THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MIGUEL BATAC, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The plaintiff seeks to acquire, for public use, a certain piece of land,
situated in Masantol, Pampanga, containing an area of 9,9688 square meters. The
defendant Miguel Batac, owner of the land and now substituted in tnis case by
his heirs in view of his death, has not challenged the plaintiff’s right of
condemnation, and the only issue raised by the parties concerns the just
compensation. The commissianers on appraisal appointed by the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga, one of vvhom represented the plaintiff, another the
defendant, and a third the court, submitted a unaniiiious report recommending
that the defendant be paid P2,297.24 as the market value of the land, and
P793.89 as consequential damages. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment
fixing the value of the land at P2,297.24, or at P0.23 per square meter, and
disallowing the consequential damages recommended by the commissioners. Both the
plaintiff and the defendant have appealed, the former claiming that the land
should be appraised at only P1,000 per hectare, and the latter insisting on the:
damages found to be due in the commisioners’ report.

Plaintiff ‘s appeal is not tenable. The value specified by the tria1 court is
merely the amount paid for the land by the defendant in 1922, and greatly lower
than the price ( P0.37 per square meter) for which an adjoining parcel was sold
at sbout the same time. Although they were not sufficiently coeval transactions,
the same are influential factors in the determination of the market value, since
there is absolutely no intimation that, on the date of the condemation
proceedings, the price of Iand in defendant ‘s locality was lower than P0.23 per
square meter. We are inclined to adopt the appraisal of the conmiissioners, not
only because they made an ocular inspection of the land but because they had
full opportunity to hear and Weigh the testimony of witnesses, in conjunction
with the documentary evidence; and their report finds substantial support in
such evidence. This report is obviously more disinterested and acceptable than
the appraisal of P0.10 per square meter made by the committee created pursuant
to Executive Order No. 132, series of 1937, and relied upon by the plaintiff,
inasmuch os the latter committee was wholly composed of public officials, not to
mention the absence of a showing that, during its proceedings, the defendant had
been given his “day in court.” It is true that in 1927 the land was declared by
the defendant far taxation purposes at about P0.05 per square meter, but the
same cannot have a decisive bearing in its market value in 1946, for the reason
that the land was in said declaration represented as No. 2 in productivity,
class B in accessibility, and partly irrigated; whereas, according to the
finding of the commissioners on appraisal, the property is first-class irrigated
riceland, with two heavy and abundant harvests annully, accessible to any water
craft, and free from floods. Moreover, in compliance with Commonwealth Act No.
530, the defendant had declared the land in 1940 at its purchase price, or P0.23
per square meter.

Upon the other hand, we hold that the defendant is entitled to the following
consequential damages:

(a) Two pesos and twenty-six centavos.— It appearing that
the defendant had paid in full the 1940-tax on the land which included the
condemned portion, which is approximately one-half of the entire area; that the
plaintiff took possession in July, 1940; and that the amount paid was P8.93, the
defendant ought to be reimbursed in a sum equivalent to one-half of the tax
corresponding to the second semester of 1940, of P2.26. This item is conceded by
the plaintiff in its brief as appellee.

(b) Six hundred pesos.— There is uncontradicted evidence to
the effect that the irrigation system of the remaining portion of the
defendant’s land had been destroyed or otherwise rendered worthless as s result
of tlie expropriation of the other portion and that the construction of a new
system will cost P600, according to the very estimate of Celedonio Espiritu, an
experienced employee in the District Engineer’s Office who was, at the behest of
the provincial fiscal of Pampanga, appointed by the trial court in
representation of the plaintiff. Said amount, unanimously, recojuciended by the
commissioners on appraisal, is an expense brought about by the condemnation
proceedings for which the defendant should be indemnified.

(c) One hundred seventy-two pesos and twenty-five
centavos.— There is also uncontrsdicted evidence that the defendant was
prevented from harvesting rice crops standing on the condemned land which were
destroyed to give way to the purpose for which the land was expropriated, as
well as rice crops standing on the remaining western portion which were
destroyed by rain inundation caused by the very high dykes constructed by the
plaintiff. Said lost crops would have netted the defendant P172.25, erroneously
reported by the commissioners as P165.63, upon the computation that the minimum
total yield would have been sixty-five cavans and the prevailing price of palay
was P2.65 per cavan.

(d) Twenty-six pesos.— This is the amount unquestionably
paid bj the defendant for the original survey plan of the defendant’s entire
land which had become useless by the exclusion of the expropriated portion.
There is consequent necessity for a new survey plan.

Wherefore, with the modification that the plaintiff is ordered to pay the
defendant the sum of P800.51 as consequential demages, the appealed judgment is
in other respects affirmed. So ordered, without costs.

Moran, C. J.,
Jaranilla, Feria, Pablo, and Briones, JJ., concur.