismissa" of the second e6propriation case?&@ N8) did not act on 8obre/s p"ea for N8) to e"iminate or at "east red#ce thedama*e to the 8ropert% and ?'@ N8) sin*"ed o#t 8obre/s 8ropert% for piecemea"e6propriation when N8) co#"d have e6propriated other properties which were notaffected in their entiret% b% N8)/s operation.

The tria" co#rt fo#nd the #st compensation to be 8+( per s7#are meter or a tota" of 8',00,0+( for 8obre/s ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert%. N8) fai"ed to contest thisva"#ation. Since N8) was in bad faith and it emp"o%ed di"ator% tactics to pro"on*this case, the tria" co#rt imposed "e*a" interest on the 8',00,0+( from

September 1!2! #nti" f#"" pa%ment. The tria" co#rt awarded 8obre attorne%/s fees of 81+(,(((.

T*e Ru-n$ o &*e Cou/& o Ae%

The )o#rt of Appea"s affirmed the decision of the tria" co#rt. =owever, the appe""ateco#rt de"eted the award of attorne%/s fees beca#se 8obre did not proper"% p"ead for it.

T*e I%%ue%

N8) c"aims that the )o#rt of Appea"s committed the fo""owin* errors that warrantreversa" of the appe""ate co#rt/s decision3

1. 9n not ann#""in* the appea"ed Decision for havin* been rendered b% the tria" co#rtwith *rave ab#se of discretion and witho#t #risdiction

&. 9n ho"din* that N8) had ta>en the entire 8ropert% of 8obre

'. Ass#min* ar*#endo that there was ta>in* of the entire 8ropert%, in note6c"#din* from the 8ropert% the ,'11.( s7#aremeter portion N8) had previo#s"%e6propriated and paid for

0. 9n ho"din* that the amo#nt of #st compensation fi6ed b% the tria" co#rt at8

',00,0+(.(( with interest from September , 1!2! #nti" f#""% paid, is #st and fair

+. 9n not ho"din* that the #st compensation sho#"d be fi6ed at 8&+.(( per s7#aremeter on"% as what N8) and 8obre had previo#s"% m#t#a""% a*reed #pon and

. 9n not tota""% settin* aside the appea"ed Decision of the tria" co#rt.

11

Procedural Issues

N8), represented b% the 4ffice of the So"icitor :enera", insists that at the time thatit moved for the dismissa" of its comp"aint, 8obre had %et to serve an answer or amotion for s#mmar% #d*ment on N8). Th#s, N8) as p"aintiff had the ri*ht to movefor the a#tomatic dismissa" of its comp"aint. N8) re"ies on Section 1, R#"e 12 of the1!0 R#"es of )o#rt, the R#"es then in effect. N8) ar*#es that the dismissa" of thecomp"aint sho#"d have carried with it the dismissa" of the entire case inc"#din*8obre/s co#nterc"aim.

N8)/s be"ated attac> on 8obre/s c"aim for dama*es m#st fai". The tria" co#rt/sreservation of 8obre/s ri*ht to recover dama*es in the same case is a"read%be%ond review. The ;an#ar% 1!+ 4rder of the tria" co#rt attained fina"it% whenN8) fai"ed to move for its reconsideration within the 1+da% re*"ementar% period.N8) opposed the order on"% on &2 Ma% 1!+ or more than fo#r months from theiss#ance of the order.

Ce cannot fa#"t the )o#rt of Appea"s for not considerin* N8)/s obections a*ainstthe s#bsistence of 8obre/s c"aim for dama*es. N8) neither inc"#ded this iss#e in itsassi*nment of errors nor disc#ssed it in its appe""ant/s brief. N8) a"so fai"ed to7#estion the tria" co#rt/s ;an#ar% 1!+ 4rder in the petition for certiorari 1& it hadear"ier fi"ed with the )o#rt of Appea"s. 9t is on"% before this )o#rt that N8) nowvi*oro#s"% assai"s the preservation of 8obre/s c"aim for dama*es. )"ear"%, N8)/sopposition to the e6istence of 8obre/s c"aim for dama*es is a mere aftertho#*ht.R#"es of fair p"a%, #stice and d#e process dictate that parties cannot raise an iss#efor the first time on appea".1'

Ce m#st correct N8)/s c"aim that it fi"ed the notice of dismissa" #st short"% after it

had fi"ed the comp"aint for e6propriation. Chi"e N8) had intimated severa" times tothe tria" co#rt its desire to dismiss the e6propriation case it fi"ed on + September 1!2!,10 it was on"% on & ;an#ar% 1!+ that N8) fi"ed its notice of dismissa".1+ 9t too>N8) more than five %ears to act#a""% fi"e the notice of dismissa". $ive %ears isdefinite"% not a short period of time. N8) obvio#s"% di""%da""ied in fi"in* its notice of dismissa" whi"e N8) meanwhi"e b#rdened 8obre/s propert% ri*hts.

Even a time"% opposition a*ainst 8obre/s c"aim for dama*es wo#"d not %ie"d afavorab"e r#"in* for N8). 9t is not Section 1, R#"e 12 of the 1!0 R#"es of )o#rt thatis app"icab"e to this case b#t R#"e 2 of the same R#"es, as we"" as #rispr#denceon e6propriation cases. R#"e 12 referred to dismissa" of civi" actions in *enera"whi"e R#"e 2 specifica""% *overned eminent domain cases.

Eminent domain is the a#thorit% and ri*ht of the state, as soverei*n, to ta>e privatepropert% for p#b"ic #se #pon observance of d#e process of "aw and pa%ment of #st

compensation.1 The power of eminent domain ma% be va"id"% de"e*ated to the


6/35


"oca" *overnments, other p#b"ic entities and p#b"ic #ti"ities12 s#ch as N8).E6propriation is the proced#re for enforcin* the ri*ht of eminent domain.1 EminentDomain was the former tit"e of R#"e 2 of the 1!0 R#"es of )o#rt. 9n the 1!!2R#"es of )ivi" 8roced#re, which too> effect on 1 ;#"% 1!!2, the prescribed methodof e6propriation is sti"" fo#nd in R#"e 2, b#t its tit"e is now E6propriation.

Section 1, R#"e 12 of the 1!0 R#"es of )o#rt provided the e6ception to the *enera"r#"e that the dismissa" of the comp"aint is addressed to the so#nd discretion of theco#rt.1! $or as "on* as a"" of the e"ements of Section 1, R#"e 12 were present the

dismissa" of the comp"aint rested e6c"#sive"% on the p"aintiff/s wi"".&(

The defendin*part% and even the co#rts were power"ess to prevent the dismissa".&1 The co#rtsco#"d on"% accept and record the dismissa".&&

A p"ain readin* of Section 1, R#"e 12 of the 1!0 R#"es of )o#rt ma>es it obvio#sthat this r#"e was not intended to s#pp"ement R#"e 2 of the same R#"es. Section 1,R#"e 12 of the 1!0 R#"es of )o#rt, provided that3

SE)T94N 1. &ismissal '" the plaintiff. K An action ma% be dismissed b% thep"aintiff witho#t order of co#rt b% fi"in* a notice of dismissa" at an% time beforeservice of the answer or of a motion for s#mmar% #d*ment. Un"ess otherwisestated in the notice, the dismissa" is witho#t pre#dice, e6cept that a notice operatesas an ad#dication #pon the merits when fi"ed b% a p"aintiff who has once dismissedin a competent co#rt an action based on or inc"#din* the same c"aim. A c"ass s#itsha"" not be dismissed or compromised witho#t approva" of the co#rt.

Chi"e Section 1, R#"e 12 spo>e of the service of answer or s#mmar% #d*ment,the R#"es then did not re7#ire the fi"in* of an answer or s#mmar% #d*ment ineminent domain cases.&' 9n "ie# of an answer, Section ' of R#"e 2 re7#ired thedefendant to fi"e a sin*"e motion to dismiss where he sho#"d present a"" of hisobections and defenses to the ta>in* of his propert% for the p#rpose specified inthe comp"aint.&0 9n short, in e6propriation cases #nder Section ' of R#"e 2, themotion to dismiss too> the p"ace of the answer.

The records show that 8obre had a"read% fi"ed and served on N8) his motion todismissanswer&+ even before N8) fi"ed its own motion to dismiss. N8) fi"ed itsnotice of dismissa" of the comp"aint on & ;an#ar% 1!+. =owever, as ear"% as 1(December 1!0, 8obre had a"read% fi"ed with the tria" co#rt and served on N8) hismotion to dismissanswer. A certain Divina )ere"a received 8obre/s p"eadin* onbeha"f of N8).& Unfort#nate"% for N8), even Section 1, R#"e 12 of the 1!0 R#"esof )o#rt co#"d not save its ca#se.

N8) is in no position to invo>e Section 1, R#"e 12 of the 1!0 R#"es of )o#rt. Ap"aintiff "oses his ri*ht #nder this r#"e to move for the immediate dismissa" of thecomp"aint once the defendant had served on the p"aintiff the answer or a motion for s#mmar% #d*ment before the p"aintiff co#"d fi"e his notice of dismissa" of thecomp"aint.&2 8obre/s motion to dismissanswer, fi"ed and served wa% ahead of N8)/s motion to dismiss, ta>es the case o#t of Section 1, R#"e 12 ass#min* thesame app"ies.

