Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 168122 January 30, 2007
ROMONAFE CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION and VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,* Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Respondent National Power Corporation (NPC), a government owned and controlled corporation, filed on July 12, 1995 a complaint1 for eminent domain with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite against Romonafe Corporation (Romonafe), herein petitioner, and Vine Development Corporation (Vine), docketed as Civil Case No. 1140-95. The complaint covered 48,103.12 square meters of property belonging to Romonafe and 96,963.38 square meters of property belonging to Vine, all located in Barangay San Agustin, Dasmariñas, Cavite.
On January 26, 1996, Branch 21 of the Imus RTC issued a writ of possession2 in favor of NPC, on account of which the NPC took possession of the property of both Romonafe and Vine on February 12, 1996.3
On December 3, 1996, the trial court designated commissioners to determine the just compensation for the properties.4
By Commissioner’s Valuation Report5 submitted on February 18, 1997, the commissioners recommended just compensation of P3,500 per square meter for the Romonafe property.
To the Commissioner’s Valuation Report, the NPC filed its Comment/Opposition,6 assailing the valuation for "having used as basis the present (1997) market value of the property instead of the market value on July 12, 1995, the time of the filing of the complaint."7 The NPC cited October 25, 1995 Resolution No. 08-95 of the Provincial Appraisal Committee (PAC) of Cavite which assessed the property of Romonafe at P1,500 per square meter and that of Vine at P2,000 per square meter.8
By Commissioner’s Valuation Report9 submitted on July 11, 1997, the commissioners gave the property of Vine assessed value of P3,500 per square meter as of June 1, 1997.
Romonafe filed its Reply to [the NPC] Opposition10 to the Commissioners Valuation Report, manifesting that on account of its letter dated June 9, 1997 seeking reconsideration of above-cited October 25, 1995 Resolution No. 08-95, the PAC issued Resolution No. 07-9711 assessing its property at P3,500 per square meter.
By Decision12 of September 5, 1997, the trial court, declaring that the parcels of land of Romonafe and Vine had been lawfully expropriated and now belonged to the NPC to be used for public purpose, disposed:
x x x x
The plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay the defendants, through the Branch Clerk of this Court, the fair market value of the property at P3,500.00 per square meter, that is, for defendant Vine Development Corporation, the total sum of P339,371,830.00 and for defendant Romonafe Corporation, the total sum of P168,360,920.00, plus legal rate of interest – i.e. 6% per annum – starting from the time the plaintiff took possession of the property up to the time the full amount shall have been paid.
The commissioner’s fee is hereby fixed at P10,000.00 per commissioner, to be paid by the plaintiff.
The Branch Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to have a certified copy of this decision be registered in the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite.
SO ORDERED.13 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The NPC thus filed on October 1, 1997 a Notice of Appeal14 to the Court of Appeals. The appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. No. CV-57710, was entitled "National Power Corporation v. Vine Development Corporation, represented by its President Vicente C. Ponce and Romonafe Corporation, represented by its President Oscar F. Tirona."
During the pendency of the appeal or on June 22, 1998, the appellate court received a Compromise Agreement15 dated June 8, 1998 forged by NPC and Romonafe whereby NPC agreed to pay Romonafe P3,500 per square meter of its property and Romonafe agreed to sell NPC 27,293.88 square meters in addition to the 48,103.12 square meters originally expropriated, as well as a discount of P4,092,810.40 on the P284,092,810.40 total payable amount inclusive of interest.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in compliance with the appellate court’s order, filed its Comment on the Compromise Agreement forged between NPC and Romonafe. It questioned the agreement to pay Romonafe on the basis of the 1997 valuation of its property at P3,500 per square meter as "contrary to decisional law."16 In a Supplemental Comment,17 the OSG informed the appellate court that the attorneys who signed the agreement were not authorized to sign on its behalf.18
By Resolution of January 19, 1999, the appellate court dismissed NPC’s appeal in this wise:
At the hearing of this case on December 10, 1998, the Honorable Ricardo P. Galvez, Solicitor General, appeared personally and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the authority of the lawyers of the National Power Corporation to appear as Special Attorneys of the Solicitor General is limited to cases before the lower courts (RTCs and MTCs). He also invokes the provisions of the Administrative Code (Section 35(1) Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV) that said lawyers have no authority to appear before this Court.
WHEREFORE, without objection on the part of all the parties in this case, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.19 (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
To the dismissal the NPC filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the OSG did not move for the dismissal of the appeal and had, in fact, earlier manifested on December 11, 1998 that the OSG-deputized counsels had the authority to file notices of appeal.20
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied,21 NPC filed a Petition22 for Review on Certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 137785, entitled "National Power Corporation v. Vine Development Corporation, represented by Vicente C. Ponce and Romonafe Corporation, represented by Oscar F. Tirona."
In the meantime, also during the pendency of G.R. No. 137785, the OSG submitted on June 9, 1999 to this Court a Partial Compromise Agreement23 between the NPC and Vine whereby, among other things, Vine reduced the value of its property from P3,500 to P3,400 per square meter, gave NPC a discount of 20% on the interest awarded by the trial court, and acceded to the request of the NPC for an additional area of 5,499.62 square meters and for the aggregate payment (totaling P128,530,200.00) for the three parcels of land to be "part of the down payment approved by the National Power Board in favor of respondent Vine Development Corporation under NP Board Resolution No. 98-91 confirmed on April 27, 1998 and NP Board Resolution No. 98-97 x x x."24
By Decision of September 4, 2000, this Court, in G.R. No. 137785, "invalidated" the signatures of NPC lawyers in the Compromise Agreement between NPC and Romonafe,25 for lack of authority to bind NPC. It then remanded to the appellate court NPC’s appeal from the trial court’s Decision of September 5, 1995 for disposition on the merits.26
By Decision27 of November 10, 2004, the appellate court nullified the June 8, 1998 Compromise Agreement between NPC and Romonafe as being contrary to the B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals28 ruling that just compensation should be ascertained at the time of the filing of the complaint, adding that it was disadvantageous to the government. And it fixed the market value of Romonafe’s property at P1,500 per square meter.29 Thus it disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed 05 September 1997 Decision of the court a quo in Civil Case No. 1140-95 is hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED for being contrary to law and jurisprudence.
The Compromise Agreement dated 08 June 1998 [between National Power Corporation and Romonafe] is also decreed NULL and VOID for being disadvantageous to the Government, thus, against public policy.
In lieu thereof, it is further decreed by this Court that the fair market value of the expropriated parcel of land be fixed at P1,500.00 per square meter.30 (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
Its Motion for Reconsideration31 having been denied,32 Romonafe filed the instant Petition for Review33 against NPC and erroneously against Vine, positing as follows:
I. IT IS GRAVE ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO NULLIFY AND DECLARE VOID THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NPC AND ROMONAFE XXX
x x x x
II. IT IS GRAVE ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REFUSE TO RENDER A DECISION ON ALL ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ON APPEAL, WHICH INCLUDES A DETERMINATION OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NPC AND VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
III. IT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REFUSE TO RECONSIDER ITS RESOLUTION, WHICH REFUSAL AMOUNTS TO A CONDONATION OF THE UNDUE DISCRIMINATION AND PARTIALITY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN FAVOR OF VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A REFUSAL TANTAMOUNT TO EVASION OF POSITIVE DUTY AND A REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE ENJOINED DUTY TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.34 (Underscoring supplied)
NPC notes in its Comment35 the silence of the appellate court’s decision on the Partial Compromise Agreement forged between NPC and Vine which was, as priorly stated, submitted before this Court on March 19, 1999 during the pendency of G.R. No. 137785 and which Partial Agreement was, by NPC’s information, submitted before the appellate court. The NPC thus prays that this Court consider the said Partial Compromise Agreement in the resolution of this case.
Just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint whichever comes first.36 In the case at bar, just compensation should thus be determined as of July 12, 1995 when the expropriation case was filed before the trial court.1avvphi1.net
The Commissioners Valuation Report – upon which the trial court’s decision, as well as the Compromise Agreement between NPC and Romonafe, was based – took into account, in appraising the value of Romonafe’s property, among other considerations, "desirability, neighborhood, utility, size and time element, the prevailing market value [at] the time of the appraisal of the property."37
In demurring to the Commissioners Valuation Report, NPC claims that the properties of Romonafe was valued at P1,500 per square meter in 1995. It cites above-mentioned PAC Resolution No. 08-95. Romonafe contends, however, that PAC Resolution 07-97 assessed its property at P3,500 per square meter. Such contention deserves no consideration. As the OSG points out:
First. The third perambulatory clause of PAC Resolution No. 07-97 (amending PAC Resolution No. 08-95) states:
WHEREAS, Romonafe Corporation had submitted additional data/information which were not readily available to and duly considered by the committee during the appraisal on October 25, 1995 xxx
x x x x
However, the plain language of PAC Resolution No. 08-95 belies the afore-quoted declaration in PAC Resolution No. 07-97 with regard to the availability of the xxx data in 1995:
x x x x
WHEREAS, after a thorough discussion and careful analysis of the narrative reports submitted by the Municipal Appraisal Committee of the concerned Municipalities, the Provincial Appraisal Committee has established the fair market value on the subject parcels of land A VALUE WHICH IS NOT TOO HIGH ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT TOO LOW ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.1avvphi1.net
x x x x
The [1995] valuation came about after the Provincial Appraisal Committee tasked the respective Municipal Assessors of Bacoor, Imus, and Dasmariñas, Cavite to conduct their own appraisal to determine the current and fair market value of the lands subject thereof within their respective jurisdictions, pursuant to Executive Order No. 132, Series of 1987, as amended.
