G.R. No. L-59603*
April 29, 1987
Facts
The President issued Proclamation No 1811, reserving a certain parcel of land of the public domain situated in the City of Lapu-Lapu, Island of Mactan, Cebu and covering a total area of 1,193,669 square meters, more or less, for the establishment of an export processing zone by petitioner Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). However, the proclamation included four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 22,328 square meters owned and registered in the name of the private respondent.
Petitioner filed a complaint for expropriation with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession against the private respondent, to expropriate the aforesaid parcels of land pursuant to P.D. No. 66. Thereafter, respondent judge issued an order stating that the parties have agreed that the only issue to be resolved is the just compensation for the properties. Moreover, the respondent judge issued an Order proclaiming that the petitioner has the lawful right to take the properties and a second order appointing commissioners to ascertain and report to the Court the just compensation of the lands in question. The commissioners recommended that the just compensation is in the amount of 15.00 per square meter. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration as well as setting the commissioner’s report in hearing since under P.D. No. 1533, the basis of just compensation shall be the fair and current market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be expropriated or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. Therefore, there is no more need to appoint commissioners as prescribed by Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court and for said commissioners to consider other highly variable factors in order to determine just compensation. The petitioner further maintains that P.D. No. 1533 has vested on the assessors and the property owners themselves the power or duty to fix the market value of the properties and that said property owners are given the full opportunity to be heard before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
Issue
Whether or not the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in P.D. No. 1533 unconstitutional?
Held
Yes. In J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, “just compensation means the equivalent for the value of the property at the time of its taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity.’”
In estimating the market value, all the capabilities of the property and all the uses to which it may be applied or for which it is adapted are to be considered and not merely the condition it is in the time and the use to which it is then applied by the owner. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities may be shown and considered in estimating its value (Garcia v. CA)
According to section 8 of Rule 67, the court is not bound by the commissioners’ report. It may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of condemnation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property expropriated. This Court may substitute its own estimate of the value as gathered from the record (Manila Railroad Company v. Velasquez, 32 Phil. 286).
In the case at bar, the method of ascertaining just compensation under P.D . No. 76, 464, 794, and 1533,constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to it for final determination. Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the applicable decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor.
Therefore, P.D. No. 1533, which eliminates the court’s discretion to appoint commissioners pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, is unconstitutional and void.