G.R. No. L-24740, July 30, 1979,
♦ Decision, Makasiar, [J]
♦ Separate Opinions, Fernando, [CJ], Barredo, Aquino, Teehankee, & Antonio [JJ]

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24740 July 30, 1979

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CELESTINO C. JUAN and ANA TANSECO JUAN, defendants-appellants.

Celestino C. Juan &, Associates for appellants.

Solicitor General's Office for the appellee.


Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring:

Concurs in the opinion of Justice Makasiar as to the legal parts involved and in the opinion of Justice Teehankee as to the accounts due appellants.



Separate Opinions

BARREDO, J., dissenting:

I cannot find sufficient evidence to "lorm a clear picture of the classification the anocation of areas as to each class and the fair market value of each class of land. The reports of the comnmissioners are so disparate, no conclusion can be deduced from them. In other words, We do not have enough basis for a fair judgment.



Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., dissenting:

I vote for the affirmance of the lower court's judgment.



Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

I concur with the main opinion of Mr. Justice Makasiar which rejects the appraisal of defendants-appellants' expropriated property by provincial agriculturist Pio Tadina (who was not even appointed by the lower court) in the sum of P616,000.00 as urged by defendants-appellants, whereby plaintiff-appellee Republic of the Philippines would have to pay defendants- appellants (after crediting the sum of P100,000.00 deposited by plaintiff and received by defendants) the further balance of P516,000.00 with 6% interest per annum from May 4, 1963 the date when plaintiff took possession of rhe expropriated property and would amount to a total of well over One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).

I maintain that defendants-appellants' own valuation of property given in the expropriation proceeding itself is binding on them and sets the limit of the compensation to be awarded them regardless of the patently extravagant and exssive appraisals of some of the court-appointed commissioners.

Here defendant-appellant Celestino C. Juan himself in the negotiations for the sale of his property to the State for use as a school site offered it for the price of P190,000.00 (P170,000.00 plus bank loan of P20,000.00), with a down payment of P90,000.00 and the balance of P100,000.00 payable within one year, as per his letter of January 28, 1963. He increased this -aluation further to P300,000.00 in his motion for reconsideration of April 24, 1963. This last evaluation judicially given by defendants-owners is a declaration and admission binding on them,1 unless they can show that they were laboring under an error of fact. No such error has been shown by defendantsappellants. Nor has any compelling reason been given to justify their being relieved from the binding effects of such admission.

The P616,000.—valuation urged by defendants-appellants amounts therefore to double the very valuation of P300,000.00 given by and binding on themselves, exceeding the same by P316,000.00, excluding 90%, interest at 6% per annum for 16 vears since 1963 that would have to be paid.

There is no justification for awarding to the owners double the amount of their own valuation of their property. On the contrary the facts of record bear out that awarding to the owners the compensation set by themselves in the amount of P300,000.00 (Pl10,000.00 more than the original amount asked by them and awarded by the lower court) is a just and reasonable compensation, to wit, the property was bought in 1957 by defendants for P50,000.00 only and the value of their improvements thereon amounted to only Pl,712.60 as of 1963, it is certainly doubtful and contrary to experience that the property would increase in value over 12 times to P616,000.00 whereas the increase in 6 years to P300,000.00 as per the owners' own valuation withou their having done anything to improve the property is quite an optimistic valuation); the property is about six (6) kilometers away from the poblacion of Bacnotan and when the government took possession of the same on May, 4, 1963, it was not accessible at all by motor vehicle and could be reached only by hiking through rice paddies, trails and creek; that it was not fully developed with 95 hectares of pasture land and 70 hectares of forest land and an assessed valuation of P42,120.00.

The only justification cited for granting an amount double the owners' own valuation of the property is that the value of the peso has gone down and continues to decline.

Such decline provides no valid basis or justification for doubling the fair and just price of P300,000.00 representing defendants-appellants' own judicially admitted valuation of their property (increased in four [4] months by P110,000.00 compared to their original offer to sell the same to the government for only P190,000.00, supra at page 1 hereof). It is settled law that the expropriation price to be considered is that at the beginning of the expropriation and taking of possession. That defendants should now receive the balance of P200,000.00 with legal interest when the value of the peso has declined is due to their own decision of pursuing the present appeal. (See DizonRivera vs. Dizon, 33 SCRA 554, 568). There is no claim of extraordinary, inflation such as to make applicable Article 1250 of the Civil Code providing that "the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment." Aside from the fact that this article is applicable only to contractual obligations, neither the competent Executive and monetary authorities nor this Court have ever admitted or declared that the factual assumption of said article (extraordinary inflation) has come into existence. (Velasco vs. Meralco, 42 SCRA 556). The onerous and adverse consequences of such a declaration on the national economy and stability of its finance and currency and on the great majority of average and fixed wage-earners in relation to their contractual debts and obligations are too staggering to contemplate.

