[07] Republic vs Lim  After depositing P9,500 with the Philippine National Bank, the Republic took

GR No. 161656 | June 29, 2005 possession of the lots. Thereafter, in 1940, the CFI rendered its Decision ordering
Rafanan the Republic to pay the Denzons the sum of P4,062.10 as just compensation.
TOPIC: Eminent Domain o The Denzons interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals but it was
SUMMARY: In a final judgment dated 1948, two lots belonging to the Denzons were dismissed on March 11, 1948. An entry of judgment was made on April 5,
expropriated by the Republic; hence, the latter was ordered to pay just compensation. 1948.
The Republic didn’t pay, so in 1961, Valdehueza (Denzons’ successor-in-interest) filed  In 1950, one of the heirs of the Denzons filed with the National Airports
an action for recovery of possession against the Republic and the AFP (the current Corporation a claim for rentals for the two lots, but it "denied knowledge of the
possessor of the property). In 1966, the SC in that case ruled with finality that matter."
Valduhueza cannot recover possession of the properties already expropriated, but the o Another heir brought the claim to the Office of then President Carlos Garcia
Republic must pay the fair market value of the lots as just compensation. In 1992, Lim who wrote the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Secretary of National
(mortgagee-creditor of Valduhueza who eventually foreclosed one of the lots) filed a Defense to expedite action on said claim. The claim was eventually rejected.
complaint for quieting of title. Both RTC and CA ruled that Lim is the lawful owner  In 1961, for failure of the Republic to pay for the lots, the Denzons’ successors-in-
of the foreclosed property. It was held that the expropriation proceedings had already interest, Francisca Galeos-Valdehueza and Josefina Galeos-Panerio, filed with the
become final in the late 1940's and yet, more than 50 years after, the Republic had not same CFI an action for recovery of possession (“Valdehueza Case”) with
yet paid the compensation fixed by the court while continuously reaping benefits damages against the Republic and officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
from the expropriated property to the prejudice of the landowner. The SC affirmed in possession of the property.
the CA ruling and held that while the general rule is that non-payment of just o 1964, pending CFI decision, they mortgaged one of the lots to Respondent
compensation (in an expropriation proceeding) does not entitle the private Vicente Lim.
landowners to recover possession of the expropriated lots, the special  CFI promulgated its Decision in favor of Valdehueza and Panerio, holding that
circumstances prevailing in this case entitle Lim to recover possession of the they are the owners and have retained their right as such over the lots because of
expropriated lot from the Republic. It explained that the first, Republic's delay is the Republic's failure to pay the adjudged in the expropriation proceedings.
contrary to the rules of fair play, as just compensation embraces not only the o However, they were ordered to execute a deed of sale in favor of the
correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also Republic..
the payment for the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt o Valduheza and Panerio directly appealed to the Supreme Court
payment, compensation cannot be considered 'just.'" The Court cannot but construe  In 1966, SC: Valdehueza and Panerio are not entitled to recover possession of the
the Republic's failure to pay just compensation as a deliberate refusal on its part. lots but may only demand the payment of their fair market value
Under such circumstance, recovery of possession is in order. Secondly, title to “Said lots have been the subject of expropriation proceedings. By final and executory
property which is the subject of condemnation proceedings does not vest the judgment in said proceedings, they were condemned for public use, as part of an
condemnor until the judgment fixing just compensation is entered and paid. airport, and ordered sold to the Government. By virtue of the judgment, long final,
DOCTRINE: in bold above in the expropriation suit, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of their
FACTS: expropriated lots — which are still devoted to the public use for which they were
 In 1938, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) instituted a special civil action expropriated — but only to demand the fair market value of the same.”
for expropriation (“Expropriation Case”) with the CFI of Cebu involving 2 lots  1976, Lim foreclosed the mortgage, and a TCT was issued in his name
(Lots 932 and 939) of Denzons in the Banilad Friar Land Estate, Lahug, Cebu City,  1992, Lim filed a complaint for quieting of title with the RTC
for the purpose of establishing a military reservation for the Philippine Army.  RTC and CA ruled in favor of Lim: Republic evaded its duty of paying what was
due to the landowners. The expropriation proceedings had already become final
in the late 1940's and yet, up to now, or more than 50 years after, the Republic had
 not yet paid the compensation fixed by the court while continuously reaping use of the two lots, the National Airports Corporation denied knowledge of
benefits from the expropriated property to the prejudice of the landowner. This is the claim of respondent's predecessors-in-interest. Even President Garcia, who
contrary to the rules of fair play because the concept of just compensation sent a letter to the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Secretary of
embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the National Defense to expedite the payment, failed in granting relief to them.
owners of the land, but also the payment for the land within a reasonable time And, on September 6, 1961, while the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
from its taking. expressed willingness to pay the appraised value of the lots, nothing
 Refresher: happened.
o 1948 Expropriation Case  Expropriate Property + Pay just compensation  The Court of Appeals is correct in saying that Republic's delay is contrary to the
o 1966 Recovery of Possession Case by Valdehueza  Cannot recover rules of fair play, as "just compensation embraces not only the correct
possession but pay fair market value determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the
o Present case of Quieting of Title by Mortgagee Lim payment for the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt
 Petitioner Republic: payment, compensation cannot be considered 'just.'"
(1) Under Valdehueza Case, respondent is not entitled to recover possession of Lot  Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Vda. De Villaroya : "The petitioners have been
932 but only to demand payment of its fair market value waiting for more than thirty years to be paid for their land which was taken for
(2) Where there have been constructions being used by the military, as in this use as a public high school. As a matter of fair procedure, it is the duty of the
case, public interest demands that the present suit should not be sustained. Government, whenever it takes property from private persons against their will,
to supply all required documentation and facilitate payment of just compensation.
ISSUE: Whether the Republic has retained ownership of the lot despite its failure There should be some kind of swift and effective recourse against unfeeling and
to pay respondent's predecessors-in-interest the just compensation therefor uncaring acts of middle or lower level bureaucrats."
pursuant to the judgment of the CFI rendered as early as May 14, 1940 (over 50  As early as 1966, in Valdehueza, this Court mandated the Republic to pay
years ago) - NO respondent's predecessors-in-interest the sum of P16,248.40 as "reasonable market
 One of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution is that no person shall be value of the two lots in question." Unfortunately, it did not comply and allowed
deprived of his private property without due process of law; and in expropriation several decades to pass without obeying this Court's mandate. Such prolonged
cases, an essential element of due process is that there must be just compensation obstinacy bespeaks of lack of respect to private rights and to the rule of law,
whenever private property is taken for public use. which we cannot countenance. It is tantamount to confiscation of private
o Accordingly, Section 9, Article III, of our Constitution mandates: "Private property.
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."  While it is true that all private properties are subject to the need of government,
 The Republic disregarded the foregoing provision when it failed and refused to and the government may take them whenever the necessity or the exigency of
pay respondent's predecessors-in-interest the just compensation for Lots 932 and the occasion demands, however, the Constitution guarantees that when this
939. The length of time and the manner with which it evaded payment governmental right of expropriation is exercised, it shall be attended by
demonstrate its arbitrary high-handedness and confiscatory attitude. compensation. From the taking of private property by the government under
o The final judgment in the expropriation proceedings was entered on April 5, the power of eminent domain, there arises an implied promise to compensate
1948. More than half of a century has passed, yet, to this day, the landowner, the owner for his loss.
now respondent, has remained empty-handed. Undoubtedly, over 50 years of  Significantly, the above-mentioned provision of Section 9, Article III of the
delayed payment cannot, in any way, be viewed as fair. Constitution is not a grant but a limitation of power. This limiting function is in
o This is more so when such delay is accompanied by bureaucratic hassles. The keeping with the philosophy of the Bill of Rights against the arbitrary exercise of
respondent's predecessors-in-interest were given a "run around" by the governmental powers to the detriment of the individual's rights. Given this
Republic's officials and agents. In 1950, despite the benefits it derived from the
 function, the provision should therefore be strictly interpreted against the o It bears stressing that the Republic was ordered to pay just compensation
expropriator, the government, and liberally in favor of the property owner. twice, the first was in the expropriation proceedings and the second, in
o Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. et al., vs. Secretary of Valdehueza. 57 years have passed since then. We cannot but construe the
Agrarian Reform: Title to property which is the subject of condemnation Republic's failure to pay just compensation as a deliberate refusal on its
proceedings does not vest the condemnor until the judgment fixing just part. Under such circumstance, recovery of possession is in order.
compensation is entered and paid, but the condemnor's title relates back to
the date on which the petition under the Eminent Domain Act, or the Re Republic’s argument that public interest demands that the constructions being used by
commissioner's report under the Local Improvement Act, is filed. Although military should not be recovered by previous private owner
the right to appropriate and use land taken for a canal is complete at the time  It must be emphasized that an individual cannot be deprived of his property for
of entry, title to the property taken remains in the owner until payment is the public convenience.
actually made.  In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
o Kennedy v. Indianapolis: the US Supreme Court cited several cases holding that Reform: "The end does not justify the means. It is not enough that there be a valid
title to property does not pass to the condemnor until just compensation had objective; it is also necessary that the means employed to pursue it be in keeping
actually been made. with the Constitution. Not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent
o Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus and Paredes : Clearly, without full payment of just public need, subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of
compensation, there can be no transfer of title from the landowner to the an individual's rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a person invoking a right
expropriator. Otherwise stated, the Republic's acquisition of ownership is guaranteed under Article III of the Constitution is a majority of one even as
conditioned upon the full payment of just compensation within a reasonable against the rest of the nation who would deny him that right.
time. o The right covers the person's life, his liberty and his property under Section 1
o Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia: Expropriation of lands consists of two stages of Article III of the Constitution. With regard to his property, the owner enjoys
(1) the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of the added protection of Section 9, which reaffirms the familiar rule that private
eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."
facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the
action, of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to We thus rule that the special circumstances prevailing in this case entitle respondent
take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose to recover possession of the expropriated lot from the Republic. Unless this form of
described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be swift and effective relief is granted to him, the grave injustice committed against his
determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint” predecessors-in-interest, though no fault or negligence on their part, will be
(2) the determination by the court of "the just compensation for the perpetuated.
property sought to be taken."
 It is only upon the completion of these two stages that expropriation is said Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
to have been completed. CV No. 72915 is AFFIRMED in toto.
 Of course, we are aware of the doctrine that "non-payment of just compensation
(in an expropriation proceeding) does not entitle the private landowners to
recover possession of the expropriated lots." This is our ruling in the recent
cases of Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, and Reyes vs. National
Housing Authority.
o However, the facts of the present case do not justify its application.