Secretary of DPWH v. Tecson GR No. 179334

Secretary of DPWH vs Heracleo Case Digest GR 179334 Apr 21 2015 Facts: Spouses “Heracleo” are the co-owners of a land which is among the private properties traversed by MacArthur Highway in Bulacan, a government project undertaken sometime in 1940. The taking was taken without the requisite expropriation proceedings and without their consent. In 1994, Heracleo demanded the payment of the fair market value of the property. The DPWH offered to pay 0.70 centavos per sqm., as recommended by the appraiser committee of Bulacan. Unsatisfied, Heracleo filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages. Favorable decisions were rendered by the RTC and the CA, with valuation of P 1,500 per sqm and 6% interest per annum from the time of filing of the until full payment. The SC Division reversed the CA ruling and held that computation should be based at the time the property was taken in 1940, which is 0.70 per sqm. But because of the contrasting opinions of the members of the Division and transcendental importance of the issue, the case was referred to the En Banc for resolution. Issue 1: W/N the taking of private property without due process should be nullified No. The government’s failure to initiate the necessary expropriation proceedings prior to actual taking cannot simply invalidate the State’s exercise of its eminent domain power, given that the property subject of expropriation is indubitably devoted for public use, and public policy imposes upon the public utility the obligation to continue its services to the public. To hastily nullify said expropriation in the guise of lack of due process would certainly diminish or weaken one of the State’s inherent powers, the ultimate objective of which is to serve the greater good. Thus, the non-filing of the case for expropriation will not necessarily lead to the return of the property to the landowner. What is left to the landowner is the right of compensation. Issue 2: W/N compensation is based on the market value of the property at the time of taking Yes. While it may appear inequitable to the private owners to receive an outdated valuation, the long-established rule is that the fair equivalent of a property should be computed not at the time of payment, but at the time of taking. This is because the purpose of ‘just compensation’ is not to reward the owner for the property taken but to compensate him for the loss

thereof. The owner should be compensated only for what he actually loses, and what he loses is the actual value of the property at the time it is taken. Issue 3: W/N the principle of equity should be applied in this case No. The Court must adhere to the doctrine that its first and fundamental duty is the application of the law according to its express terms, interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible. To entertain other formula for computing just compensation, contrary to those established by law and jurisprudence, would open varying interpretation of economic policies – a matter which this Court has no competence to take cognizance of. Equity and equitable principles only come into full play when a gap exists in the law and jurisprudence. Velasco Dissent: The State’s power of eminent domain is not absolute; the Constitution is clear that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. As such, failure of the government to institute the necessary proceedings should lead to failure of taking an individual’s property. In this case, since the property was already taken, the complainants must be equitably compensated for the loss thereof. For purposes of “just” compensation, the value of the land should be determined from the time the property owners filed the initiatory complaint, earning interest therefrom. To hold otherwise would validate the State’s act as one of expropriation in spite of procedural infirmities which, in turn, would amount to unjust enrichment on its part. To continue condoning such acts would be licensing the government to continue dispensing with constitutional requirements in taking private property.