Epza v Dulay

Online version: EPZA VS. DULAY DULAY [148 SCRA 305; G.R. No. L-59603; 29 Apr 198!

Facts: Facts: The The four parcel parcels s of land land which which are the subject subject of this case is where where the the Mactan Mactan Export Export Processing Zone Authorit in !ebu "EPZA# is to be constructed$ Private respondent %an Antonio &evelop' &evelop'ent ent !orporat !orporation ion "%an "%an Antonio Antonio(( for brevit# brevit#(( in which these these lands lands are registere registered d under( under( clai'ed that the lands were expropriated expropriated to the govern'ent without the' reaching the agree'ent as to the co'pensation$ )espondent *udge &ula then issued an order for the appoint'ent of the co''issioners to deter'ine the just co'pensation$ +t was later found out that the pa'ent of the govern'ent to %an Antonio would be P,- per s.uare 'eter( which was objected to b the latter  contending that under P& ,-//( the basis of just co'pensation shall be fair and according to the fair  'ar0et value declared b the owner of the propert sought to be expropriated( or b the assessor( whichever is lower$ %uch objection and the subse.uent Motion for )econsideration were denied and hearing was set for the reception of the co''issioner1s report$ EPZA then filed this petition for  certiorari and 'anda'us enjoining the respondent fro' further hearing the case$ +ssue: 2hether or 3ot the exclusive and and 'andator 'andator 'ode of deter'ining deter'ining just just co'pensation co'pensation in P& ,-// is unconstitutional$ unconstitutional$

4eld: The %upre'e %upre'e !ourt !ourt ruled that that the 'ode 'ode of deter'ination deter'ination of just co'pensation co'pensation in P& ,-// ,-// is unconstitutional$ The 'ethod of ascertaining just co'pensation constitutes i'per'issible encroach'ent to judicial prerogatives$ +t tends to render the courts inutile in a 'atter in which under the !onstitution is reserved to it for financial deter'ination$ The valuation in the decree 'a onl serve as guiding principle or one of the factors in deter'ining just co'pensation( but it 'a not substitute the court1s own own judg judg'en 'entt as to what what a'ou a'ount nt shoul should d be award awarded ed and how to arriv arrive e at such such a'oun a'ount$ t$ The The deter'ination of just co'pensation is a judicial function$ The executive depart'ent or the legislature 'a 'a0e the initial deter'ination but when a part clai's a violation of the guarantee in the 5ill of  )ights that the private part 'a not be ta0en for public use without just co'pensation( no statute( decree( or executive order can 'andate that its own deter'ination shall prevail over the court1s findings$ findings$ Much less can the courts be preclude precluded d fro' fro' loo0ing loo0ing into the justness justness of the decreed decreed co'pensation$

My version: ☺ EPZA VS. DULAY DULAY [148 SCRA 305; G.R. No. L-59603; 29 Apr 198!

On January 15, 1979, the President of the Philippines, issued Proclamation No 1!11, reservin" a parcel of land of the pu#lic domain in the $ity of %apu&%apu, $e#u for the esta#l esta#lish ishmen mentt of an e'por e'portt proces processin sin" " (one (one #y petiti petitione onerr )'port )'port Proc Process essin" in" *one *one +uthority +uthority )P*+- .he proclama proclamation tion included, included, amon" amon" others, others, four /- parcels parcels of land o0ned and re"istered in the name of the private respondent .he petitioner oered to purchase the parcels of land from the respondent in accordance 0ith the valuation set forth in 2ection 93, Presidential 4ecree P4- No //, as amended .he parties failed to reach an a"reement re"ardin" the sale of the property PD No 464:

"Section 92. Basis for payment of just compensation in expropriation proceedings. n determ determini ining ng just just compen compensat sation ion !ic !ic pri#at pri#ate e proper property ty is ac$uir ac$uired ed %y te go#ernment for pu%&ic use' te %asis sa&& %e te mar(et #a&ue dec&ared %y te o!ner o!ner or administra administrator tor or anyone a#ing &ega& interest interest in te property' property' or suc mar(et #a&ue as determined %y te assessor' assessor' !ice#er is &o!er." &o!er."

