Republic vs.

Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974)

FACTS:

1. The Republic of the Philippines occupied the land of Carmen M. vda. de Castellvi, the
judicial administratrix of the estate of the late Alfonso de Castellvi, from 1 July 1947, by
virtue of a contract of lease,on a year to year basis (from July 1 of each year to June 30 of
the succeeding year). Before the expiration of the contract of lease on 30 June 1956, the
Republic sought to renew the same but Castellvi refused.

2. When the AFP refused to vacate the leased premises after the termination of the contract,
Castellvi wrote to the Chief of Staff of the AFP on 11 July 1956, informing the latter that the
heirs of the property had decided not to continue leasing the property in question because
they had decided to subdivide the land for sale to the general public, demanding that the
property be vacated within 30 days from receipt of the letter, and that the premises be
returned in substantially the same condition as before occupancy.

3. The Chief of Staff refused, saying that it was difficult for the army to vacate the premises in
view of the permanent installations and other facilities worth almost P500,000.00 that were
erected and already established on the property, and that, there being no other recourse,
the acquisition of the property by means of expropriation proceedings would be
recommended to the President. Castellvi then brought suit in the Court of First Instance
(CFI) of Pampanga (Civil Case 1458), to eject the Philippine Air Force from the land. While
this ejectment case was pending, theRepublic filed on 26 June 1959 complaints for eminent
domain against Castellvi, and Maria Nieves Toledo Gozun over 3 parcels of land situated in
the barrio of San Jose, Floridablanca, Pampanga.

4. In its complaint, the Republic alleged, among other things, that the fair market value of the
abovementioned lands, according to the Committee on Appraisal for the Province of
Pampanga, was not more than P2,000 per hectare, or a total market value of P259,669.10;
and prayed, that the provisional value of the lands be fixed at P259,669.10, that the court
authorizes the Republic to take immediate possession of the lands upon deposit of that
amount with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga; that the court appoints 3
commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property
sought to be expropriated, and that the court issues thereafter a final order of
condemnation. The Republic was placed in possession of the lands on 10 August 1959.

5. Meanwhile, on 21 November 1959, the CFI of Pampanga, dismissed Civil Case 1458, upon
petition of the parties. After the parties filed their respective memoranda, the trial court, on
26 May 1961, rendered its decision, finding that the unanimous recommendation of the
commissioners of P10.00 per square meter forthe 3 lots subject of the action is fair and just;
and required the Republic to pay interests.

6. On 21 June 1961 the Republic filed a motion for a new trial and/or reconsideration, against
which motion Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun filed their respective oppositions, and which the
trial court denied on 12 July 1961. The Republic'srecord on appeal was finally submitted on
6 December 1961, after filing various ex-parte motions forextension of time within which to
file its record on appeal. On 27 December 1961 the trial court dismissedboth appeals for
having been filed out of time, thereby.
 7. On 11 January 1962 the Republic filed a "motion to strike out the order of 27 December
1961 and for reconsideration", and subsequently an amended record on appeal, against
which motion Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun filed their opposition. On 26 July 1962 the trial
court issued an order, stating that "in the interest of expediency, the questions raised may
be properly and finally determined by the Supreme Court," and at the same time it ordered
the Solicitor General to submit a record on appeal containing copies of orders and pleadings
specified therein. In an order dated 19 November 1962, the trial court approved the
Republic's record on appeal as amended. Castellvi did not insist on her appeal. Toledo-
Gozun did not appeal.

ISSUE: Whether the taking of Castellvi’s property occurred in 1947 or in 1959.

HELD:

1. A number of circumstances must be present in the "taking" of property for purposes of

eminent domain.

a. First, the expropriator must enter a private property.

b. Second, the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period.
c. Third, the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority.
d. Fourth, the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected.
e. Fifth, the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.

First, the expropriator must enter a private property. By virtue of the lease agreement the Republic,
through the AFP, took possession of the property of Castellvi.

Second, the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period. The word
“momentary” when applied to possession or occupancy of (real) property should be construed to
mean “a limited period”—not indefinite or permanent. The lease contract was for a period of one
year, renewable from year to year. The entry on the property, under the lease, is temporary, and
considered transitory.

Third, the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority.The the
Republic entered the Castellvi property as lessee.

Fourth, the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected. It may be conceded that the circumstance of the property being devoted to
public use is present because the property was used by the air force of the AFP.

Fifth, the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. The entry of the Republic into the property
and its utilization of the same for public use did not oust Castellvi and deprive her of all beneficial
enjoyment of the property. Castellvi remained as owner, and was continuously recognized as owner
by the Republic. Neither was Castellvi deprived of all the beneficial enjoyment of the property,
because the Republic was bound to pay, and had been paying, Castellvi the agreed monthly rentals.

Thus, the Court has ruled that when the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides
with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of
the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be determined as of the date of
the filing of the complaint.

2. The "taking" of Castellvi's property for purposes of eminent domain cannot be considered to
have taken place in 1947 when the Republic commenced to occupy the property as lessee
thereof.
3. Two essential elements in the "taking" of property under the power
of eminent domain, namely:

a. that the entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent, or
indefinite period, and
b. that in devoting the property to public use the owner was ousted from the
property and deprived of its beneficial use, were not present when the Republic entered and
occupied the Castellvi property in 1947.

4. The "taking' of the Castellvi property should not be reckoned as of the year 1947
when the Republic first occupied the same pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the just
compensation tobe paid for the Castellvi property should not be determined on the basis of the
value of the property as of that year.

5. Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the "just compensation" is to be

determined as of thedate of the filing of the complaint. This Court has ruled that when the
taking of the property sought to beexpropriated coincides with the commencement of the
expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent tothe filing of the complaint for
eminent domain, the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of
the complaint.