Art. 1315 – Contracts perfected by mere consent.
Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160 - Just compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking.
Petitioner – The City of Cebu
Respondents
–Sps. Apolonio & Blasa Dedamo
Facts:
·
The City of Cebu
filed a complaint for eminent domain against the spouses Apolonio and Blasa
Dedamo, alleging that it needed their two parcels of land for a public purpose,
i.e. for the construction of a public road.
·
The total area sought
to be expropriated is 1,624 square meters with an assessed value of P1,786,400.
·
The City of Cebu deposited
with the Philippine National Bank the amount representing 15% of the fair
market value of the property to enable the petitioner to take immediate
possession of the property pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160.
·
Dedamo filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint because of the following reasons:
(a) That
the purpose for which their property was to be expropriated was not for public use,
but for benefit of a single private entity;
(b) That
the price offered was very low; and
(c) That
they have no other land in Cebu City.
·
A pre-trial ensued,
but the parties executed and submitted to the trial court an Agreement to partially
settle the case.
·
Thereafter, the trial
court directed the City of Cebu to pay the Dedamo the just compensation of P24,865,930.00
based on the recommendation of the appointed commissioners. But the said
compensation was amended to P20,826,339.50, excluding an area which was not
subject to expropriation.
·
The City of Cebu
elevated the case to the CA, asserting that the value of just compensation
should be based on the date of the filing of the complaint. But the CA affirmed
in toto the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
WoN just
compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint
pursuant to Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
Held:
No, the Court holds
that just compensation shall be determined by the proper court, based on the
fair market value at the time of the taking of the property in accordance with Section
19 of R.A. No. 7160, a substantive law that must prevail over procedural law.
Under Art. 1315 also, contracts
are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not
only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all
the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good
faith, usage and law.
In the case at bar, the
parties agreed to be bound by the report of the commission and approved by the
trial court. The agreement is a contract between
the parties. It has the force of law between them and should be complied with
in good faith. Since the petitioner did not interpose a serious objection during
the hearing, it is therefore too late for petitioner to question the valuation.
Thus, the petition is DENIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment