ARTICLE 3 SECTION 9 CASE 1 OF 13 i.

To Toledo-Gozun because the amount deposited as provisional

REPUBLIC OF THE PH vs. VDA DE CASTELLVI value until full payment is made to said defendant or deposit
therefor is made in court
ii. To Castellvi from when plaintiff commenced its illegal possession
FACTS: [big chance you’ll hate this case bc daming ganap] of land when the instant action had not yet been commenced to
1. REPUBLIC: filed a complaint for eminent domain against defendant-appellee Carmen when the provisional value thereof was deposited in court
vda de Castellvi who is the judicial administratrix of the estate of the late Alfonso de 9. Republic: motion for new trial + MR on grounds of newly-discovered evidence (denied)
Castellvi over a parcel of land, and against defendant-appellee Maria Toledo-Gozun
over two parcels of land ISSUES:
a. Republic alleged that fair market value of lands was not more than P2k per 1. W/N erred in holding the “taking” of property under expropriation commenced with
hectare, or a total market value of P259,669.10 the filing of this action NO
b. Also prayed that court authorize plaintiff to take immediate possession of 2. W/N lower court erred in finding P10/m2 as just compensation YES
lands upon deposit of amount with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga 3. W/N erred in ordering plaintiff-appellant to pay 6% interest on adjudged value of
c. + that court appoints 3 commissioners to ascertain and report to court the just Castellvi property to start from plaintiff’s “commenced illegal possession” YES
compensation for property sought to be expropriated 4. W/N erred in denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for new trial NO
d. + that court issue final order of condemnation
2. CASTELLVI: residential land had a fair market value of P15/m2 and that Republic, RULING:
through AFP (particularly the Air Force), had been illegally occupying her property, 1. TAKING OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE
thereby preventing her from using and disposing of it IN 1947 WHEN REPUBLIC COMMENCED TO OCCUPY PROPERTY AS LESSEE
a. Prayed that complaint be dismissed or that Republic be ordered to pay BUT RATHER WHEN IT WAS PLACED IN POSSESSION BY AUTHORITY OF
P15/m2 + interest at 6%/yr COURT IN 1959 (WHEN COMPLAINT FOR EMINENT DOMAIN FILED)
b. + that Republic be ordered to pay her P5M as unrealized profits + costs of suit a. CONTEXT: Castellvi property had been occupied by Air Force since 1947
3. (A bunch of people intervened as party-defendant, including Toledo-Gozun) under a contract of lease which duly stipulated that the foregoing contract of
4. Republic deposited with Provincial Treasurer amount of P259,669.10 and the trial court lease is similar in terms and conditions, including the date, with the annual
ordered that Republic be placed in possession of lands contracts entered into from year to year between said parties. HOWEVER,
5. TOLEDO-GOZUN (Motion to Dismiss): before the expiration of contract of lease on June 1956, Republic sought to
a. that her 2 parcels of land were residential lands and that a portion had renew same but Castellvi refused.
already been subdivided into different lots for sale to the general public and i. Undisputed that Republic occupied said land from July 1947 by
the remaining portion had already been set aside for expansion sites of the virtue of said contract on a year-to-year basis under the terms and
already completed subdivisions conditions therein stated.
b. that the fair market value of lands was P15/m2 ii. Castellvi wrote to Chief of Staff of AFP that the heirs of the
c. prayed that complaint be dismissed or that she be paid for the P15/m2 + property had decided NOT to continue leasing property because
interest at 6%/yr + attorney’s fees in amount of P50k they had decided to subdivide the land for sale to the general
6. Trial court authorized Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga to pay Toledo-Gozun public, demanding they vacate within 40 days
P107,609 as provincial value of her land, and P151,859.80 to Castellvi as provincial value iii. Castellvi sought to eject them via suit in CFI but while ejectment
of land under her administration case pending, Republic instituted expropriation proceedings, and
a. Also appointed 3 commissioners for the defendants who later submitted their was placed in possessions of the lands
reports and recommendations wherein, A. HOWEVER, ejectment case eventually got dismissed
i. after determining that lands were residential lands, the because plaintiff has already signed an agreement with
recommended lowest price to be paid was P10/m2 for both lands. defendants, whereby she has agreed to receive the rent
ii. That Toledo-Gozun be paid addt’l P5k for improvements on land of the land from Jun 1956 when contract of lease expired
iii. Legal interest on compensation be paid after deducting amounts to 1959 when Air Force was placed in possession by
already paid to the owners virtue of Court order upon deposit of provisional
iv. No consequential damages amount
7. All parties objected to the report (lmao) b. REPUBLIC: that “taking” of property should be deemed as of 1947 by virtue
a. Castellvi + Toledo-Gozun: insist that fair mkt value be P15/m2. of lease agreement
b. Republic: that price be paid for lands be fixed at P0.20/m2. c. HOWEVER, NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE PRESENT IN
8. TRIAL COURT: “TAKING” OF PROPERTY FOR PURPOSE OF EMINENT DOMAIN
a. That the P10/m2 recommendation was fair and just i. Expropriation must enter a private property (present)
b. That plaintiff will pay 6% interest on total value of lands
 ii. Entrance into private property must be for more than momentary a. There is evidence to prove that lands in question had ceased to be devoted to
period (ABSENT) production of agri crops and had become adaptable for residential purposes
A. Lease contract was for year-to-year basis, making it even before the Republic filed the complaint for eminent domain
temporary and transitory despite installations of b. CITY OF MANILA v. CORRALES: Guidelines in determining value of
permanent nature by Republic (terms of contract > intent property expropriated for public purposes
of lessee) since it required renewal after every year i. Same considerations are to be regarded as in a sale of property
iii. Entry into property should be under warrant or color of legal between private parties
authority (present because Republic entered property as lessee) ii. A lot of circumstances need to be taken into account but generally,
iv. Property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally we should say that the compensation of owner is to be estimated
appropriated or injuriously affected (present because property was by reference to the use for which property is suitable, having
used by air force) regard to the existing business or wants of community, or such as
v. Utilization of property for public use must be in such a way as to may be reasonably expected in immediate future
oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the c. Lower court’s finding supported by unanimous opinion of commissioners
property (ABSENT) and by Provincial Appraisal Committee
i. Castellvi thought of subdividing land into residential lots as early
A. Castellvi remained as owner and continuously
as July 1956 in her letter to the Chief of Staff of AFP
recognized as owner by Republic (as shown by yearly
ii. Layout of subdivision plan tentatively approved by national
renewal of contract + provision whereby Republic
Planning Commission (NPC) as early as Sept 1956
undertook to return property when lease terminated)
iii. Land had not been devoted to agriculture since 1947
B. Neither was Castellvi deprived of all beneficial iv. In 1957, land was classified as residential and taxes based on its
enjoyment of property (Republic paid monthly rentals
classification as residential had been paid since then
until the time when it filed complaint for eminent
d. Same banana with Toledo-Gozun (BOTH DEFO RESIDENTIAL LANDS)
domain in 1959)
e. RE QUESTION OF JUST COMPENSATION
d. NOTE:
i. REPUBLIC P0.20/m2 basis: REPUBLIC v. NARCISO
i. year to year lease cannot give rise to a permanent right to occupy
despite Republic’s contention to such
A. HOWEVER case no longer applies here because
a. Owners in case had specifically asked for
ii. Neither can it be said that right to eminent domain may be
P2,000 per hectare and Court said that owners
exercised by simply leasing premises to be expropriated
of land could not be given more than what
iii. Nor can it be accepted that Republic would enter into a contract of
they had asked for notwithstanding
lease where its real intent was to buy, OR WHY THE REPUBLIC
recommendation of Commission on Appraisal
SHOULD ENTER INTO A SIMULATED CONTRACT OF LEASE
that it should be P3,000 per hectare
WHEN ALL THIS TIME THE REPUBLIC HAD THE RIGHT OF
b. P0.20/m2 was considered the fair market value
EMINENT DOMAIN AND COULD EXPROPRIATE LAND IF IT
of lands as of 1949 and at the time they were
WANTED TO WITHOUT RESORTING TO ANY GUISE (bitch)
classified as sugar lands
iv. Neither can we see how right to buy could be merged in a contract
ii. As of present case (1959), land of Castellvi assessed at P1/m2
of lease in absence of any agreement between parties to that effect
iii. Should be noted as well that the amount fixed as PROVISIONAL
v. Obviously a deceptive scheme, which would have the effect of
VALUE OF LANDS that are being expropriated does NOT
depriving the owner of property of its true and fair market value
necessarily represent the true and correct value of the land
at the time when expropriation proceedings were actually
instituted in court. A. MOREOVER, altho Provincial Appraisal Committee via
e. Expressly agreed in lease agreement that should the lessor require lessee to RESO #5 (1957) recommended sum of P0.20 as fair
return the premises in the same condition as at the time the same was first valuation, it was later repealed by RESO #10 (1959) and
occupied by AFP, the lessee would have the “right and privilege” (i.e. option) increased to P1.50
of paying the lessor what it would fairly cost to put the premises in same iv. After studying the records and evidence, and after considering the
condition as it was at the commencement of the lease. circumstances attending lands in question, court decided P10 was
i. Fair value @ occupancy =/= value of property if bought too high and considered the view that P5/m2 would be fair
f. Same banana for Toledo-Gozun valuation and would constitute just compensation to owners

