Secretary of DPWH v. Heracleo

47) SECRETARY OF DPWH v.
SPS HERACLEO and RAMONA TECSON ISSUE: WON the CA erred in awarding just compensation to Spouses Tecson
Topic: Expropriation- Remedies of landowner when property taken for public use because their complaint for recovery of possession and damages is already barred by
prescription and laches -NO
FACTS:
Respondent spouses Heracleo and Ramona Tecson are co-owners of a 7,268 sqm. RULING:
parcel of land in San Pablo, Malolos, Bulacan which was one of the properties taken -There is taking when the expropriator enters private property not only for a
by the government in 1940 without the owners’ consent and necessary expropriation momentary period but for a permanent duration, or for the purpose of devoting the
proceedings (used for the construction of the MacArthur Highway). property to public use in such a manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all
beneficial enjoyment thereof
Respondent spouses Tecson demanded payment of the fair market value of the
subject parcel of land. -When a property is taken by the government for public use, jurisprudence clearly
provides for the remedies available to a landowner  the owner may recover his
Petitioner Celestino Contreras, District Engineer of the First Bulacan Engineering property if its return is feasible or, if it is not, the aggrieved owner may demand
District of petitioner DPWH, offered to pay the subject land at the rate of P70/sqm per payment of just compensation for the land taken
Resolution of the Provincial Appraisal Committee (PAC) of Bulacan.
-In the present case, for the failure of respondents to question the lack of
Unsatisfied with the offer, spouses Tecson demanded for the return of their property expropriation proceedings for a long period of time, they are deemed to have waived
of the payment of compensation at the current fair market value. and are estopped from assailing the power of the government to expropriate or the
public use for which the power was exercised  what is left to respondents is the
As their demand remained unheeded, spouses Tecson filed a Complaint for recovery right of compensation
of possession with damages against petitioners and claimed that the subject parcel of
land was assessed at P2.5M. -Just compensation is the fair value of the property as between one who receives,
and one who desires to sell, fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government
Petitioners filed an MTD on the ff. grounds: this rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an expropriation
(1) that the suit is against the State which may not be sued without its consent; suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for compensation
(2) that the case has already prescribed;
(3) that respondents have no cause of action for failure to exhaust administrative -In this case, both the RTC and the CA recognized that the fair market value of the
remedies; and subject property in 1940 (the time of taking) was ₱0.70/sq m Hence, it should,
(4) if respondents are entitled to compensation, they should be paid only the value of therefore, be used in determining the amount due respondents instead of the higher
the property in 1940 or 1941 value which is ₱1,500.00
RTC  GRANTED petitioners’ motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of state -Petitioners had been occupying the subject property for more than fifty years without
immunity from suit the benefit of expropriation proceedings  in taking respondents’ property without the
benefit of expropriation proceedings and without payment of just compensation,
CA  REVERSED RTC’s decision and REMANDED the case to the trial court for petitioners clearly acted in utter disregard of respondents’ proprietary rights which
purposes of determining just compensation the spouses are entitled to receive— cannot be countenanced by the Court
found that the doctrine of state immunity not applicable because the recovery of
compensation is the only relief available to the landowner and to deny such relief -For said illegal taking, respondents are entitled to adequate compensation in the
would undeniable cause them injustice form of actual or compensatory damages which in this case should be the legal
interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the value of the land at the time of taking in
In a PAC resolution, the PAC recommended that amount of P1,500/sqm. as the just 1940 until full payment
compensation for the subject property.
WHEREOFRE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The CA’s decision is modified that
RTC consequently ordered DPWH to pay spouses Tecson the said amount. valuation of the subject property owned by respondents shall be P0.70 instead of
₱1,500.00/sqm, with interest at six percent ( 60%) per annum from the date of taking
On appeal, CA AFFIRMED the decision with modification that the just compensation in 1940 instead of March 17, 1995, until full payment.
should earn 6% interest per annum computed from the filing of the action on 17
March 1995 until full payment.
Petitioners insist that the action is barred by prescription having been filed 54 years
after the accrual of the action in 1940 and hence, are guilty of laches.

Secretary of DPWH v. Heracleo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secretary of DPWH v. Heracleo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Secretary of DPWH v. Heracleo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

47) SECRETARY OF DPWH v.

You might also like