[04] TIONGSON v.

NHA  RTC: held that the determination of just compensation of the properties should be
G.R. No. 140377 | July 14, 2008 | Carpio-Morales reckoned from the date of filing of NHA's petition or on September 14, 1987.
 NHA: moved to reconsider the Order of the trial court, contending that the
PETITIONER: PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, SPS. EDUARDO GO and PACITA GO, determination of the just compensation should be reckoned from the time it took
ROBERTO LAPERAL III, ELISA MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, ET AL. possession of the properties in 1978.
RESPONDENTS: NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY,  RTC: denied NHA's motion for reconsideration.
 NHA: assailed the trial court's Orders via petition for certiorari before the CA.
TOPIC: Eminent Domain  CA: reversed and set aside the trial court's orders and held that the just
compensation should be "based on the actual taking of the property in 1978"
CASE SUMMARY: NHA took possession of certain properties of the petitioners by  PETITIONERS: moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court's decision
virtue of PD 1669 and PD 1670. However, in a subsequent case, the Court held that the  CA: denied
said laws were unconstitutional and that the expropriation was null and void. The  NHA: By virtue of PD 1669 providing for the expropriation of the subject
NHA soonafter filed a complaint against the petitioners for expropriation of the parcels properties and granting the plaintiff the authority to immediately take possession,
of land – part of those involved in the case. The Court held that following Rule 67, control and disposition, with power of demolition of the subject properties,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court vis-a-vis the factual backdrop of the case, the just plaintiff took and had been in possession of the subject properties, until
compensation of petitioners' properties must be determined "as of the date of . . . the Presidential Decree No. 1669 was declared unconstitutional by the Court
filing of [NHA's] complaint" on September 14, 1987".  PETITIONERS: Since P.D. No. 1669 pursuant to which NHA took possession of
their properties in 1978 was declared unconstitutional, "[n]ecessarily, in thereafter
DOCTRINE: Just compensation of properties must be reckoned from the date of the resurrecting the filing of another (sic) complaint for expropriation of the same
filing of the complaint for expropriation. properties", it would be unlawful . . . to fix the reckoning period for purposes of
computing the just compensation . . . based on [NHA's] previous unlawful taking
FACTS: of said properties in 1978".
 1978: RESP National Housing Authority (NHA) took possession of properties
belonging to PETS Patricia L. Tiongson, et al. pursuant to P.D. No. 16691 and P.D. ISSUES and RULING:
No. 1670. 2  WON CA is correct in saying that just compensation must be reckoned from the
 In G.R. Nos. L-55166, " Manotok et al. v. NHA" and 55167, "Tiongson et al. v. NHA" actual taking of the property– NO
this Court held that P.D. No. 1669 and P.D. No. 1670 which respectively  In declaring that the determination of just compensation should be reckoned from
proclaimed the Tambunting Estate and the Estero de Sunog-Apoy area NHA's taking of the properties in 1978, the CA simply concluded that "the parties
expropriated, are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. admitted that [NHA] took possession of the subject properties as early as 1978".
o They were held violative of the therein petitioners' right to due process of law. o The appellate court reached that conclusion, despite its recital of the
o The decision had become final and executory. antecedents of the case including herein petitioners' sustained moves, even
 September 14, 1987: NHA filed a complaint against petitioners for expropriation before the trial court, in maintaining that the reckoning of just compensation
of parcels of land — part of those involved in G.R. No. L-55166. should be from the date of filing of the petition for expropriation on
September 14, 1987.

1"AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE EXPROPRIATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE 'TAMBUNTING ESTATE' 2"AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE EXPROPRIATION OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE ESTERO DE SUNOG-APOG
REGISTERED UNDER TCT Nos. 119059, 122450, 122459, 122452 AND LOT NOS. 1-A, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F, 1-G And 1-H OF (LRC) FORMERLY CONSISTING OF LOTS NOS. 55-A, 55-B AND 55-C, Block 2918 OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAN PSD-11746,
PSD-230517 (PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY TCT NO. 119058) OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA AND FOR THE SALE COVERED BY TCT Nos. 49286, 49287 AND 49288, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA AND FOR
AT COST OF THE LOTS THEREIN TO THE BONA FIDE OCCUPANTS AND OTHER SQUATTERS FAMILIES AND TO THE SALE AT COST OF THE LOTS THEREIN TO THE BONA FIDE OCCUPANTS AND OTHER SQUATTER FAMILIES AND
UPGRADE THE SAME, AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE" TO UPGRADE THE SAME, AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE"
 NHA’s Petition for Expropriation filed before the RTC constitute judicial
admissions— that it possessed the subject properties until this Court's declaration,
in its above-stated Decision in G.R. No. L-55166 promulgated on May 21, 1987, that
P.D. No. 1669 pursuant to which NHA took possession of the properties of
petitioners in 1978 was unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
o These admissions, the appellate court either unwittingly failed to consider or
escaped its notice.
 Petitioners even brought to the CA’s attention that they had called the trial court's
attention to NHA's allegation-admissions in the body and prayer of its petition.
 But the appellate court denied petitioners' motion upon the ground that it raised
substantially the same issues that were already considered and passed upon in
arriving at its decision.
o The CA’s decision glaringly shows that the matter of judicial admissions of
NHA in the body and prayer in its petition were not considered by it.
 Following then Rule 67, Section 4 of the Rules of Court vis-a-vis the factual
backdrop of the case, the just compensation of petitioners' properties must be
determined "as of the date of . . . the filing of [NHA's] complaint" on September
14, 1987".

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the challenged June 16, 1999 Decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the April 29, 1997 Order of Branch 41 of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 87-42018 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

PROVISION:
 RULES OF COURT, Rule 67, SEC. 4. Order of expropriation. — If the objections
to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are
overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court
may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right
to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose
described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be
determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the
complaint, whichever came first.