 .he petitioner 6led 0ith the then $ourt of irst 8nstance a complaint for e'propriation 0ith a prayer for the issuance of a 0rit of possession a"ainst the private respondent, to e'propriate the aforesaid parcels of land On Octo#er 31, 19!, the respondent ud"e issued a 0rit of possession authori(in" the petitioner to ta;e immediate possession of the premises On e#ruary 17, 19!1, the respondent ud"e declared the petitioner as havin" the la0ful ri"h ri"htt to ta; ta;e the the prop proper erti ties es sou" sou"ht ht to #e cond condem emne ned, d, upon upon the the paym paymen entt of ust ust compensat compensation ion to #e determined determined as of the 6lin" of the complaint complaint .he respondent respondent ud"e also appointed certain persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the  ust compensation for the properties sou"ht to #e #e e'propriated  .he three commissioners su#mitted their consolidated report recommendin" the amount of P15 per ss =eport =eport on the "rounds that P4 P4 No 15?? has superseded 2ections 5 to ! of =ule 7 of the =ules of $ourt on the ascertainment of ust compensation throu"h commissioners@ and that the compensation must not e'ceed the ma'imum amount set #y P4 No 15?? PD )*++: "Secti "Section on ). n determ determini ining ng just just compen compensat sation ion for pri#at pri#ate e proper property ty ac$uir ac$uired ed troug troug  eminen eminentt domain domain procee proceedin dings' gs' te compen compensat sation ion to %e paid paid sa&& sa&& not  exceed te #a&ue dec&ared %y te o!ner or administrator or anyone a#ing &ega& interest in te property or determined %y te assessor' pursuant to te ,ea& Property -ax ode' !ice#er #a&ue is &o!er' prior to te recommendation or  decision of te appropriate /o#ernment o0ce to ac$uire te property." property." Section * of ,u&e 61 of te ,u&es of ourt: Section Section *. scertain scertainment ment of compensat compensation. ion. 3 pon te rendition of te order of  expropriation' te court sa&& appoint not more tan tree 5+ competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to te court te  just compensation for te property sougt to %e ta(en. -e order of appointment  sa&& designate te time and p&ace of te 7rst session of te earing to %e e&d %y  te te comm commis issi sion oner ers s and and spec specif ify y te te time time !it !itin in !ic !ic  tei teirr repo report rt sa& sa&&& %e su%mitted to te court.

On Novem#er 1/, 19!1, the trial court denied the petitioner>s motion for reconsideration On e#ruary 19!3, the petitioner 6led this petition enoinin" the trial court from enforcin" the order and from further proceedin" 0ith the hearin" of the e'propriation case Petitioner maintains that P4 No 15?? is the applica#le la0 herein, the #asis of ust compensation shall #e the fair and current mar;et value declared #y the o0ner of the property sou"ht to #e e'propriated or such mar;et value as determined #y the assessor,

0hiche 0hichever ver is lo0er lo0er .herefo .herefore re,, there there is no more more need need to appoin appointt commis commissio sioner ners s as prescri#ed #y =ule 7 of the =evised =ules of $ourt and for said commissioners to consider consider other hi"hly hi"hly varia#le varia#le factors in order to determine determine ust compensation compensation .he petitioner further maintains that P4 No 15?? has vested on the assessors and the property o0ners themselves the po0er or duty to 6' the mar;et value of the properties and that said property o0ners are "iven the full opportunity to #e heard #efore the %ocal Aoard of +ssessment +ppeals and the $entral Aoard of +ssessment +ppeals .hus, the vest vestin in" " on the the asse assess ssor or or the the prop proper erty ty o0ne o0nerr of the the ri"ht ri"ht to dete determ rmin ine e the the ust ust compensat compensation ion in e'propria e'propriation tion proceedi proceedin"s, n"s, 0ith appropria appropriate te procedur procedure e for appeal appeal to hi"her administrative #oards, is valid and constitutional 8ssu 8ssue: e: Bhe Bheth ther er or Not Not the the e'cl e'clus usiv ive e and and mand mandat ator ory y mode mode of dete determ rmini inin" n" ust ust compensation in P4 15?? is unconstitutional Celd: .he mode of determination determination of ust compensation compensation in P4 15?? is unconstitutional  .he method of ascertainin" ust compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes impermissi#le encroachment on udicial prero"atives 8t tends to render this $ourt inutile in a matter 0hich under the $onstitution is reserved to it for 6nal determination Be are convinced and so rule that the trial court correctly stated that the valuation in the decree may may only only serv serve e as a "uid "uidin" in" prin princi cipl ple e or one one of the the fact factor ors s in dete determ rmin inin in" " ust ust compensation #ut it may not su#stitute the court>s o0n ud"ment as to 0hat amount should #e a0arded and ho0 to arrive at such amount + return to the earlier 0ell& esta#lished doctrine, to our mind, is more in ;eepin" 0ith the principle that the udiciary should live up to its mission D#y vitali(in" and not deni"ratin" constitutional ri"htsD  Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the ta;in" 8t means a fair and full e