x x x x
Second. PAC Resolution No. 08-95 was approved on October 25, 1995. However, petitioner filed a letter of reconsideration thereof only on June 9, 1997 or after the lapse of almost one (1) year and eight (8) months. If it felt actually and truly aggrieved by the valuation made in said resolution, why did it not immediately object thereto? Surely, petitioner cannot feign lack of knowledge of the existence of the same resolution after its approval considering that the appraisal was, in fact, made precisely in connection with the expropriation proceeding already filed in court on July 12, 1995.
Third. The panel of commissioners constituted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the just compensation for petitioner and VINE’s expropriated properties conducted an ocular inspection thereof on January 10, 1997. It then submitted to the trial court a Commissioner’s Valuation Report appraising petitioner’s property at P3,500 per square meter.
If at all, the above-recommended valuation only indicates that it is, indeed, the valuation of petitioner’s property for the year 1997. It cannot be seriously claimed that it was already the same valuation of the petitioner’s property on July 12, 1995, the date of the filing of the NPC’s complaint for expropriation. Observedly, there is a time lapse of almost one and a half (1 and ½) years from July 12, 1995 to January 10, 1997. It is of common knowledge that the price of real property steadily increased at an amazing speed within the periods material to this case; hence, it is simply preposterous to claim that the market value of petitioner’s property in 1995 remained constant up to 1997.38 (Emphasis in the original)
It bears clarification, however, that the 1995 assessment applies only to the 96,963.38 square meters of Romonafe’s property subject of Civil Case No. 1140-95.
The Court notes that the appellate court failed to pass on NPC’s appeal with respect to the property of Vine. And, as NPC and even Romonafe manifest, the appellate court failed to consider the Partial Compromise Agreement between NPC and Vine in its assailed Decision. A remand of the case to the appellate court is thus in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Conformably with the observation in the immediately preceding paragraph, let the records of the case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for it to pass on the merits of the appeal of the National Power Corporation from the trial court’s decision respecting Vine Development Corporation and the Partial Compromise Agreement subsequently forged during the pendency of the appeal between the National Power Corporation and Vine Development Corporation.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA
Asscociate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* As will be discussed herein, the impleading of Vine Development Corporation as respondent was erroneous.
1 RTC Records, pp. 1-19.
2 Id. at 108.
3 Id. at 116.
4 Id. at 137.
5 Id. at 142-145.
6 Id. at 153-159.
7 Id. at 153.
8 Id. at 155-156, 158-157.
9 Id. at 166-167.
10 Id. at 180-181.
11 Id. at 182-183.
12 Id. at 196-206.
13 Id. at 206.
14 Id. at 207-208.
15 CA rollo, pp.18-26.
16 Id. at 77.
17 Id. at 89-92.
18 Id. at 89.
19 Id. at 171.
20 Id. at 178-179.
21 Id. at 188-193.
22 Id. at 200-232.
23 Rollo, pp. 87-95.
24 Id. at 91. Vide p. 96-97.
25 NPC v. Vine Development Corporation, 394 Phil. 76, 87-88 (2000).
26 Id. at 88.
27 Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin and Celia C.Librea-Leagogo, CA rollo, pp. 619-630.
28 G.R. No. 89980, December 14, 1992, 216 SCRA 584.
29 CA rollo, pp. 629-630.
30 Ibid.
31 Id. at 637-658.
32 Id. at 707.
33 Rollo, pp. 11-57.
34 Id. at 41.
35 Id. at 202-231.
36 Rules of Court, Rule 67, Section 4. Vide Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160890, November 10, 2004, 441 SCRA 637, 644; B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28 at 587.
37 RTC records, p. 145.
38 Rollo¸ pp. 217, 219-223. Vide note 1 at 158-159, 182-183.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