9n e6propriation cases, there is no s#ch thin* as the p"aintiff/s matter of ri*ht todismiss the comp"aint precise"% beca#se the "andowner ma% have a"read% s#ffereddama*es at the start of the ta>in*. The p"aintiff/s ri*ht in e6propriation cases todismiss the comp"aint has a"wa%s been s#bect to co#rt approva" and to certain

conditions.&

The e6ceptiona" ri*ht that Section 1, R#"e 12 of the 1!0 R#"es of

)o#rt conferred on the p"aintiff m#st be #nderstood to have app"ied on"% to other civi" actions. The 1!!2 R#"es of )ivi" 8roced#re abro*ated this e6ceptiona" ri*ht.&!

The power of eminent domain is s#bect to "imitations. A "andowner cannot bedeprived of his ri*ht over his "and #nti" e6propriation proceedin*s are instit#ted inco#rt.'( The co#rt m#st then see to it that the ta>in* is for p#b"ic #se, there ispa%ment of #st compensation and there is d#e process of "aw.'1

9f the propriet% of the ta>in* of private propert% thro#*h eminent domain is s#bectto #dicia" scr#tin%, the dismissa" of the comp"aint m#st a"so pass #dicia" in7#ir%

beca#se private ri*hts ma% have s#ffered in the meantime. The dismissa",withdrawa" or abandonment of the e6propriation case cannot be made arbitrari"%. 9f it appears to the co#rt that the e6propriation is not for some p#b"ic #se,'& then itbecomes the d#t% of the co#rt to dismiss the action.'' =owever, when the defendantc"aims that his "and s#ffered dama*e beca#se of the e6propriation, the dismissa" of the action sho#"d not forec"ose the defendant/s ri*ht to have his dama*esascertained either in the same case or in a separate action.'0

Th#s, N8)/s theor% that the dismissa" of its comp"aint carried with it the dismissa" of 8obre/s c"aim for dama*es is base"ess. There is nothin* in R#"e 2 of the 1!0R#"es of )o#rt that provided for the dismissa" of the defendant/s c"aim for dama*es,#pon the dismissa" of the e6propriation case. )ase "aw ho"ds that in the event of dismissa" of the e6propriation case, the c"aim for dama*es ma% be made either in aseparate or in the same action, for a"" dama*es occasioned b% the instit#tion of the

e6propriation case.'+ The dismissa" of the comp"aint can be made #nder certainconditions, s#ch as the reservation of the defendant/s ri*ht to recover dama*eseither in the same or in another action.' The tria" co#rt in this case reserved8obre/s ri*ht to prove his c"aim in the same case, a reservation that has becomefina" d#e to N8)/s own fa#"t.

Factual Findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts Bind the Court

The tria" and appe""ate co#rts he"d that even before the first e6propriation case,8obre had a"read% estab"ished his 8ropert% as a resorts#bdivision. N8) hadwro#*ht so m#ch dama*e to the 8ropert% that N8) had made the 8ropert%#ninhabitab"e as a resorts#bdivision. N8)/s faci"ities s#ch as steam we""s, na*we""s, power p"ants, power "ines, and cana"s had hemmed in 8obre/s 8ropert%.N8)/s operations of its *eotherma" proect a"so posed a ris> to "ives and properties.

Ce #pho"d the fact#a" findin*s of the tria" and appe""ate co#rts. #estions of factsare be%ond the pa"e of R#"e 0+ of the R#"es of )o#rt as a petition for review ma%on"% raise 7#estions of "aw.'2 Moreover, fact#a" findin*s of the tria" co#rt, partic#"ar"%when affirmed b% the )o#rt of Appea"s, are *enera""% bindin* on this )o#rt. ' Ceth#s find no reason to set aside the two co#rts/ fact#a" findin*s.

N8) points o#t that it did not ta>e 8obre/s ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert%. N8)ar*#es that ass#min* that it is "iab"e for dama*es, the ,'11.( s7#aremeter portion that it had s#ccessf#""% e6propriated and f#""% paid for sho#"d have beene6c"#ded from the ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert% that 8obre c"aims N8) haddama*ed.

Ce are not pers#aded.

9n its '( 4ctober 1!2 4rder den%in* N8)/s motion for reconsideration, the tria"

co#rt pointed o#t that the 8ropert% ori*ina""% had a tota" area of 101,'(( s7#are


7/35


meters.'! 8obre converted the 8ropert% into a resorts#bdivision and so"d "ots to thep#b"ic. Chat remained of the "ots are the ,!! s7#are meters of "and. 0( 8obre no"on*er c"aimed dama*es for the other "ots that he had before the e6propriation.

8obre identified in co#rt the "ots formin* the ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert%. N8)had the opport#nit% to obect to the identification of the "ots. 01 N8), however, fai"edto do so. Th#s, we do not dist#rb the tria" and appe""ate co#rts/ findin* on the tota""and area N8) had dama*ed.

NPC must Pay Just Compensation for the Entire Property

4rdinari"%, the dismissa" of the e6propriation case restores possession of thee6propriated "and to the "andowner.0& =owever, when possession of the "and cannotbe t#rned over to the "andowner beca#se it is neither convenient nor feasib"ean%more to do so, the on"% remed% avai"ab"e to the a**rieved "andowner is todemand pa%ment of #st compensation.0'

9n this case, we a*ree with the tria" and appe""ate co#rts that it is no "on*er possib"eand practica" to restore possession of the 8ropert% to 8obre. The 8ropert% is no"on*er habitab"e as a resorts#bdivision. The 8ropert% is worth"ess to 8obre and isnow #sef#" on"% to N8). 8obre has comp"ete"% "ost the 8ropert% as if N8) hadph%sica""% ta>en over the entire ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert%.

9n United tates v! Caus"y ,00 the U.S. S#preme )o#rt r#"ed that when privatepropert% is rendered #ninhabitab"e b% an entit% with the power to e6ercise eminent

domain, the ta>in* is deemed comp"ete. S#ch ta>in* is th#s compensab"e.9n this #risdiction, the )o#rt has r#"ed that if the *overnment ta>es propert% witho#te6propriation and devotes the propert% to p#b"ic #se, after man% %ears the propert%owner ma% demand pa%ment of #st compensation.0+ This princip"e is in accord withthe constit#tiona" mandate that private propert% sha"" not be ta>en for p#b"ic #sewitho#t #st compensation.0

9n the recent case of National #ousing Authority v! #eirs of Isidro$uivelondo,02 the )o#rt compe""ed the Nationa" =o#sin* A#thorit% ?N=A@ to pa% #st compensation to the "andowners even after the N=A had a"read% abandonedthe e6propriation case. The )o#rt pointed o#t that a *overnment a*enc% co#"d notinitiate e6propriation proceedin*s, sei5e a person/s propert%, and then #st decidenot to proceed with the e6propriation. S#ch a comp"ete t#rnaro#nd is arbitrar% andcapricio#s and was condemned b% the )o#rt in the stron*est possib"e terms. N=A

was he"d "iab"e to the "andowners for the pre#dice that the% had s#ffered.

9n this case, N8) appropriated 8obre/s 8ropert% witho#t resort to e6propriationproceedin*s. N8) dismissed its own comp"aint for the second e6propriation. At nopoint did N8) instit#te e6propriation proceedin*s for the "ots o#tside the +,++0s7#aremeter portion s#bect of the second e6propriation. The on"% iss#es that thetria" co#rt had to sett"e were the amo#nt of #st compensation and dama*es thatN8) had to pa% 8obre.

This case ceased to be an action for e6propriation when N8) dismissed itscomp"aint for e6propriation. Since this case has been red#ced to a simp"e case of recover% of dama*es, the provisions of the R#"es of )o#rt on the ascertainment of the #st compensation to be paid were no "on*er app"icab"e. A tria" beforecommissioners, for instance, was dispensab"e.

Ce have he"d that the #s#a" proced#re in the determination of #st compensation is

waived when the *overnment itse"f initia""% vio"ates proced#ra" re7#irements.0

N8)/s ta>in* of 8obre/s propert% witho#t fi"in* the appropriate e6propriationproceedin*s and pa%in* him #st compensation is a trans*ression of proced#ra"d#e process.

$rom the be*innin*, N8) sho#"d have initiated e6propriation proceedin*s for 8obre/s entire ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert%. N8) did not. 9nstead, N8) embar>edon a piecemea" e6propriation of the 8ropert%. Even as the second e6propriationcase was sti"" pendin*, N8) was we"" aware of the dama*e that it had #n"eashed

on the entire 8ropert%. N8), however, remained impervio#s to 8obre/s repeateddemands for N8) to abate the dama*e that it had wro#*ht on his 8ropert%.

N8) moved for the dismissa" of the comp"aint for the second e6propriation on the*ro#nd that it had fo#nd an a"ternative site and there was stiff opposition from8obre.0! N8) abandoned the second e6propriation case five %ears after it hada"read% deprived the 8ropert% virt#a""% of a"" its va"#e. N8) has demonstrated its#tter disre*ard for 8obre/s propert% ri*hts.

Th#s, it wo#"d now be f#ti"e to compe" N8) to instit#te e6propriation proceedin*s todetermine the #st compensation for 8obre/s ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert%. 8obrem#st be spared an% f#rther de"a% in his p#rs#it to receive #st compensation fromN8).

