City of Cebu V Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo

City of Cebu v.
Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo

G.R. No. 142971 May 7, 2002
FACTS:
 On September 17, 1993, petitioner City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against
respondent spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. The petitioner alleged that it needed two
parcels of land of the respondents for a public purpose such as the construction of a public road
to serve as an access/relief road in Cebu City. Petitioner deposited a sum worth 15% the fair
market value (P51,156) of the property to enable it to immediately take possession of the same.
 Respondents, filed a motion to dismiss because the alleged public purpose on benefitted a single
private entity which is Cebu Holdings, Inc. They further alleged that the petitioner could have
purchased the property from them directly, claimed that the purchase price was too low, and
that they have no other land in Cebu City.
 The trial court, pursuant to an agreement executed by the parties, appointed three
commissioners to determine the just compensation for the lang. After the commissioners
submitted their report, the court ruled that petitioner must pay respondent spouses
P24,865,930.
 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the report was inaccurate since
it included an area not subject of expropriation. It contended that in one lot, the actual area
expropriated consisted of 478 out of 793 square meters as the remaining area was subject to a
separate expropriation proceeding. This led to an amended assessment of P20,826,339.50. The
Court of Appeals then affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.
 Petitioner now files a petitioner for review with this court asserting that the just compensation
should be determined from date of the filing of the complaint (September 17, 1993) and not at
the time of actual taking (1994) pursuant to the decision in “National Power Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals”.
ISSUE: Whether or not just compensation should be determined as of the date of filing of the complaint?
– NO
RULING:
 Eminent domain is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is the
Government's right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private
property for public use or purpose. However, the Government must pay the owner thereof just
compensation as consideration therefor.
 In the case at bar, the applicable law as to the point of reckoning for the determination of just
compensation is Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just compensation
shall be determined as of the time of actual taking. The Section reads as follows:
 SECTION 19. Eminent Domain. – A local government unit may, through its chief executive and
acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or
purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just
compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided,
however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite
offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided,
further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon
the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of
at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax
declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided finally, That, the amount to be paid for
the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market
value at the time of the taking of the property.
 The petitioner has misread our ruling in The National Power Corp. vs. Court of Appeals. We did
not categorically rule in that case that just compensation should be determined as of the filing
of the complaint. We explicitly stated therein that although the general rule in determining just
compensation in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of the filing of the
complaint, the rule "admits of an exception: where this Court fixed the value of the property as
of the date it was taken and not at the date of the commencement of the expropriation
proceedings."
 Lastly, even if Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that just compensation shall be
determined at the time of filing of the complaint for expropriation, such law cannot prevail over
RA 7160 which is a substantive law.

City of Cebu V Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Cebu V Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Cebu V Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Cebu v.

Spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.