Finally, there is no reason to disregard the general rule enunciadated in Republic of the Philippines vs. Narciso,2 that "the owners' valuation of the property may not be binding on the Government or the court, but is should at least set a ceiling price for the compensation to be awarded. Moreover, the prices to be considered are those at the beginning of the expropriation not the increased values brought about by the improvements and actuations of the Government after occupying the premises.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote for limiting the increase in compensation to be awarded to defendant appellants to the valuation set by themselves as owner in the amount of P300,000.00 with 6% interest per annum on the balance of P200,000.00 from May 4, 1963, which would bring the total exproprriation value to close to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (500,000.00) or ten times the original price paid therefor by defendants-appellants.


Footnotes

1 Rule 130. sec. 22 "Admissions of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

2 99 Phil. 1031 (1956).



Separate Opinions

ANTONIO, J., dissenting:

I dissent from the main opinion of my distinguished colleagues for the following reasons:

(1) Celestino Juan, in making the admission of P300,000.00 as the value of the property, was referring, not to a fair or just, but to a provisional value of his property.ℒαwρhi৷ The sum was stated four (4) times in his "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration And Or to Lift Writ of Possession,1 but there is no mistaking that he was referring merely to a provisional value so that the Republic could obtain immediate possession of the property. têñ.£îhqwâ£

x x x It must be considered, however, that the amount fixed as the provisional value of the lands that are being expropriated does .iot necessarily represent the true and correct value of the land. The value is only "provisional" or "tentative", to serve as the basis for the immediate occupancy of the property being expropriated by the condemnor... (Republic v. Castellvi, L-20629, Aug. 15, 1974, 58 SCRA 336. 359.)

Celestino Juan should thus be considered as having judicially admitted P300,000.00 merely as the provisional value of his property and should not be bound by such ,value as the true value.

Nor may Juan be bound to his proposal to the principal of the agricultural school in the sum of P190,000.00 as the selling price of his land because when he tendered the proposal he was in urgent need of money to defray expenses in connection with certain criminal cases involving his wife.2

(2) Judicial or non-judicial admissions made by condemnees as to the value of their properties that are to be expropriated should not be deemed conclusive if such admitted value be unjust, because the Constitution imperatively requires the payment of "just compensation." têñ.£îhqwâ£

Sec. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. (Constitution, Article IV, Bill of rights.)

(3) There is, moreover, the circumstance that a portion of the land had potential for conversion into a subdivision. In fact, a 4-hectare area was considered by a member of the Provincial Appraisal Committee as residential; it was occupied by tenants who built their houses thereon.3 têñ.£îhqwâ£

We agree with the findings, and the conclusions, of the lower court that the lands that are the subject of expropriation in the present case, as of August 10, 1959 when the same were taken possession of by the Republic, were residential lands and were adaptable for use as residential subdivisions. Indeed, the owners of these lands have the right to their value for the use for which they would bring he most in the market at the time the same. were taken from them... (Republic v.Castellvi, supra, at p. 358.)

(4) The appraisal by Provincial Agriculturist Tadina in the sum of P616,000 appears to be the most realistic and reliable. He was an experienced and competent appraiser, and he undertook the appraisal impartially, as he did so in an official capacity and without the knowledge of Celestino Juan.4

(5) The mean value of the individual evaluations made by the three (3) Commissioners substantially accords with, or even surpasses, the amount recommended by Tadina, to wite:têñ.£îhqwâ£

Atty. Rogelio Balagot, Chairman and Representative of the Court . . . . . P1,045,876.30
Atty. Eufemio Molina, for the Plaintiff . . . . . . . . 135,000.00
Atty. Pablito Rojas, for the Defendants . . . . . . . 1 ,407,856.00
têñ.£îhqwâ£
P2,588,732.30
P2,588,732.30 divided by 3 = P862,910.77

(6) Finally, it cannot be denied that the purchasing power of the peso has, in the meantime, depreciated. têñ.£îhqwâ£

"x x x This Court has also taken judicial notice of the fact that the value of the Philippine peso has considerably gone down since the year 1959 x x x"(Republic v. Castellvi, supra, at p. 363.)

The ceiling conversion rate of the peso to the dollar in 1963 when the Republic took possession of the property was P3.20 to $1.00; 5 the inter-bank guiding rate for January 20, 1975 was P7.0705, 6 more than double that in 1963; on January 20, 1975, the foreign exchange rate was $1,00 for P7.32; 7 so that even if Celestino Juan is to be considered as having judicially admitted the price of his property in the sum of P300,000.00 (which admission is, as previously stated, qualified or non-categorical), the doubling of this sum at this time is justified.

In contrast to the foregoing, land values have considerably appreciated anc continue to increase.


Footnotes

1 Record on Appeal, pp. 25, 30, 31, & 32.

2 TSN, May 7, 1964, pp. 550-552, as cited in Motion for Reconsideration, Record on Appeal, pp. 426, 478-480.

3 TSN, p. 4, as cited in Appellants' Brief on pages 67 & 143.

4 TSN, p. 407, cited in Record on Appeal, p. 201.

5 Central Bank Memo. March 12, 1962.

6 Philippines Daily Express, January 20. 1975. p. 10.

7 Newsweek, January 20, 1975, p. 43.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation