G.R. No. 180979
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. TERESITA DIATO-BERNAL,
G.R. No. 180979
December 15, 2010
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
x x x.
On the substantive issue, the Court finds that the CA and the RTC erred in relying on the unsubstantiated and insufficient findings contained in the commissioners’ report.
In arriving at the P10,000.00 per sq m market value of the expropriated property, the commissioners utilized the following factors:
I. PROPERTY LOCATION
The property subject of the appraisal is situated along Gen. Aguinaldo Highway, Brgy. Anabu, Municipality of Imus, Province of Cavite, consisting of 946 sq. m. more or less, identified as Lot 6075-B with Flat Terrain approximately 5 kms. Distance Southwest of Imus Town proper, about 500 to 600 m. from the entrance gate of Orchard Club and San Miguel Yamamura Corp. from Southeast around 1 km. [t]o 1.5 kms. From EMI (Yasaki), Makro, and Robinsons Department Store.
II. NEGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
The neighborhood particularly in the immediate vicinity, is within a mixed residential and commercial area situated in the Southern Section of the Municipality of Imus which is transversed by Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo Highway w[h]ere several residential subdivisions and commercial establishments are located.
Residential houses in the area are one to two storey in height constructed of concrete and wood materials belonging to families in the middle income bracket, while commercial buildings mostly located along Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo Highway.
Some of the important landmarks and commercial establishments in the immediate vicinity are:
Newly constructed Robinsons Department Store
Makro
Caltex Gasoline station and Shell Gasoline station
Goldbomb Const. Corp.
EMI (Yasaki)
Pallas Athena Subd.
and various Commercial and Savings Banks
Community [c]enters such as school, churches, public markets, shopping malls, banks and gasoline stations are easily accessible from the subject property.
Convenience facility such as electricity, telephone service as well as pipe potable water supply system are all available along Gen. Aguinaldo Highway
x x x x
IV. VALUATION OF LAND MARKET DATA
This method of valuation involves the research and investigation of market and sales data of the properties comparable with the property under appraisal.
These other properties are compare[d] with the subject property as to location and physical characteristics. Adjustment of their selling prices [is] then made with respect to the said comparative elements as well as time compensate for the increase or decrease in value.
Based on our investigations and verifications of market sales data and price listings of the neighborhood where the property under appraisal is located indicates land value within the range of P10,000.00 to P15,000.00 per square meter for residential lots while commercial lots along Gen. E. Aguinaldo Highway are range[d] from P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 per square meters (sic).
With this data and making the proper adjustment with respect to the location, area, shape, accessibility, and the highest and best use of the subject property, we estimate the market value of the subject land at P10,000.00 per square meter, as of this date September 10, 1999.[22]
It is evident that the above conclusions are highly speculative and devoid of any actual and reliable basis. First, the market values of the subject property’s neighboring lots were mere estimates and unsupported by any corroborative documents, such as sworn declarations of realtors in the area concerned, tax declarations or zonal valuation from the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the contiguous residential dwellings and commercial establishments. The report also failed to elaborate on how and by how much the community centers and convenience facilities enhanced the value of respondent’s property.[23] Finally, the market sales data and price listings alluded to in the report were not even appended thereto.
As correctly invoked by NAPOCOR, a commissioners’ report of land prices which is not based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the court.[24]
The trial court adopted the flawed findings of the commissioners hook, line, and sinker. It did not even bother to require the submission of the alleged “market sales data” and “price listings.” Further, the RTC overlooked the fact that the recommended just compensation was gauged as of September 10, 1999 or more than two years after the complaint was filed on January 8, 1997. It is settled that just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint.[25] Clearly, the recommended just compensation in the commissioners’ report is unacceptable.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss. The word “just” is used to intensify the meaning of the word “compensation” and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[26] Indeed, the “just”-ness of the compensation can only be attained by using reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property.
The trial court should have been more circumspect in its evaluation of just compensation due the property owner, considering that eminent domain cases involve the expenditure of public funds.
As to the resolution of the PAC-Cavite advanced by NAPOCOR, which pegged the fair market value of the property at P3,500.00 per sq m, it can only serve as one of the factors in the judicial evaluation of just compensation, along with several other considerations.[27] NAPOCOR cannot demand that the PAC-Cavite resolution be substituted for the report of court-appointed commissioners in consonance with the firm doctrine that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function.[28]
Hence, the legal basis for the determination of just compensation being insufficient, the ruling of the RTC and the affirming Decision and Resolution of the CA ought to be set aside.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 14, 2000 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 120, Imus, Cavite, and the September 28, 2007 Decision and the December 17, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby Set ASIDE. This case is remanded to the trial court for the proper determination of just compensation, in conformity with this Resolution. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
