REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPRESENTED BY THE LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION), PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. DALMACIO URTULA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

These are expropriation proceedings initiated toy the. Land Tenure
Administration, pursuant to Republic Act 1400, against Dalmacio Urtula for
condemnation of a big tract of land with an area of 213.0940 hectares covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30 of the Registry of Property of Camarines
Sur, located ia barrios Itulan and Quitang, municipality of Pasacao, Camarines
Sur. Defendant did not contest plaintiff’s right to expropriate, whereupon three
(3) commissioners were, in due course, appointed by the court below. After
receiving the evidence of the parties and conducting an ocular inspection, the
commissioners submitted their report appraising the value of the property of
P1,000.00 per hectare, or a total of P213,094.00; including improvements.
Approving the report over” plaintiff’s objection, judgment was rendered by the
court, ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the said, amount of P213,094.00 for
the land and its improvements.

The only question presented in this appeal is the, reasonable market value of
the property, plaintiff-appellant claiming that it should he appraised at P670
or, at the most, P750 per hectare; while defendant-appellee claims that its
value should be, as found by the lower court, P1,000.00 per hectare.

It would appear that of the total area, 130.0940 hectares are planted to
coconut trees; 65 hectares are riceland allegedly producing from. 40-45 cavans
per hectare: 15 hectares, upland riceland allegedly producing from 35-40 cavans
per hectare; and 3 hectares are occupied by the tenants as a homesite (Report of
Commissioners; Briefs for both parties). The Commissioners’ Report further lists
16,633 fruit-bearing coconut trees (Appendix “A”), and 2,105 coconut trees not
yet fruit-bearing, all these planted in an area of 130.0940 hectares, 50
hectares of which are lowland. Also, the following appears as improvements:

1. Shed of strong materials, galvanized roofing (4 x 16 meters)
2. 2 camarins (5 x 12 & 5 16 meters, respectively)
3. steel fence
4. poultry
5. water pump
6. residential or administration building (semi-concrete, galvanized-roofing,
   16×10 meters)

It is significant that the report of the expropriation commissioners was
unanimous, bearing the unqualified approval of the commissioner representing the
Land Tenure Administration. The latter, however, contends that their valuation
is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and in this Court relies for support
upon the assessed valuation, the report of the Provincial Appraisal Committee,
and the evidence of a sale on May 18, 1956 of an allegedly similar parcel of
land of 49.8272 hectares to one Jose Goc for P35,000.00 or roughly P702 per
hectare (Exhibit C).

We do not find that this evidence establishes the valuation contended for by
the Land Tenure Administration. In the first place, the assessed value of
P117.690.00 appears to have been’fixed by the provincial assessor and not by the
landowners themselves, as may be seen from the back of the assessment sheet,
Exhibit B. Consequently, the valuation cannot be deemed binding on the
landowners, since they were not shown to have intervened in fixing it.
Commonwealth Act 530, and our ruling in Manila Railroad Co. vs. Alano,
36 Phil., 500, in considering assessment valuations as prima facie
evidence of market values, proceed on the assumption that such values were based
on the sworn statements of the owners. There is no evidence here that the
assessment was based on the owner’s estimates so as to make it binding upon
them.

As to the estimates of the Provincial Appraisal Committee, we note that none
of the members thereof testified before the expropriation commissioners or the
Court below. The record is bereft of any data to show how’tlie Committee arrived
at the values set in their appraisal (Exhibit D), and granting the competency of
the committee members to pass upon and determine ¦fearket values, their bare
opinion is not adequate to overthrow that of the expropriation commissioners. It
is elementary that the value of expert opinion depends upon the cogency of the
reasons supporting the same (U.S. vs. Rosel, 24 Phil., 594; People
vs. Palalon, 49 Phil., 177). It would be unfair for the landowners to
hold them bound by the opinion of experts that they had no opportunity to
confront or cross-examine for the purpose of showing that the opinion was
premised oh false or mistaken data or was otherwise illogical.

Finally, it was preponderantly shown at the hearings before the commissioners
that the land sold to Jose Goc (Exh. C) (unlike the one here involved) was
uncultivated in two-fifths (2/5) of its total area; so that the true value per
hectare of the cultivated portion can not be determined by simply dividi&gf
the total area sold by the purchase price. It was testified that to fully
cultivate the entire extent of the land would require an additional investment
of P10,000.00 at least. Even disregarding the increase in price due to this
portion’s coming into production, adding this cost of cultivation of the 2/5 to
the price of P35,000.00 would result in a total cost of P45.000.00 for the 49
odd hectares, or over 900 pesos per hectare. This value is remarkably close to
the value set by the commissioners in tljis case, taking into account the value
of the improvements existing in the land under litigation.

In view of the deficiencies in the appellant’s evidence, we find no adequate
reason for disturbing the unanimous valuation of the commissioners, as approved
by the Court below after hearing the parties.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. No costs in this instance.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera,
Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.