;#st compensation is the fair and f#"" e7#iva"ent of the "oss.+(

The tria" and appe""ateco#rts endeavored to meet this standard. The 8+( per s7#are meter va"#ation of the ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert% is reasonab"e considerin* that the 8ropert% wasa"read% an estab"ished resorts#bdivision. N8) has itse"f to b"ame for notcontestin* the va"#ation before the tria" co#rt. -ased on the 8+( per s7#are meter va"#ation, the tota" amo#nt of #st compensation that N8) m#st pa% 8obre is8',00,0+(.

The "andowner is entit"ed to "e*a" interest on the price of the "and from the time of the ta>in* #p to the time of f#"" pa%ment b% the *overnment. +1 9n accord with #rispr#dence, we fi6 the "e*a" interest at si6 per cent ?I@ per ann#m.+& The "e*a"interest sho#"d accr#e from September 1!2!, the date when the tria" co#rt iss#edthe writ of possession to N8), #p to the time that N8) f#""% pa%s 8obre.+'

N8)/s ab#se of its eminent domain a#thorit% is appa""in*. =owever, we cannot

award mora" dama*es beca#se 8obre did not assert his ri*ht to it.+0 Ce a"so cannotaward attorne%/s fees in 8obre/s favor since he did not appea" from the decision of the )o#rt of Appea"s den%in* recover% of attorne%/s fees.++

Nonethe"ess, we find it proper to award 8+(,((( in temperate dama*es to 8obre.The co#rt ma% award temperate or moderate dama*es, which are more thannomina" b#t "ess than compensator% dama*es, if the co#rt finds that a part% hass#ffered some pec#niar% "oss b#t its amo#nt cannot be proved with certaint% fromthe nat#re of the case.+ As the tria" and appe""ate co#rts noted, 8obre/s resorts#bdivision was no "on*er #st a dream beca#se 8obre had a"read% estab"ished theresorts#bdivision and the prospect for it was initia""% enco#ra*in*. That is, #nti"N8) permanent"% dama*ed 8obre/s 8ropert%. N8) did not #st destro% thepropert%. N8) dashed 8obre/s hope of seein* his 8ropert% achieve its f#"" potentia"as a resorts#bdivision.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jun2003/gr_154411_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jun2003/gr_154411_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jun2003/gr_154411_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jun2003/gr_154411_2003.html


8/35


The "esson in this case m#st not be "ost on entities with eminent domain a#thorit%.S#ch entities cannot trif"e with a citi5en/s propert% ri*hts. The power of eminentdomain is an e6traordinar% power the% m#st wie"d with circ#mspection and #tmostre*ard for proced#ra" re7#irements. Th#s, we ho"d N8) "iab"e for e6emp"ar%dama*es of 81((,(((. E6emp"ar% dama*es or corrective dama*es are imposed,b% wa% of e6amp"e or correction for the p#b"ic *ood, in addition to the mora",temperate, "i7#idated or compensator% dama*es.+2

(EREFORE, we DENJ the petition for "ac> of merit. The appea"ed Decision of

the )o#rt of Appea"s dated '( March 1!!& in )A:.R. ) No. 1!'( is A$$9RMEDwith M4D9$9)AT94N. Nationa" 8ower )orporation is ordered to pa% Antonino 8obre8',00,0+( as #st compensation for the ,!! s7#aremeter 8ropert% at 8+( per s7#are meter. Nationa" 8ower )orporation is directed to pa% "e*a" interest at I per annum on the amo#nt ad#d*ed from September 1!2! #nti" f#""% paid. UponNationa" 8ower )orporation/s pa%ment of the f#"" amo#nt, Antonino 8obre isordered to e6ec#te a Deed of )onve%ance of the 8ropert% in Nationa" 8ower )orporation/s favor. Nationa" 8ower )orporation is f#rther ordered to pa% temperateand e6emp"ar% dama*es of 8+(,((( and 81((,(((, respective"%. No costs.

SO ORDERED.


9/35


RE')BLIC OF TE 'ILI''INESDe/&en& o 'u-+ (o/5% nd -$*67%8, 8etitioner,

G.R. No. 1"0"9"

8resent3

vers#s

U9SUM-9N:, (., )hairperson, )AR894, )AR894 M4RALES,:

T9N:A, and ELAS)4, ;R., (( .

ISMAEL ANDAYA, Respondent.

8rom#"*ated3

;#ne 1+, &((2;< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < 1? dated 4ctober '(, &((' of

the )o#rt of Appea"s in )A:.R. ) No. +( affirmin* with modification the

Decision>2? of the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt of -#t#an )it%, -ranch '' in )ivi" )ase No.

0'2, for enforcement of easement of ri*htofwa% ?or eminent domain@.

Respondent 9smae" Anda%a is the re*istered owner of two parce"s of "and in

-adin*, -#t#an )it%. =is ownership is evidenced b% Transfer )ertificates of Tit"e

Nos. RT1(&&+ and RT1(0. These properties are s#bect to a (meter wide

perpet#a" easement for p#b"ic hi*hwa%s, irri*ation ditches, a7#ed#cts, and other

simi"ar wor>s of the *overnment or p#b"ic enterprise, at no cost to the *overnment,

e6cept on"% the va"#e of the improvements e6istin* thereon that ma% be affected.

8etitioner Rep#b"ic of the 8hi"ippines ?Rep#b"ic@ ne*otiated with Anda%a to

enforce the (meter easement of ri*htofwa%. The easement was for concrete

"evees and f"oodwa""s for 8hase 1, Sta*e 1 of the Lower A*#san Deve"opment

8roect. The parties, however, fai"ed to reach an a*reement.

4n December 1', 1!!+, the Rep#b"ic instit#ted an action before

the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt of -#t#an )it% to enforce the easement of ri*htofwa%

or eminent domain. The tria" co#rt iss#ed a writ of possession on Apri" &, 1!!.>3? 9t

a"so constit#ted a -oard of )ommissioners ?-oard@ to determine the #st

compensation. Event#a""%, the tria" co#rt iss#ed an 4rder of E6propriation #pon

pa%ment of #st compensation.>4? Later, the -oard reported that there was a

discrepanc% in the description of the propert% so#*ht to be e6propriated. The

Rep#b"ic th#s amended its comp"aint, red#cin* the (meter easement to 1( meters,

or an e7#iva"ent of 2(1 s7#are meters.

4n December 1(, 1!!, the -oard reported that the proect wo#"d affect a

tota" of 1(,'( s7#are meters of Anda%as properties, 0,00' s7#are meters of which

wi"" be for the (meter easement. The -oard a"so reported that the easement

wo#"d diminish the va"#e of the remainin* +,!'2 s7#are meters. As a res#"t, it

recommended the pa%ment of conse7#entia" dama*es amo#ntin* to 8&,&(,0'(

for the remainin* area.>9?

Anda%a obected to the report beca#se a"tho#*h the Rep#b"ic red#ced the

easement to 1( meters or an e7#iva"ent of 2(1 s7#are meters, the -oard sti""

*ranted it 0,00' s7#are meters. =e contended that the conse7#entia" dama*es

sho#"d be based on the remainin* area of !,2! s7#are meters. Th#s, the #st

compensation sho#"d be 811,'2',0(+. The Rep#b"ic did not fi"e an% comment,

opposition, nor obection.

After considerin* the -oards report, the tria" co#rt decreed on Apri" &!,

1!!!, as fo""ows3

C=ERE$4RE, in the "i*ht of the fore*oin*, the )o#rtdecides as fo""ows3

a@ That the p"aintiff is "e*a""% entit"ed to its inherent ri*ht

of e6propriation to, vi5.3 1@ the "ot now >nown as "ot'&!1-1A, portion of "ot '&!1-1, ?LR)@ 8sd&++!', covered b% T)T No. RT1(&&+, with anarea of & s7. m. and &@ the "ot now >nown as "ot'&!'$+-1, portion of "ot '&!'$+- ?LR)@ 8sd

&'(&', covered b% T)T No. RT1(0, with an

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn6


10/35


area of 01' s7. m., both of the -#t#an )it% Re*istr%of Deeds, it bein* shown that it is for p#b"ic #se andp#rpose free of char*e b% reason of the stat#tor%"ien of easement of ri*htofwa% imposed ondefendants tit"es

b@ That however, the p"aintiff is ob"i*ated to pa%

defendant the s#m of TC4 M9LL94N E9:=T=UNDRED TCENTJ T=4USAND $4UR=UNDRED T=9RTJ ?8&,&(,0'(.((@ 8ES4S asfair and reasonab"e severance dama)es

c@ To pa% members of the -oard of )ommissioners,

th#s3 for the chairman TCENTJ T=4USAND?8&(,(((.((@ 8ES4S and the two ?&@ members at$9$TEEN T=4USAND ?81+,(((.((@ 8ES4S each

d@ To pa% defendants co#nse" $9$TJ T=4USAND

?8+(,(((.((@ 8ES4S as Attorne%s fees and fina""%, e@ That the Re*istr% of Deeds of -#t#an )it% is a"so

directed to effect the iss#ance of Transfer

)ertificate of Tit"es for the aforementioned two ?&@"ots in the name of the Rep#b"ic of the 8hi"ippines,fo""owin* the technica" description as appearin* inpa*es , 2, and of the )ommissioners Report.

N4 )4STS. 9T 9S S4 4RDERED.>"?

