City of Manila v. Estrada Rodriguez C2020

City of Manila v. Estrada 25 PHIL 208 | September 9, 1913 J. TRENT

The court is empowered to make such final order and judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his rights under the law, and to the defendant just compensation for the land so taken. The final order and judgment are reviewable by this court by means of a bill of exceptions in the same way as any ordinary action. FACTS

Appeal from a judgment of the Court Co urt of First Instance of Manila. The city of Manila sought to expropriate an entire parcel of land with its improvements for use in connection with a new market at that time being created in the district of Paco. The several sessions of the commissioners at which evidence was heard took place. George Sellner, a real estate agent, stated that the land in question was worth 60% more 2 than the value of the surrounding land and placed its value at P10/m . He made negotiations regarding the land opposite the estero a month before, and the land was 2 valued at P6/m . Enrique Brias, another real estate agent, testified that P10/m2 was a good price for the 2 land. He was the man whose land was sold at P6/m . 2 Mr. Powell of the BIR testified that the Estrada land was appraised for taxation at P6/m . The president of the Municipal Board of o f Manila testified that a parcel of land on the opposite side of Calle Herran (Clarke Case) had been expropriated by the city in 1908. In this case it seems that the city was a part of a parcel fronting on Calle Ca lle Herran. The 2 commissioners appraised the total area at P6.50/m . However, because of the 2 consequential damage to the rest of the property, the land was bought at P19.85/m . Ariston Estrada testified that the land should be worth P25/m2 at this time, since about 2 P19.85/m  was paid for Mr. Clarke’s land, and this was three years ago. The property values have increased since then. •

•

• •

•

Because of the improvements also situated on the land, the committee fixed its value at 2 P20/m . The court duly rendered its decision, confirming the majority report as to the 2 improvements, but reducing the price of the land from P20/m , as fixed by the majority report, to P15/m2. ISSUES AND HOLDING 2

1. Whether the P10/m was just compensation. YES. Compensation is defined as an equivalent for the value of land or property taken. It is said to be  just if it conveys the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken is real, substantial, full, and ample.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 1

Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that just compensation mea ns a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. The interests of the public and of the owner and all the circumstance of the particular appropriation should be taken into consideration. To assess would be to perform a juridical act. The commissioners’ power is limited to assessing the value and determining the amount of damages. They are to discharge the trust reposed in them according to well-established rules and form their judgment upo n correct legal principles. To allow the court to set-up the compensation is not contrary to former adjudication cases. Philippine Railway Co. v. Solon provides that the courts should not interfere with the report of the commissioners to correct the amount of d amages except in cases of gross error, showing prejudice, and corruption. •

The court may intervene if it is clear that: a. The testimony was conflicting  b. That the award as allowed by the commissioners was not within the amounts fixed by the witnesses. c. That the award was grossly excessive. 2. Whether the court has the power to dispose of the case after the court already changed the award and rendered final judgment. YES. According to Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the report of the commissioners is not final. The judgment of the court is necessary. The court is also empowered “to make such final order and judgment as shall secure to the  plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his rights under the law, and to the defendant  just compensation for the land so taken.” The “final order and judgment” are reviewable by this court by means of a bill of exceptions in the same way as any ordinary action. The court may also, in its discretion, correct the commissioners’ report in any manner deemed suitable to the occasion so that final judgment may be rendered and thus end the litigation. Thus, the court is permitted to act upon the commissioners’ report in one of several ways, so long as it can satisfy itself that just compensation will be made to the defendant. After a careful examination of the entire record in this case and the law applicable to the questions raised therein, we are of the opinion that P10 per square meter is a just compensation for the land taken. Without prejudice to filing a more extended opinion in which our reasons will be set forth in full, judgment will be entered accordingly, without costs. So ordered. SEPARATE OPINIONS

TORRES, J.; Dissenting,

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 2

For the reasons stated in the appealed judgment, and those expressed in the latter part of majority opinion, the judgment should be affirmed with the costs against the appellant. Value of the land fixed at no per square meter.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 3