G.R. No. L-13684. July 26, 1960
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. FRANCISCO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
BARRERA, J.:
Case No. 4680), the Republic of the Philippines, as expropriator of
several parcels of land situated in Carmona, Cavite, appealed to the
Court of Appeals, assailing the correctness of the amount fixed by the
lower court as value thereof. The case was, however, elevated to us for
final disposition pursuant to Section 17 of the Judiciary Act, as
amended by Republic Act 2613, the amount involved being more than
P200,000.00.
On September 15, 1948, the Republic of the
Philippines; through the Rural Progress Administration (later succeeded
by the Land Tenure Administration), instituted condemnation proceedings
to expropriate, for subdivision and sale at cost to the
tenants-occupants thereof, the following properties:
-
Eight (8) parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos.
2364 and 2365, located at Calayugan, Carmona, Cavite, with an aggregate
area of 791,685 square meters, owned by the Heirs of Maria Yaptinchay,
namely—Antonia Gonzales,
Encarnacion Almeda, married to Francisco Casas,
Antonio Almeda,
Heirs of Esteban Almeda,
Natividad Almeda,
Dolores Almeda,
Fausto Manducdoc; -
Three (3) parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
4348, with an aggregate area of 411,980 square meters located in
Calayugan, Carmona, Cavite, owned byMiguel Yaptinchay, and
Maria R. Mateo de Yaptinchay; -
Two (2) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
21422, with an aggregate area of 86,249 square meters, located in Ulong
Tubig, Carmona, Cavite, owned by the Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay, namely:Francisco Yaptinchay,
Albina Yaptinchay,
Isidro Yaptinchay,
Alberto Yaptinchay,
Miguel Yaptinchay,
Agustin Yaptinchay,
Felix Yaptinchay; -
Two (2) parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
4349, with an aggregate area of 361,798 square meters, located in sitio
Sangayad, Bancal, Carmona, Cavite, owned byAlberto A. Yaptinchay, and
Milagros Marfori de Yaptinchay; -
Two (2) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
21421, with a total area of 95,642 square meters, located in
Ulong-Tubig, Carmona, Cavite, owned byAntonio Almeda, married to Ricarda Medel,
Encarnacion Almeda, married to Francisco Casas,
Raymunda Almeda, married to Mariano S. Yatco,
Estate of Rosenda Almeda; -
Seven (7) parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
4347, with a total area of 766,086 square meters, located in sitio
Linaua-an, Cabilang-Baybay, Carmona, Cavite, owned byAgapito Yaptinchay;
-
One (1) parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
4355, with an area of 462,972 square meters, located in sitio Encanto,
barrios of Biga and Maguyam, Carmona, Cavite owned byAlbina Yaptinchay, Antonio Almeda, married to Ricarda Medel,
Encarnacion Almeda, married to Francisco Casas,
Raymunda Almeda, married to Mariano S. Yatco,
Estate of Rosenda Almeda; -
Four (4) parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
4346, with a total area of 104,222 square meters located in Maduya,
Carmona, Cavite, owned byAlbina Yaptinchay;
-
Eight (8) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
A-399, with a total area of 476,042 square meters, located in Maduya,
Carmona Cavite, owned byTrinidad Yaptinchay,
Tita Yaptinchay,
Macaria Yaptinchay, married to Eliseo Abad,
Flora Yaptinchay, married to Teodoro Evangelista,
Estate of Rosenda Yaptinchay; -
Seven (7) parcels of land known as Cadastral Lots Nos. 746, 1632, 1507,
1518, 723, 724, and 728 with a total area of 750,979 square meters,
located in barrios Lantic and Ulong-Tubig, Carmona, Cavite, owned byTita Yaptinchay, married to Hermenegildo Lao,
Trinidad Yaptinchay,
Macaria Yaptinchay, married to Eliseo Abad,
Flora Yaptinchay, married to Teodoro Evangelista,
Felix Yaptinchay,
Francisco Yaptinchay,
Isidro Yaptinchay.
As the landowners offered no objection to the expropriation of their
properties, the court appointed Clerk of Court Ponciano F. Martinez, as
chairman, Perpetuo Laurito (at the suggestion of the tenants) and
Eduardo Barretto (suggested by the land owners), as members, of the
committee that would determine the actual market value of the
properties subject of the proceedings.
After due hearing,
wherein both parties presented their respective evidence chairman
Martinez, concurred in by member Laurito, taking into account the fact
that the tenants took possession of the lands from the landowners
(allegedly by force) since before the outbreak of the Second World War,
expressed the opinion that the compensation must be based on the market
value of the properties during said period. However, as there was no
evidence of the prevailing land valuation in 1940, the two
commissioners considered the sworn tax declarations of the landowners
executed in 1942 to be reflecting the true value of the said
properties, which, on this basis, totalled to P85,500.00. Nevertheless,
as the court fixed the sum of P111,290.00 as provisional value of the
properties, without objection from the landowners, it was recommended
that this latter amount be fixed as full compensation therefor, from
which the sum of P10,220.00, value of certain lots which were ordered
segregated and excluded from the complaint, shall be deducted.
Member Eduardo Barretto, on the other hand, made the following recommendations:
For the properties referred to in— No. 1 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 2 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 3 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 4 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 5 (lot No. 21) …………………………………………………………. (lot No. 22) …………………………………………………………. No. 6 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 7 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 8 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 9 ………………………………………………………………………… No. 10 ……………………………………………………………………….
In its decision of June 28, 1956, the court held that the landowners
should be considered to have been deprived of possession of their
properties only upon actual delivery thereof by the Sheriff to the
plaintiff, or on September 21, 1950, and, disregarding the
recommendations of the commissioners, fixed the compensation due the
landowners, as follows:
For residential land (Lot No. 21 of No. 5) ……………………………………… For irrigated lands (Nos. 8, 9) …………………………………………………… For unirrigated lands (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10,
and Lot No. 22 of No. 5) ………………………………………………………….
In the last 2 instances, interest was also awarded at the rate of 6%
per annum, computed from the date of actual delivery to the plaintiff.
With respect to the lands wherein ownership was contested, payment
thereof was ordered withheld and the corresponding amount deposited
with the Provincial Treasurer pending final settlement of the
controversy.
Plaintiff in this appeal now claims that the court a quo
erred in fixing the abovementioned amounts as compensation, for the
reason that they are higher than that demanded by the owners and even
more than the recommendation of commissioner Barretto. We find reason
to sustain plaintiff-appellant’s contention.
The valuation arrived at by the trial court was based on two decisions: (1) the case of Alejo vs. Provincial Government of Cavite (54 Phil., 304) decided by this Court in 1930, involving a property located in the sitio of Palangue, Naic, Cavite wherein the price of the expropriated land was fixed at P2,000.00 per hectare, and (2) the case of Municipality of Bacoor vs. Cuenca, decided by said court in 1951, involving a parcel of land located in Bacoor, Cavite,
wherein the price was fixed at P2.00 per square meter. Certainly,
valuations made at some other time, involving other parcels of land
situated in different localities can hardly be considered evidentiary
facts of the prices of land elsewhere. In order that purchases and
sales of properties may be considered competent proof of the market
value of an expropriated property, the former must be shown to be
adjoining the latter,[1] or at least, within the zone of commercial activity with which the condemned property is identified.[2]
This is not true in the instant case. Aside from the fact that the
expropriations subject of the decisions relied upon by the lower court
took place at a different period, judicial notice may be taken of the
fact that Carmona, which is a mountainous region, can not be identified
with the commercial activity of Bacoor and Naic, which are nearer
Manila and in the lowlands. The prices of land in the latter places,
cannot, therefore, be considered indicative of the market value of the
properties in Carmona.
Upon the other hand, the records show
that in the course of the hearing conducted by the Committee on
Appraisal, some of the landowners, testifying in their own behalf, in
answer to questions propounded by their counsel, demanded as
compensation for their properties the following amounts:
Miguel Yaptinchay—P1,500.00 per hectare for his properties referred to as Nos. 2 and 3 (p. 62, t.s.n., Oct. 19, 1953);
Antonio Almeda—P0.50 per square meter, for the property described as
Lot No. 21 of No. 5, and P1,500.00 per hectare for Nos. 1, 7 (p. 87-88,
t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1953);
Alberto Yaptinchay—P1,000.00 per hectare, for No. 4 (p. 117, t.s.n., March 2, 1954);
Agapito Yaptinchay—P1,500.00 per hectare, for No. 3 (p. 137, t.s.n., March 2, 1954);
Albina Yaptinchay—P2,000.00 per hectare, for Nos. 7 and 8. (p. 141, t.s.n., March 2, 1954);
Tita Yaptinchay Lao—P5,000.00 per hectare (because of sentimental value), for Nos. 9 and 10 (p. 149, t.s.n., March 8, 1954).
It further appears that in a “Memorandum” dated September, 1948 (at
about the same time when the expropriation proceedings commenced),
addressed to then President Elpidio Quirino, Francisco Yaptinchay, for
himself an4 on behalf of his brothers Felix, Alberto, Agapito, Isidro,
Miguel and Agustin, and sister Albina, offered to sell the dame
properties to the Rural Progress Administration at the rate of P700.00
per hectare, including all the improvements existing thereon. This
fact, was confirmed during the bearing by Francisco Yaptinchay himself
and commissioner Eduardo Barretto, who endowed the said memorandum to
the President (p. 178-179, t.s.n., April 26, 1954).
The admission by the owners is evidence of the highest order. Their
Valuation of the property may not in law be binding on the government
or the courts, but it should at least set a ceiling price for the
compensation to be awarded. The price of the condemned property should
not be higher than what the owner demanded. (Republic vs. Narciso, G. R. No. L-6594, May 18, 1956).
It is true that of the landowners who testified during the hearing, at
least one of them, Tita Yaptinchay-Lao demanded the sum of P5,000.00
per hectare as compensation, because of its sentimental value to her
family, one of her tons having been killed there. But this demand does
not reflect the actual compensable loss suffered by them, for neither
the sentimental value of a property to its owner nor the inconvenience
resulting from the loss thereof is an element in the determination of
damages (Republic vs. Lara, 96; Phil., 170; 50 Off. Gaz.
(17)5778). Furthermore, considering plaintiff’s Exhibit B (a deed of
sale executed on August 19,1959, covering 2 lots in sitio Agiid, barrio
Bangkal, Carmona, Cavite, with a total area of 5.5357 hectares, sold
for P450.00); Exhibit E-1 (a deed of sale executed in 1951 involving
.77 hectare located in Maduya, Carmona, Cavite, sold for P500.00) and
Exhibit F (a deed of sale executed on August 13, 1951 involving 5.2618
hectares located in Ulong-Tubig, Carmona, Cavite, sold for P1,300.00),
we believe and so declare that the price of P1,000.00 per hectare for
irrigated lands with sugar quota; P800.00 per hectare for irrigated
lands without sugar quota and unirrigated lands with quota; P600.00 per
hectare for unirrigated lands without sugar quota, and P0.50 per square
meter for residential lands, would be reasonable compensation. The
owners of the expropriated properties shall also be entitled to recover
legal interest on the amount payable to them and not covered by the
deposit made by the plaintiff, computed from the date of delivery of
possession to the latter (September 21, 1950) to the date of actual
payment thereof. (Republic vs. Lara, supra.)
Wherefore, and with the above modification, the decision appealed from
is hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs. So
ordered.
Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez David, J., reserves his vote.
[1] Metropolitan Water District vs. Escueta, 57 Phil., 293.
[2] Manila Railroad Company vs. Mitchel, 49 Phil., 801.