-oth parties appea"ed to the )o#rt of Appea"s. The Rep#b"ic contested

the awards of severance dama*es and attorne%s fees whi"e Anda%a demanded

#st compensation for his entire propert% min#s the easement. Anda%a a""e*ed that

the easement wo#"d prevent in*ress and e*ress to his propert% and t#rn it into a

catch basin for the f"oodwaters comin* from the A*#san River. As a res#"t, his

entire propert% wo#"d be rendered #n#sab"e and #ninhabitab"e. =e th#s

demanded 811,'2',0(+ as #st compensation based on the tota" compensab"e

area of !,2! s7#are meters.

The )o#rt of Appea"s modified the tria" co#rts decision b% imposin* a I

interest on the conse7#entia" dama*es from the date of the writ of possession or

the act#a" ta>in*, and b% de"etin* the attorne%s fees.

=ence, the instant petition. Simp"% p#t, the so"e iss#e for reso"#tion ma%

be stated th#s3 9s the Rep#b"ic "iab"e for #st compensation if in enforcin* the "e*a"

easement of ri*htofwa% on a propert%, the remainin* area wo#"d be rendered

#n#sab"e and #ninhabitab"eO

9t is #ndisp#ted that there is a "e*a" easement of ri*htofwa% in favor of the Rep#b"ic. Anda%as transfer certificates of tit"e >@? contained the reservation that

the "ands covered thereb% are s#bect to the provisions of the Land Re*istration

Act>#? and the 8#b"ic Land Act.>? Section 11&>10? of the 8#b"ic Land Act provides that

"ands *ranted b% patent sha"" be s#bect to a ri*htofwa% not e6ceedin* ( meters

in width for p#b"ic hi*hwa%s, irri*ation ditches, a7#ed#cts, and other simi"ar wor>s

of the *overnment or an% p#b"ic enterprise, free of char*e, e6cept on"% for the va"#e

of the improvements e6istin* thereon that ma% be affected. 9n view of this, the

)o#rt of Appea"s dec"ared that a"" the Rep#b"ic needs to do is to enforce s#ch ri*ht

witho#t havin* to initiate e6propriation proceedin*s and witho#t havin* to pa% an%

#st compensation.>11? =ence, the Rep#b"ic ma% appropriate the 2(1 s7#are meters

necessar% for the constr#ction of the f"oodwa""s witho#t pa%in* for it.

Ce are, however, #nab"e to s#stain the Rep#b"ics ar*#ment that it is not

"iab"e to pa% conse7#entia" dama*es if in enforcin* the "e*a" easement on Anda%as

propert%, the remainin* area wo#"d be rendered #n#sab"e and

#ninhabitab"e. PTa>in*,Q in the e6ercise of the power of eminent domain, occ#rs not

on"% when the *overnment act#a""% deprives or dispossesses the propert% owner of

his propert% or of its ordinar% #se, b#t a"so when there is a practica" destr#ction or

materia" impairment of the va"#e of his propert%.>12? Usin* this standard, there was

#ndo#bted"% a ta>in* of the remainin* area of Anda%as propert%. Tr#e, no b#rden

was imposed thereon and Anda%a sti"" retained tit"e and possession of the

propert%. -#t, as correct"% observed b% the -oard and affirmed b% the co#rts a quo,

the nat#re and the effect of the f"oodwa""s wo#"d deprive Anda%a of the norma" #se

of the remainin* areas. 9t wo#"d prevent in*ress and e*ress to the propert% and

t#rn it into a catch basin for the f"oodwaters comin* from the A*#san River.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn13


11/35


$or this reason, in o#r view, Anda%a is entit"ed to pa%ment of #st

compensation, which m#st be neither more nor "ess than the monetar% e7#iva"ent

of the "and.>13? 4ne of the basic princip"es enshrined in o#r )onstit#tion is that no

person sha"" be deprived of his private propert% witho#t d#e process of "aw and in

e6propriation cases, an essentia" e"ement of d#e process is that there m#st be #st

compensation whenever private propert% is ta>en for p#b"ic #se. Noteworth%,

Section !, Artic"e 999 of o#r )onstit#tion mandates that private propert% sha"" not be

ta>en for p#b"ic #se witho#t #st compensation.>14?

$ina""%, we affirm the findin*s of the )o#rt of Appea"s and the tria" co#rt

that #st compensation sho#"d be paid on"% for +,!'2 s7#are meters of the tota"

area of 1(,'( s7#are meters. Admitted"%, the Rep#b"ic needs on"% a 1(meter

easement or an e7#iva"ent of 2(1 s7#are meters. Jet, it is a"so sett"ed that it is

"e*a""% entit"ed to a (meter wide easement or an e7#iva"ent of 0,00' s7#are

meters. )"ear"%, a"tho#*h the Rep#b"ic wi"" #se on"% 2(1 s7#are meters, it sho#"d

not be "iab"e for the ',20& s7#are meters, which constit#te the difference between

this area of 2(1 s7#are meters and the 0,00' s7#are meters to which it is f#""%

entit"ed to #se as easement, free of char*e e6cept for dama*es to affected e6istin*

improvements, if an%, #nder Section 11& of the 8#b"ic Land Act.

9n effect, witho#t s#ch dama*es a""e*ed and proved, the Rep#b"ic is "iab"e for

#st compensation of on"% the remainin* areas consistin* of +,!'2 s7#are meters, with

interest thereon at the "e*a" rate of I per ann#m from the date of the writ of

possession or the act#a" ta>in* #nti" f#"" pa%ment is made. $or the p#rpose of

determinin* the fina" #st compensation, the case is remanded to the tria" co#rt. Said

co#rt is ordered to ma>e the determination of #st compensation pa%ab"e to

respondent Anda%a with de"iberate dispatch.

(EREFORE, the Decision of the )o#rt of Appea"s dated 4ctober '(,

&((' in )A:.R. ) No. +(, modif%in* the Decision of

the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt of -#t#an)it%, -ranch '' in )ivi" )ase No. 0'2,

is AFFIRMED 6-&* MODIFICATION as herein set forth.

The case is hereb% REMANDED to the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt of -#t#an )it%,

-ranch '' for the determination of the fina" #st compensation of the compensab"e

area consistin* of +,!'2 s7#are meters, with interest thereon at the "e*a" rate of I

per ann#m from the date of the writ of possession or act#a" ta>in* #nti" f#""% paid.

No prono#ncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 1"14 A/- 1#, 200#

ASIAS EMERGING DRAGON COR'ORATION, petitioner, vs.DE'ARTMENT OF

TRANS'ORTATION AND COMM)NICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO R.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/160656.htm#_ftn15


12/35


MENDOA nd MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIR'ORT A)TORITY, respondents.

6 6

G.R. No. 1@41"" A/- 1#, 200#

RE')BLIC OF TE 'ILI''INES, /e/e%en&ed 7 &*e DE'ARTMENT OFTRANS'ORTATION AND COMM)NICATIONS nd MANILA INTERNATIONALAIR'ORT A)TORITY, petitioner, vs.ON. CO)RT OF A''EALS ndSALACNIB BATERINA, respondents.

D E C I S I O NCICOab"e impact onthe 8hi"ippine econom%, conse7#ent"% raised si*nificant interest in the proect fromvario#s 7#arters.

4nce more, two new 8etitions concernin* the NA9A 98T 999 8roect are before this)o#rt. 9t is on"% appropriate, however, that the )o#rt first reco#nts its fact#a" and"e*a" findin*s in A)an and +in)o"on to ascertain that its r#"in* in the 8etitions atbar sha"" be consistent and in accordance therewith.

Agan& Jr! v! Philippine International Air Terminals Co!& Inc! '$!(! Nos! )**++)&)***,-& and )**..)/

A"read% estab"ished and incontrovertib"e are the fo""owin* facts in A)an3

9n A#*#st 1!!, the FDepartment of Trade and )omm#nications ?D4T)@G en*a*edthe services of Aeroport de 8aris ?AD8@ to cond#ct a comprehensive st#d% of theNino% A7#ino 9nternationa" Airport ?NA9A@ and determine whether the presentairport can cope with the traffic deve"opment #p to the %ear &(1(. The st#d%consisted of two parts3 first, traffic forecasts, capacit% of e6istin* faci"ities, NA9Af#t#re re7#irements, proposed master p"ans and deve"opment p"ans and second,

presentation of the pre"iminar% desi*n of the passen*er termina" b#i"din*. The AD8s#bmitted a Draft $ina" Report to the D4T) in December 1!!.

Some time in 1!!', si6 b#siness "eaders consistin* of ;ohn :o>on*wei, Andrew:otian#n, =enr% S%, Sr., L#cio Tan, :eor*e T% and A"fonso J#chen*co met withthen 8resident $ide" . Ramos to e6p"ore the possibi"it% of investin* in theconstr#ction and operation of a new internationa" airport termina". To si*nif% their commitment to p#rs#e the proect, the% formed the Asia/s Emer*in* Dra*on )orp.?AED)@ which was re*istered with the Sec#rities and E6chan*e )ommission ?SE)@on September 1+, 1!!'.

4n 4ctober +, 1!!0, AED) s#bmitted an #nso"icited proposa" to the :overnmentthro#*h the D4T)FMani"a 9nternationa" Airport A#thorit% ?M9AA@G for thedeve"opment of NA9A 9nternationa" 8assen*er Termina" 999 ?NA9A 98T 999@ #nder a

b#i"doperateandtransfer arran*ement p#rs#ant to RA !+2 as amended b% RA

221 ?-4T Law@.

4n December &, 1!!0, the D4T) iss#ed Dept. 4rder No. !0'& constit#tin* the8re7#a"ification -ids and Awards )ommittee ?8-A)@ for the imp"ementation of theNA9A 98T 999 proect.

4n March &2, 1!!+, then D4T) Secretar% ;ose :arcia endorsed the proposa" of AED) to the Nationa" Economic and Deve"opment A#thorit% ?NEDA@. A revisedproposa", however, was forwarded b% the D4T) to NEDA on December 1', 1!!+.4n ;an#ar% +, 1!!, the NEDA 9nvestment )oordinatin* )o#nci" ?NEDA 9))@

Technica" -oard favorab"% endorsed the proect to the 9)) )abinet )ommitteewhich approved the same, s#bect to certain conditions, on ;an#ar% 1!, 1!!. 4n$ebr#ar% 1', 1!!, the NEDA passed -oard Reso"#tion No. & which approved theNA9A 98T 999 proect.

4n ;#ne 2, 10, and &1, 1!!, D4T)M9AA ca#sed the p#b"ication in two dai"%newspapers of an invitation for competitive or comparative proposa"s on AED)/s#nso"icited proposa", in accordance with Sec. 0A of RA !+2, as amended. Thea"ternative bidders were re7#ired to s#bmit three ?'@ sea"ed enve"opes on or before+3(( p.m. of September &(, 1!!. The first enve"ope sho#"d contain the8re7#a"ification Doc#ments, the second enve"ope the Technica" 8roposa", and thethird enve"ope the $inancia" 8roposa" of the proponent.

4n ;#ne &(, 1!!, 8-A) -#""etin No. 1 was iss#ed, postponin* the avai"ment of the -id Doc#ments and the s#bmission of the comparative bid proposa"s.9nterested firms were permitted to obtain the Re7#est for 8roposa" Doc#mentsbe*innin* ;#ne &, 1!!, #pon s#bmission of a written app"ication and pa%ment of a nonref#ndab"e fee of 8+(,(((.(( ?US&,(((@.

The -id Doc#ments iss#ed b% the 8-A) provided amon* others that the proponentm#st have ade7#ate capabi"it% to s#stain the financin* re7#irement for the detai"eden*ineerin*, desi*n, constr#ction, operation, and maintenance phases of theproect. The proponent wo#"d be eva"#ated based on its abi"it% to provide aminim#m amo#nt of e7#it% to the proect, and its capacit% to sec#re e6terna"financin* for the proect.

4n ;#"% &', 1!!, the 8-A) iss#ed 8-A) -#""etin No. & invitin* a"" bidders to aprebid conference on ;#"% &!, 1!!.

4n A#*#st 1, 1!!, the 8-A) iss#ed 8-A) -#""etin No. ' amendin* the -id

Doc#ments. The fo""owin* amendments were made on the -id Doc#ments3

a. Aside from the fi6ed Ann#a" :#aranteed 8a%ment, the proponent sha"" inc"#de inits financia" proposa" an additiona" percenta*e of *ross reven#e share of the:overnment, as fo""ows3

i. $irst + %ears +.(I

ii. Ne6t 1( %ears 2.+I

iii. Ne6t 1( %ears 1(.(I

b. The amo#nt of the fi6ed Ann#a" :#aranteed 8a%ment sha"" be s#bect of theprice cha""en*e. 8roponent ma% offer an Ann#a" :#aranteed 8a%ment which neednot be of e7#a" amo#nt, b#t pa%ment of which sha"" start #pon site possession.


13/35


c. The proect proponent m#st have ade7#ate capabi"it% to s#stain the financin*re7#irement for the detai"ed en*ineerin*, desi*n, constr#ction, andor operation andmaintenance phases of the proect as the case ma% be. $or p#rposes of pre7#a"ification, this capabi"it% sha"" be meas#red in terms of3

i. 8roof of the avai"abi"it% of the proect proponent andor the consorti#m to providethe minim#m amo#nt of e7#it% for the proect and

ii. a "etter testimonia" from rep#tab"e ban>s attestin* that the proect proponentandor the members of the consorti#m are ban>in* with them, that the proect

proponent andor the members are of *ood financia" standin*, and have ade7#atereso#rces.

d. The basis for the pre7#a"ification sha"" be the proponent/s comp"iance with theminim#m technica" and financia" re7#irements provided in the -id Doc#ments andthe F9mp"ementin* R#"es and Re*#"ations ?9RR@G of the -4T Law. The minim#mamo#nt of e7#it% sha"" be '(I of the 8roect )ost.

e. Amendments to the draft )oncession A*reement sha"" be iss#ed from time totime. Said amendments sha"" on"% cover items that wo#"d not materia""% affect thepreparation of the proponent/s proposa".

4n A#*#st &!, 1!!, the Second 8re-id )onference was he"d where certainc"arifications were made. Upon the re7#est of prospective bidder 8eop"e/s Air )ar*o Careho#sin* )o., 9nc ?8aircar*o@, the 8-A) warranted that based on

Sec. 11., R#"e 11 of the 9mp"ementin* R#"es and Re*#"ations of the -4T Law,on"% the proposed Ann#a" :#aranteed 8a%ment s#bmitted b% the cha""en*ers wo#"dbe revea"ed to AED), and that the cha""en*ers/ technica" and financia" proposa"swo#"d remain confidentia". The 8-A) a"so c"arified that the "ist of reven#e so#rcescontained in Anne6 0.&a of the -id Doc#ments was mere"% indicative and that other reven#e so#rces ma% be inc"#ded b% the proponent, s#bect to approva" b%D4T)M9AA. $#rthermore, the 8-A) c"arified that on"% those fees and char*esdenominated as 8#b"ic Uti"it% $ees wo#"d be s#bect to re*#"ation, and thosechar*es which wo#"d be act#a""% deemed 8#b"ic Uti"it% $ees co#"d sti"" be revised,dependin* on the o#tcome of 8-A)/s 7#er% on the matter with the Department of ;#stice.

9n September 1!!, the 8-A) iss#ed -id -#""etin No. +, entit"ed Answers to the#eries of 8A9R)AR:4 as 8er Letter Dated September ' and 1(, 1!!.

8aircar*o/s 7#eries and the 8-A)/s responses were as fo""ows3#. It is difficult for Paircar)o and Associates to meet the required minimum equit" requirement as prescri'ed in Section .-. of the /id &ocuments considerin) that the capitali0ation of each mem'er compan" is so structured to meet therequirements and needs of their current respective 'usiness underta1in)2activities.In order to compl" ith this equit" requirement, Paircar)o is requestin) P/AC to 3ust allo each mem'er of 4sic5 corporation of the (oint 6enture to 3ust e7ecute ana)reement that em'odies a commitment to infuse the required capital in case the pro3ect is aarded to the (oint 6enture instead of increasin) each corporation8scurrent authori0ed capital stoc1 3ust for prequalification purposes.

9n pre7#a"ification, the a*enc% is interested in one/s financia" capabi"it% at the timeof pre7#a"ification, not f#t#re or potentia" capabi"it%.

A commitment to p#t #p e7#it% once awarded the proect is not eno#*h to estab"ish

that present financia" capabi"it%. =owever, tota" financia" capabi"it% of a"" member companies of the )onsorti#m, to be estab"ished b% s#bmittin* the respectivecompanies/ a#dited financia" statements, sha"" be acceptab"e.

9. At present, Paircar)o is ne)otiatin) ith 'an1s and other institutions for thee7tension of a Performance Securit" to the 3oint venture in the event that theConcessions A)reement 4sic5 is aarded to them. :oever, Paircar)o is 'ein) required to su'mit a cop" of the draft concession as one of the documentar" requirements. Therefore, Paircar)o is requestin) that the"8d 4sic5 'e furnished cop"

of the approved ne)otiated a)reement 'eteen the P/AC and the A;&C at thesoonest possi'le time.

A cop% of the draft )oncession A*reement is inc"#ded in the -id Doc#ments. An%materia" chan*es wo#"d be made >nown to prospective cha""en*ers thro#*h bidb#""etins. =owever, a fina" version wi"" be iss#ed before the award of contract.

The 8-A) a"so stated that it wo#"d re7#ire AED) to si*n S#pp"ement ) of the -idDoc#ments ?Acceptance of )riteria and Caiver of Ri*hts to Enoin 8roect@ and tos#bmit the same with the re7#ired -id Sec#rit%.

4n September &(, 1!!, the consorti#m composed of 8eop"e/s Air )ar*o andCareho#sin* )o., 9nc. ?8aircar*o@, 8hi". Air and :ro#nds Services, 9nc. ?8A:S@ andSec#rit% -an> )orp. ?Sec#rit% -an>@ ?co""ective"%, 8aircar*o )onsorti#m@ s#bmittedtheir competitive proposa" to the 8-A). 4n September &', 1!!, the 8-A) openedthe first enve"ope containin* the pre7#a"ification doc#ments of the 8aircar*o)onsorti#m. 4n the fo""owin* da%, September &0, 1!!, the 8-A) pre7#a"ified the8aircar*o )onsorti#m.

