ESTANISLAO ALFONSO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PASAY CITY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Estanislao Alfonso is appealing from the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Rizal (Pasay City Branch), dated November 26, 1958,
Civil Case No. 1489-P, dismissing his complaint on the ground of laches
and prescription. The decision is based on a stipulation of facts
submitted by the parties. For this reason, we are reproducing the
statement of facts made by the trial court, which is as follows:

“The parties herein entered into a stipulation of
facts. The undisputed facts are: Lot No. 4368 containing an area of
719.92 sq. meters, situated in Pasay City is covered by transfer
certificate of title No. 1057 (30999) in the name of plaintiff
Estanislao Alfonso. In 1925, the then Municipality of Pasay extended
Park Avenue, to public street southward and the extension passed
through lot 4368 so that said lot was thereby converted into a park of
Park Avenue extension. In converting lot No. 4368 as part of Park
Avenue extension, no expropriation proceedings was instituted by the
then municipality of Pasay and neither was herein plaintiff paid any
compensation for the lot. Since 1925 to the present the lot was
continually used as a part of Park Avenue extension. Because of the
failure of the municipality of Pasay or its successor, defendant Pasay
City, to pay for the rental or the value of lot 4368 or to return the
same when demanded to do so by plaintiff, the latter filed the present
action on July 20, 1954.”

This is a case where a registered owner of a parcel of land has lost
possession way back in 1925 because it was taken by a municipal
corporation (Municipality of Pasay) for road purposes. It was never
paid for, and so the ownership thereof remained in the name of the
registered owner. No annotation on said title was made as to any right,
say easement of right of way, which the City of Pasay might have
acquired over the land. There is some doubt as to whether Estanislao
Alfonso ever made demands for the payment of his property which was
taken away from him without the benefit of either expropriation
proceedings or a negotiated sale. However, there is reason to believe
that Alfonso has made such demands as any owner of a valuable
registered property would do, but as usually the case, perhaps the
demands were either ignored or action thereon was postponed and perhaps
forgotten with the changes of administration in Pasay that occurred
since 1925 up to 1954 when Alfonso finally brought the present action
to recover either the possession of the parcel or its value.

The present case finds it parallel in the recent case of Herrera vs.
Auditor General, 102 Phil., 875, decided by this Tribunal on January
23, 1958, where a registered owner of land in Quezon City was deprived
of its possession when it was taken over by the city government for
road purposes. The owner thereof made demands for the payment of his
land, and although the City Attorney of Quezon City indorsed favorable
action on the claim, however, the Auditor General rejected said claim
on the ground of prescription. There, we held that registered lands are
not subject to prescription, and that on grounds of equity, the
government should pay for private property which it appropriates,
though for the benefit of the public, regardless of the passing of
time. This Tribunal does not look with favor on the practice of the
Government or any of its branches, of taking away property from a
private landowner, especially a registered one, without going through
the legal process of expropriation or a negotiated sale and paying for
said property without delay. The private owner is usually at a great
and distinct disadvantage. He has against him the whole Government,
central or local, that has occupied and appropriated his property,
summarily and arbitrarily, sometimes, if not more often, against his
consent. There is no agreement as to its price or its rent. In the
meantime, the landowner makes requests for payment, rent, or even some
understanding, patiently waiting and hoping that the Government would
soon get around to hearing and granting his claim. The officials
concerned may promise to consider his claim and come to an agreement as
to the amount and time for compensation, but with the not infrequent
government delay and red tape, and with the change in administration,
specially local, the claim is pigeonholed and forgotten and the papers
lost, mislaid, or even destroyed as happened during the last war. And
where finally losing patience and hope, he brings a court action and
hires a lawyer to represent him in the vindication of his valid claim,
he faces the government represented by no less than the Solicitor
General or the Provincial Fiscal or City Attorney, who blandly and with
self-assurance, invokes prescription. The litigation sometimes drags on
for years. In our opinion, that is neither just nor fair. When a
citizen, because of this practice loses faith in the government and its
readiness and willingness to pay for what it gets and appropriates, in
the future said citizen would not allow the Government to even enter
his property unless condemnation proceedings are first initiated, and
the value of the property, as provisionally ascertained by the Court,
is deposited, subject to his disposal. This would mean delay and
difficulty for the Government, but all of its own making.

In the case of Herrera vs. Auditor General, supra, we said:

“Here before us is a case of a law abiding citizen
and taxpayer who as far back as 1934, realizing the need of the
Government of his lot for road purposes, instead of compelling said
Government to resort to expropriation proceedings, readily and in all
ingeniousness allowed the Government to immediately occupy it. In his
implicit trust in his Government, he did not even bother to require it
to make a judicial deposit of the approximate value of his land, not
even to make an offer of a price it would pay for it. But since then,
he has continuously asked for the payment of said fair price as a
condition precedent to his conveyance and sale of the property. But the
government neglected to make an offer, much less make payment, then
evidently forgot all about it, and now it flatly refuses to pay,
evidently forgetting that it had also neglected to secure a conveyance
of the property, so that Herrera, as already stated, is still the owner
of the same. In other words, there has never been a sale by Herrera to
the Government. To legalize its possession of the lot, the Government
must buy it from Herrera and pay him reasonable compensation. The very
Constitution enjoins it. As already said, the Government, through the
City Engineer, has made an offer of an amount, not of the lot’s value
in the open market, but only of its assessed value, which as everyone
knows, is usually much below its real value. Herrera either tired of
waiting for payment, or in a spirit of cooperation with his Government,
agreed to the amount of said assessed value as the purchase price, and
formally accepted the offer in 1955, and yet that same Government
apparently ignoring all these facts and repudiating its offer, refuses
to make payment, at the same time insisting to collect and actually
Collecting the real estate taxes for land which it had been occupying
all these years. What we have just narrated and described does not make
and form a pretty and edifying spectacle which could be presented to
the citizens and taxpayers for their contemplation and inspiration. The
only bright spots in the otherwise somber picture are the attitude and
actions taken by the District Engineer, the Quezon City Engineer, and
the City Attorney, who after due investigation, upheld the valid claim
of Herrera, and recommended that he be paid just compensation. There is
nothing that can more speedily and effectively embitter a citizen and
taxpayer against his Government and alienate his faith in it, than an
injustice and unfair dealing like the present case.”

In the present case, Alfonso remains up to now the owner of the land
in question, Lot No. 4368 of the Cadastral Survey of Pasay, because
being registered land, the City of Pasay or its predecessor,
Municipality of Pasay, did not and could not acquire it thru
prescription. As registered owner, he could bring an action to recover
possession at any time because possession is one of the attributes of
ownership of land. However, said restoration of possession by the City
of Pasay is neither convenient nor feasible because it is now and has
been used for road purposes. So, the only relief available is for the
City of Pasay to make due compensation, which it could and should have
done years ago since 1925.

As to the value of the property, although the plaintiff claims the
present market value thereof, the rule is that to determine due
compensation for lands appropriated by the Government, the basis should
be the price or value at the time that it was taken from the owner and
appropriated by the Government. According to the stipulation of facts,
the value of the land in 1925 was P1.25 per square meter. So, for the
area of 719.92 square meters, the value will be said area multiplied by
P1.25. Inasmuch as the City of Pasay has not been paying rent for the
use of the land since 1925, thereby causing damages in favor of the
owner, said damages may be assessed in the form of legal interest on
the price since 1925, up to the time when payment is made by the City
of Pasay. In our opinion, the defendant city would also pay for
attorney’s fees which we fix in the amount of P400.00

In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is reversed, with costs against defendant-appellee, Pasay City.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.