2. INDEED RESIDENTIAL LANDS AND BUT P10/M2 BROUGHT DOWN TO P5/M2

3. REPUBLIC SHOULD PAY INTEREST AT 6% ON VALUE OF LAND MINUS THE
PROVISIONAL VALUE THAT WAS DEPOSITED ONLY FROM JULY 1959 WHEN
IT WAS DEPOSITED IN COURT THE PROVISIONAL VALUE OF THE LAND
a. Must be noted that if Castellvi had agreed to receive the rentals from June
1956 to Aug 1959, she should be considered as having allowed her land to be
leased to the Republic and she could not at the same time be entitled to
payment of interest during same period

4. “NEW EVIDENCE” ALL IMMATERIAL AND IRRELEVANT BECAUSE SALES

COVERED SUGARLANDS WITH SUGAR QUOTAS WHILE THE LANDS
SOUGHT TO BE EXPROPRIATED IN INSTANT CASE WERE RESIDENTIAL
a. Alleged new evidence:
i. Deed of absolute sale (1961) showing that certain Serafin Francisco
had sold to Pablo Narciso a parcel of sugar land
ii. Deed of sale of some 35,000m2 of land by spouses Evelyn Laird and
Cornelio Laird in favor of spouses Bienveniedo Aguas and Josefina
Aguas for P0.21/m2
iii. Deed of absolute sale of parcel of land for P0.09/m2 by Jesus
Mendoza in favor of Land Tenure Administration
b. To warrant grant of new trial, must appear that evidence was discovered
AFTER THE TRIAL; that even with exercise of due diligence, evidence could
not have been discovered and produced at the trial and that evidence is of
such nature as to alter the result of the case if admitted
c. Even gratia argumenti, “that lands mentioned were residential, evidence
would still not warrant grant of new trial for said evidence could have been
discovered and produced at the trial and cannot be considered NEWLY
DISCOVERED evidence”