4n September &, 1!!, AED) informed the 8-A) in writin* of its reservations asre*ards the 8aircar*o )onsorti#m, which inc"#de3

a. The "ac> of corporate approva"s and financia" capabi"it% of 8A9R)AR:4

b. The "ac> of corporate approva"s and financia" capabi"it% of 8A:S

c. The prohibition imposed b% RA ''2, as amended ?the :enera" -an>in* Act@ onthe amo#nt that Sec#rit% -an> co#"d "e*a""% invest in the proect

d. The inc"#sion of Siemens as a contractor of the 8A9R)AR:4 ;oint ent#re, for pre7#a"ification p#rposes and

e. The appointment of L#fthansa as the faci"it% operator, in view of the 8hi"ippine

re7#irement in the operation of a p#b"ic #ti"it%.

The 8-A) *ave its rep"% on 4ctober &, 1!!, informin* AED) that it hadconsidered the iss#es raised b% the "atter, and that based on the doc#mentss#bmitted b% 8aircar*o and the estab"ished pre7#a"ification criteria, the 8-A) hadfo#nd that the cha""en*er, 8aircar*o, had pre7#a"ified to #nderta>e the proect. TheSecretar% of the D4T) approved the findin* of the 8-A).

The 8-A) then proceeded with the openin* of the second enve"ope of the8aircar*o )onsorti#m which contained its Technica" 8roposa".

4n 4ctober ', 1!!, AED) reiterated its obections, partic#"ar"% with respect to8aircar*o/s financia" capabi"it%, in view of the restrictions imposed b% Section &1-of the :enera" -an>in* Act and Sections 1'( and 1'1 of the Man#a" Re*#"ationsfor -an>s and 4ther $inancia" 9ntermediaries. 4n 4ctober 2, 1!!, AED) a*ain

manifested its obections and re7#ested that it be f#rnished with e6cerpts of the


14/35


8-A) meetin* and the accompan%in* technica" eva"#ation report where each of the iss#es the% raised were addressed.

4n 4ctober 1, 1!!, the 8-A) opened the third enve"ope s#bmitted b% AED)and the 8aircar*o )onsorti#m containin* their respective financia" proposa"s. -othproponents offered to b#i"d the NA9A 8assen*er Termina" 999 for at "east '+( mi""ionat no cost to the *overnment and to pa% the *overnment3 +I share in *rossreven#es for the first five %ears of operation, 2.+I share in *ross reven#es for thene6t ten %ears of operation, and 1(I share in *ross reven#es for the "ast ten %ears

of operation, in accordance with the -id Doc#ments. =owever, in addition to thefore*oin*, AED) offered to pa% the *overnment a tota" of 81'+ mi""ion as*#aranteed pa%ment for &2 %ears whi"e 8aircar*o )onsorti#m offered to pa% the*overnment a tota" of 812.2+ bi""ion for the same period.

Th#s, the 8-A) forma""% informed AED) that it had accepted the price proposa"s#bmitted b% the 8aircar*o )onsorti#m, and *ave AED) '( wor>in* da%s or #nti"November &, 1!! within which to match the said bid, otherwise, the proect wo#"dbe awarded to 8aircar*o.

As AED) fai"ed to match the proposa" within the '(da% period, then D4T)Secretar% Amado La*dameo, on December 11, 1!!, iss#ed a notice to 8aircar*o)onsorti#m re*ardin* AED)/s fai"#re to match the proposa".

4n $ebr#ar% &2, 1!!2, 8aircar*o )onsorti#m incorporated into 8hi"ippine9nternationa" Airport Termina"s )o., 9nc. ?89AT)4@.

AED) s#bse7#ent"% protested the a""e*ed #nd#e preference *iven to 89AT)4 andreiterated its obections as re*ards the pre7#a"ification of 89AT)4.

4n Apri" 11, 1!!2, the D4T) s#bmitted the concession a*reement for the secondpass approva" of the NEDA9)).

4n Apri" 1, 1!!2, AED) fi"ed with the Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt of 8asi* a 8etition for Dec"aration of N#""it% of the 8roceedin*s, Mandam#s and 9n#nction a*ainst theSecretar% of the D4T), the )hairman of the 8-A), the votin* members of the8-A) and 8anta"eon D. A"vare5, in his capacit% as )hairman of the 8-A)Technica" )ommittee.

6 6 6 6

4n ;#"% !, 1!!2, the D4T) iss#ed the notice of award for the proect to 89AT)4.

4n ;#"% 1&, 1!!2, the :overnment, thro#*h then D4T) Secretar% Art#ro T. Enri"e,and 89AT)4, thro#*h its 8resident, =enr% T. :o, si*ned the )oncession A*reement for the -#i"d4perateandTransfer Arran*ement of the Nino% A7#ino9nternationa" Airport 8assen*er Termina" 999 ?1!!2 )oncession A*reement@. 6 6 6.

4n November &, 1!!, the :overnment and 89AT)4 si*ned an Amended andRestated )oncession A*reement ?AR)A@. 6 6 6.

S#bse7#ent"%, the :overnment and 89AT)4 si*ned three S#pp"ements to the AR)A. The $irst S#pp"ement was si*ned on A#*#st &2, 1!!! the SecondS#pp"ement on September 0, &((( and the Third S#pp"ement on ;#ne &&, &((1?co""ective"%, S#pp"ements@.

6 6 6 6

Meanwhi"e, the M9AA which is char*ed with the maintenance and operation of the

NA9A Termina"s 9 and 99, had e6istin* concession contracts with vario#s serviceproviders to offer internationa" air"ine airport services, s#ch as inf"i*ht caterin*,passen*er hand"in*, ramp and *ro#nd s#pport, aircraft maintenance andprovisions, car*o hand"in* and wareho#sin*, and other services, to severa"internationa" air"ines at the NA9A. 6 6 6.

4n September 12, &((&, the wor>ers of the internationa" air"ine service providers,c"aimin* that the% stand to "ose their emp"o%ment #pon the imp"ementation of the7#estioned a*reements, fi"ed before this )o#rt a petition for prohibition to enoin the

enforcement of said a*reements.4n 4ctober 1+, &((&, the service providers, oinin* the ca#se of the petitionin*wor>ers, fi"ed a motion for intervention and a petitioninintervention.

4n 4ctober &0, &((&, )on*ressmen Sa"acnib -aterina, )"ave" Martine5 and)onstantino ;ara#"a fi"ed a simi"ar petition with this )o#rt.

4n November , &((&, severa" emp"o%ees of the M9AA "i>ewise fi"ed a petitionassai"in* the "e*a"it% of the vario#s a*reements.

4n December 11, &((&, another *ro#p of )on*ressmen, =on. ;acinto . 8aras,Rafae" 8. Nantes, Ed#ardo ). Hia"cita, Ci""ie -. i""arama, 8rospero ). No*ra"es,8rospero A. 8icha%, ;r., =ar"in )ast Aba%on and -enasin* 4. Macaranbon, movedto intervene in the case as Respondents9ntervenors. The% fi"ed their )omment9n9ntervention defendin* the va"idit% of the assai"ed a*reements and pra%in* for the

dismissa" of the petitions.D#rin* the pendenc% of the case before this )o#rt, 8resident :"oria Macapa*a" Arro%o, on November &!, &((&, in her speech at the &((& :o"den She"" E6port Awards at Ma"acaan* 8a"ace, stated that she wi"" not honor ?89AT)4@ contractswhich the E6ec#tive -ranch/s "e*a" offices have conc"#ded ?as@ n#"" and void.'

The )o#rt first dispensed with the proced#ra" iss#es raised in A)an, r#"in* that ?a@the M9AA service providers and its emp"o%ees, petitioners in :.R. Nos. 1++((1 and1++1, had the re7#isite standin* since the% had a direct and s#bstantia" interestto protect b% reason of the imp"ementation of the 89AT)4 )ontracts which wo#"daffect their so#rce of "ive"ihood0 and ?b@ the members of the =o#se of Representatives, petitioners in :.R. No. 1+++02, were *ranted standin* in view of the serio#s "e*a" 7#estions invo"ved and their impact on p#b"ic interest.+

As to the merits of the 8etitions in A)an, the )o#rt conc"#ded that3

9n s#m, this )o#rt r#"es that in view of the absence of the re7#isite financia"capacit% of the 8aircar*o )onsorti#m, predecessor of respondent 89AT)4, theaward b% the 8-A) of the contract for the constr#ction, operation and maintenanceof the NA9A 98T 999 is n#"" and void. $#rther, considerin* that the 1!!2 )oncession A*reement contains materia" and s#bstantia" amendments, which amendments hadthe effect of convertin* the 1!!2 )oncession A*reement into an entire"% differenta*reement from the contract bidded #pon, the 1!!2 )oncession A*reement issimi"ar"% n#"" and void for bein* contrar% to p#b"ic po"ic%. The provisions #nder Sections 0.(0?b@ and ?c@ in re"ation to Section 1.( of the 1!!2 )oncession A*reement and Section 0.(0?c@ in re"ation to Section 1.( of the AR)A, whichconstit#te a direct *overnment *#arantee e6press"% prohibited b%, amon* others,the -4T Law and its 9mp"ementin* R#"es and Re*#"ations are a"so n#"" and void.The S#pp"ements, bein* accessor% contracts to the AR)A, are "i>ewise n#"" and


15/35


void.

=ence, the fallo of the )o#rt/s Decision in A)an reads3

(EREFORE, the 1!!2 )oncession A*reement, the Amended and Restated)oncession A*reement and the S#pp"ements thereto are set aside for bein* n#""and void.2

9n a Reso"#tion dated &1 ;an#ar% &((0, the )o#rt denied with fina"it% the Motionsfor Reconsideration of its + Ma% &((' Decision in A)an fi"ed b% therein respondents89AT)4 and )on*ressmen 8aras, et al., and respondentsintervenors.!

Si*nificant"%, the )o#rt dec"ared in the same Reso"#tion that3

This )o#rt, however, is not #nmindf#" of the rea"it% that the str#ct#res comprisin*the NA9A 98T 999 faci"it% are a"most comp"ete and that f#nds have been spent b%89AT)4 in their constr#ction. $or the *overnment to ta>e over the said faci"it%, -&*% &o +oen%&e /e%onden& 'IATCO % u-de/ o &*e %-d %&/u+&u/e%. T*e+oen%&-on u%& e u%& nd -n ++o/dn+e 6-&* 6 nd eu-&7 for the*overnment can not #n#st"% enrich itse"f at the e6pense of 89AT)4 and itsinvestors.1( ?Emphasis o#rs.@

9t is these afore7#oted prono#ncements that *ave rise to the 8etition in +in)o"on.

(epu"lic v! $ingoyon '$!(! No! )..,01/

Accordin* to the statement of facts in +in)o"on3

After the prom#"*ation of the r#"in*s in A)an, the NA9A ' faci"ities have remained inthe possession of 89AT)4, despite the avowed intent of the :overnment to p#t theairport termina" into immediate operation. The :overnment and 89AT)4 cond#ctedsevera" ro#nds of ne*otiation re*ardin* the NA9A ' faci"ities. 9t a"so appears thatarbitra" proceedin*s were commenced before the 9nternationa" )hamber of )ommerce 9nternationa" )o#rt of Arbitration and the 9nternationa" )entre for theSett"ement of 9nvestment Disp#tes, a"tho#*h the :overnment has raised #risdictiona" 7#estions before those two bodies.

Then, on &1 December &((0, the :overnment fi"ed a Complaint for e6propriationwith the 8asa% )it% Re*iona" Tria" )o#rt ?RT)@, to*ether with an Application for Special *affle see>in* the immediate ho"din* of a specia" raff"e. The :overnmentso#*ht #pon the fi"in* of the comp"aint the iss#ance of a writ of possessiona#thori5in* it to ta>e immediate possession and contro" over the NA9A ' faci"ities.

The :overnment a"so dec"ared that it had deposited the amo#nt of 8',((&,1&+,(((.(( ?' -i""ion@ in )ash with the Land -an> of the 8hi"ippines,representin* the NA9A ' termina"/s assessed va"#e for ta6ation p#rposes.

The case was raff"ed to -ranch 112 of the 8asa% )it% RT), presided b% respondent #d*e =on. =enric> $. :in*o%on ?=on. :in*o%on@. 4n the same da% that theComplaint was fi"ed, the RT) iss#ed an e or enter #pon the possessionof the NA9A ' faci"ities. )itin* the case of Cit" of Manila v. Serrano, the RT) notedthat it had the ministeria" d#t% to iss#e the writ of possession #pon the fi"in* of acomp"aint for e6propriation s#fficient in form and s#bstance, and #pon depositmade b% the *overnment of the amo#nt e7#iva"ent to the assessed va"#e of thepropert% s#bect to e6propriation. The RT) fo#nd these re7#isites present,partic#"ar"% notin* that FtGhe case record shows that Fthe :overnment hasG

deposited the assessed va"#e of the FNA9A ' faci"itiesG in the Land -an> of the

8hi"ippines, an a#thori5ed depositar%, as shown b% the certification attached to their comp"aint. A"so on the same da%, the RT) iss#ed a =rit of Possession. Accordin*to 89AT)4, the :overnment was ab"e to ta>e possession over the NA9A ' faci"itiesimmediate"% after the =rit of Possession was iss#ed.

=owever, on 0 ;an#ar% &((+, the RT) iss#ed another e immediate pa%ment to the propert% owner #pon the fi"in* of the comp"aint tobe entit"ed to a writ of possession, whereas in R#"e 2, the :overnment is re7#iredon"% to ma>e an initia" deposit with an a#thori5ed *overnment depositar%. Moreover,R#"e 2 prescribes that the initia" deposit be e7#iva"ent to the assessed va"#e of thepropert% for p#rposes of ta6ation, #n"i>e Rep. Act No. !20 which provides, as there"evant standard for initia" compensation, the mar>et va"#e of the propert% as

stated in the ta6 dec"aration or the c#rrent re"evant 5ona" va"#ation of the -#rea# of 9nterna" Reven#e ?-9R@, whichever is hi*her, and the va"#e of the improvementsandor str#ct#res #sin* the rep"acement cost method.

Accordin*"%, on the basis of Sections 0 and 2 of Rep. Act No. !20 and Section 1(of the 9mp"ementin* R#"es, the RT) made >e% 7#a"ifications to its ear"ier iss#ances. First , it directed the Land -an> of the 8hi"ippines, -ac"aran -ranch?L-8-ac"aran@, to immediate"% re"ease the amo#nt of US&,'0',12+.22 to89AT)4, an amo#nt which the RT) characteri5ed as that which the :overnmentspecifica""% made avai"ab"e for the p#rpose of this e6propriation and s#ch amo#ntto be ded#cted from the amo#nt of #st compensation d#e 89AT)4 as event#a""%determined b% the RT). Second , the :overnment was directed to s#bmit to theRT) a )ertificate of Avai"abi"it% of $#nds si*ned b% a#thori5ed officia"s to cover thepa%ment of #st compensation. Third , the :overnment was directed to maintain,

preserve and safe*#ard the NA9A ' faci"ities or perform s#ch as acts or activitiesin preparation for their direct operation of the airport termina", pendin*e6propriation proceedin*s and f#"" pa%ment of #st compensation. =owever, the:overnment was prohibited from performin* acts of ownership "i>e awardin*concessions or "easin* an% part of FNA9A 'G to other parties.

The ver% ne6t da% after the iss#ance of the assai"ed 0 ;an#ar% &((+


16/35


Nonethe"ess, whi"e the in* f#rther action on the e6propriation case. A conc#rrent pra%er

for the iss#ance of a temporar% restrainin* order and pre"iminar% in#nction was*ranted b% this )o#rt in a *esolution dated 10 ;an#ar% &((+.11

The )o#rt reso"ved the 8etition of the Rep#b"ic of the 8hi"ippines and Mani"a9nternationa" Airport A#thorit% in +in)o"on in this wise3

9n conc"#sion, the )o#rt s#mmari5es its r#"in*s as fo""ows3

?1@ The &((0 *esolution in A)an sets the base re7#irement that has to be observedbefore the :overnment ma% ta>e over the NA9A ', that there m#st be pa%ment to89AT)4 of #st compensation in accordance with "aw and e7#it%. An% r#"in* in thepresent e6propriation case m#st be conformab"e to the dictates of the )o#rt asprono#nced in the A)an cases.

?&@ Rep. Act No. !20 app"ies in this case, partic#"ar"% insofar as it re7#ires theimmediate pa%ment b% the :overnment of at "east the proffered va"#e of the NA9A '

faci"ities to 89AT)4 and provides certain va"#ation standards or methods for thedetermination of #st compensation.

?'@ App"%in* Rep. Act No. !20, the imp"ementation of Crit of 8ossession in favor of the :overnment over NA9A ' is he"d in abe%ance #nti" 89AT)4 is direct"% paidthe amo#nt of 8' -i""ion, representin* the proffered va"#e of NA9A ' #nder Section0?c@ of the "aw.

?0@ App"%in* Rep. Act No. !20, the :overnment is a#thori5ed to start theimp"ementation of the NA9A ' Airport termina" proect b% performin* the acts thatare essentia" to the operation of the NA9A ' as an internationa" airport termina" #ponthe effectivit% of the Crit of 8ossession, s#bect to the conditions abovestated. Asprescribed b% the )o#rt, s#ch a#thorit% encompasses the repair, reconditionin*and improvement of the comp"e6, maintenance of the e6istin* faci"ities ande7#ipment, insta""ation of new faci"ities and e7#ipment, provision of services and

faci"ities pertainin* to the faci"itation of air traffic and transport, and other servicesthat are inte*ra" to a modernda% internationa" airport.

+@ The RT) is mandated to comp"ete its determination of the #st compensationwithin si6t% ?(@ da%s from fina"it% of this Decision. 9n doin* so, the RT) is ob"i*edto comp"% with the standards set #nder Rep. Act No. !20 and its 9mp"ementin*R#"es. )onsiderin* that the NA9A ' consists of str#ct#res and improvements, theva"#ation thereof sha"" be determined #sin* the rep"acements cost method, asprescribed #nder Section 1( of the 9mp"ementin* R#"es.

?@ There was no *rave ab#se of discretion attendin* the RT) now"ed*in* the p#b"ic *ood that wo#"d res#"t from the immediateoperation of the NA9A '. 9nstead, the Decision adopted an interpretation which is inconsonance with Rep. Act No. !20 and with e7#itab"e standards as we"", thata""owed the :overnment to ta>e possession of the NA9A ' after pa%ment of theproffered va"#e of the faci"ities to 89AT)4. S#ch a readin* is s#bstantia""% comp"iantwith the prono#ncement in the &((0 A)an Reso"#tion, and is in accord with "aw ande7#it%. 9n contrast, the :overnment/s position, hewin* to the strict app"ication of

R#"e 2, wo#"d permit the :overnment to ac7#ire possession over the NA9A ' and


17/35


imp"ement its operation witho#t havin* to pa% 89AT)4 a sin*"e centavo, a sit#ationthat is obvio#s"% #nfair. Chatever animosit% the :overnment ma% have towards89AT)4 does not ac7#it it from sett"in* its ob"i*ations to the "atter, partic#"ar"% thosewhich had a"read% been previo#s"% affirmed b% this )o#rt.10

The )o#rt, in the same Reso"#tion, denied a"" the three motions for intervention of Asa>ihosan )orporation, Ta>ena>a )orporation, and )on*ressman -aterina, andr#"ed as fo""ows3

Ce now t#rn to the three ?'@ motions for intervention a"" of which were fi"ed after the

prom#"*ation of the )o#rt/s Decision. A"" three ?'@ motions m#st be denied. Under Section &, R#"e 1! of the 1!!2 R#"es of )ivi" 8roced#re the motion to intervenema% be fi"ed at an% time before rendition of #d*ment b% the co#rt. Since this caseori*inated from an ori*ina" action fi"ed before this )o#rt, the appropriate time to fi"ethe motionsinintervention in this case if ever was before and not after reso"#tion of this case. To a""ow intervention at this #nct#re wo#"d be hi*h"% irre*#"ar. 9t ise6treme"% improbab"e that the movants were #naware of the pendenc% of thepresent case before the )o#rt, and indeed none of them a""e*e s#ch "ac> of >now"ed*e.

Ta>ena>a and Asahi>osan re"% on Ma)o v. Court of Appeals wherein the )o#rt too>the e6traordinar% step of a""owin* the motion for intervention even after thecha""en*ed order of the tria" co#rt had a"read% become fina". Jet it was apparent inMa)o that the movants therein were not imp"eaded despite bein* indispensab"e

parties, and had not even >nown of the e6istence of the case before the tria" co#rt,and the effect of the fina" order was to deprive the movants of their "and. 9n thiscase, neither Ta>ena>a nor Asahi>osan stand to be dispossessed b% reason of the)o#rt/s Decision. There is no pa"pab"e d#e process vio"ation that wo#"d mi"itate thes#spension of the proced#ra" r#"e.

Moreover, the re7#isite "e*a" interest re7#ired of a part%inintervention has notbeen estab"ished so as to warrant the e6traordinar% step of a""owin* intervention atthis "ate sta*e. As ear"ier noted, the c"aims of Ta>ena>a and Asahi>osan have notbeen #dicia""% proved or conc"#sive"% estab"ished as fact b% an% trier of facts in this #risdiction. )ertain"%, the% co#"d not be considered as indispensab"e parties to thepetition for certiorari. 9n the case of Representative -aterina, he invo>es hisprero*ative as "e*is"ator to c#rtai" the disb#rsement witho#t appropriation of p#b"icf#nds to compensate 89AT)4, as we"" as that as a ta6pa%er, as the basis of his

"e*a" standin* to intervene. =owever, it sho#"d be noted that the amo#nt which the)o#rt directed to be paid b% the :overnment to 89AT)4 was derived from themone% deposited b% the Mani"a 9nternationa" Airport A#thorit%, an a*enc% whicheno%s corporate a#tonom% and possesses a "e*a" persona"it% separate and distinctfrom those of the Nationa" :overnment and a*encies thereof whose b#d*ets haveto be approved b% )on*ress.

9t is a"so observed that the interests of the movantsinintervention ma% be d#"%"iti*ated in proceedin*s which are e6tant before "ower co#rts. There is nocompe""in* reason to disre*ard the estab"ished r#"es and permit the interventionsbe"ated"% fi"ed after the prom#"*ation of the )o#rt/s Decision.1+

Asia2s Emerging 3ragon Corporation v! 3epartment of Transportation and Communications and 4anila International Airport Authority '$!(! No! ).11),/

-an>in* on this )o#rt/s dec"aration in A)an that the award of the NA9A 98T 999

8roect to 89AT)4 is n#"" and void, Asia/s Emer*in* Dra*on )orporation ?AED)@fi"ed before this )o#rt the present 8etition for Mandamus and 8rohibition ?with App"ication for Temporar% Restrainin* 4rder@, pra%in* of this )o#rt that3

?1@ After d#e hearin*, #d*ment be rendered commandin* the Respondents, their officers, a*ents, s#ccessors, representatives or persons or entities actin* on their beha"f, to forma""% award the NA9AA8T Fsic G 999 8R4;E)T to 8etitioner AED) andto e6ec#te and forma"i5e with 8etitioner AED) the approved Draft )oncession A*reement embod%in* the a*reed terms and conditions for the operation of the

NA9A98T 999 8roect and directin* Respondents to cease and desist from awardin*the NA9A98T 8roect to third parties or ne*otiatin* into an% concession contractwith third parties.

?&@ 8endin* reso"#tion on the merits, a Temporar% Restrainin* 4rder be iss#edenoinin* Respondents, their officers, a*ents, s#ccessors or representatives or persons or entities actin* on their beha"f from ne*otiatin*, rebiddin*, awardin* or otherwise enterin* into an% concession contract with 89AT)4 and other thirdparties for the operation of the NA9A98T 999 8roect.

4ther re"ief and remedies, #st and e7#itab"e #nder the premises, are "i>ewisepra%ed for.1

AED) bases its 8etition on the fo""owin* *ro#nds3

9. 8ET9T94NER AED), -E9N: T=E RE)4:N9HED AND UN)=ALLEN:ED

4R9:9NAL 8R484NENT, =AS T=E E)LUS9E, )LEAR AND ESTEDSTATUT4RJ R9:=T T4 T=E ACARD 4$ T=E NA9A98T 999 8R4;E)T

99. RES84NDENTS =AE A STATUT4RJ DUTJ T4 8R4TE)T 8ET9T94NER AED) AS T=E UN)=ALLEN:ED 4R9:9NAL 8R484NENT AS A RESULT 4$T=E SU8REME )4URT/S NULL9$9)AT94N 4$ T=E ACARD 4$ T=E NA9A98T 9998R4;E)T T4 89AT)4F andG

999. RES84NDENTS =AE N4 LE:AL -AS9S 4R AUT=4R9TJ T4 TA of merit, bein* as it is, s#bstantia""% andproced#ra""% f"awed.

S)BSTANTIE INFIRMITY

A petition for mandamus is *overned b% Section ' of R#"e + of the R#"es of )ivi"8roced#re, which reads V

SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. V Chen an% trib#na", corporation, board, officer or person #n"awf#""% ne*"ects the performance of an act which the "aw specifica""%enoins as a d#t% res#"tin* from an office, tr#st, or station, or #n"awf#""% e6c"#desanother from the #se and eno%ment of a ri*ht or office to which s#ch other isentit"ed, and there is no other p"ain, speed% and ade7#ate remed% in the ordinar%co#rse of "aw, the person a**rieved thereb% ma% fi"e a verified petition in the proper co#rt, a""e*in* the facts with certaint% and pra%in* that #d*ment be renderedcommandin* the respondent, immediate"% or some other time to be specified b% the

co#rt, to do the act re7#ired to be done to protect the ri*hts of the petitioner, and to


18/35


pa% the dama*es s#stained b% the petitioner b% reason of the wron*f#" acts of therespondent.

9t is we""estab"ished in o#r #rispr#dence that on"% specific "e*a" ri*hts areenforceab"e b% mandamus, that the ri*ht so#*ht to be enforced m#st be certain andc"ear, and that the writ wi"" not iss#e in cases where the ri*ht is do#btf#". ;#st asf#ndamenta" is the princip"e *overnin* the iss#ance of mandamus that the d#ties tobe performed m#st be s#ch as are c"ear"% and peremptori"% enoined b% "aw or b%reason of officia" station.1

A r#"e "on* fami"iar is that mandamus never iss#es in do#btf#" cases. 9t re7#ires ashowin* of a comp"ete and c"ear "e*a" ri*ht in the petitioner to the performance of ministeria" acts. 9n var%in* "an*#a*e, the princip"e echoed and reechoed is that"e*a" ri*hts ma% be enforced b% mandamus on"% if those ri*hts are we""defined,c"ear and certain. 4therwise, the mandamus petition m#st be dismissed.1!

The ri*ht that AED) is see>in* to enforce is s#pposed"% enoined b% Section 0A of Rep#b"ic Act No. !+2,&( as amended b% Rep#b"ic Act No. 221, on #nso"icitedproposa"s, which provides V

SE). 0A. >nsolicited proposals. V Unso"icited proposa"s for proects ma% beaccepted b% an% *overnment a*enc% or "oca" *overnment #nit on a ne*otiatedbasis3 8rovided, That, a"" the fo""owin* conditions are met3 ?1@ s#ch proects invo"vea new concept or techno"o*% andor are not part of the "ist of priorit% proects, ?&@ nodirect *overnment *#arantee, s#bsid% or e7#it% is re7#ired, and ?'@ the *overnmenta*enc% or "oca" *overnment #nit has invited b% p#b"ication, for three ?'@ consec#tivewee>s, in a newspaper of *enera" circ#"ation, comparative or competitive proposa"sand no other proposa" is received for a period of si6t% ?(@ wor>in* d

rem2 cases rule 67

Documents