84. Commissioner of Public Highways v.

Burgos private property by the government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain does not
G.R. No. L-36706 give rise to a contractual obligation.
March 31, 1980
By: Gayares In Art. 1250, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, even assuming that there has
Topic: Payment of Performance been an extraordinary inflation within the meaning of Art. 1250, the value of peso at the time
Petitioner: Commissioner of Public Highways of taking need not be considered for the purpose of determining just compensation. There
Respondent: Francisco Burgos, in his capacity as CFI Judge, and Victoria Amigable can be no “agreement to the contrary” to speak of because the obligation of the government
Ponente: sought to be enforced in the present action does not originate from contract, but from law
which, generally is not subject to the will of the parties. The value of the property as it is
DOCTRINE: Art. 1250 provides that in case extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency when the government took possession of the land in question, not the increased value
stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of resulting from the passage of time, represents the true value to be paid as just compensation
the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. for the property taken.
This provision applies only to cases where a contract or agreement is involved. It does not
apply where the obligation to pay arises from law, independent of contract. Moreover, the unusually long delay of Amigable in bringing the present action — a period of
almost 25 years — which a stricter application of the law on estoppel and the statute of
FACTS: limitations and prescription may have divested her of the rights she seeks on this action over
 Amigable is the owner of a parcel of land. the property in question, is an added circumstance militating against payment to her of an
 The government considered the same parcel to be a road for right of way purpose amount bigger — nay three-fold more — than the value of the property as should have been
in 1924. paid at the time of the taking.
 This prompted Amigable to file in the CFI an action to recover ownership,
possession of the land, and for damages for the alleged illegal occupation by the CFI reversed, just compensation should be the value of the land at the time of the taking, in
government. 1924.
 Republic countered that the land was either donated or sold by Amigable to the
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed as to the basis in
province of Cebu and that in any case, the right to recover, if any, is already barred
the determination of the price of the land taken as just compensation for its expropriation,
by estoppel and statute of limitations.
which should be the value of the land at the time of the taking, in 1924. Accordingly, the
 CFI dismissed the case but the SC reversed and remanded the case for
same is hereby fixed at P14,615.79 at P2.37 per square meter, with interest thereon at 6%
determination of just compensation, which it ruled that the basis should be the
per annum, from the taking of the property in 1924, to be also paid by Government to
price or value at the time of the taking.
private respondent, Victoria Amigable, until the amount due is fully paid, plus attorney's fees
 Republic proved the value at P2.37 per sqm based on deeds of conveyance
of P5,000.00.
executed in 1924 of several parcels of land where the subject property is located.
 Amigable then presented that the value of the peso to dollar during mid-1972 was
P6.775 based on newspaper clippings.
 CFI determined the compensation based on Amigable’s value pursuant to Art. 1250
NCC.
 Hence this appeal by Republic thru SolGen arguing that the CFI violated the SC
order to make as basis of the determination of just compensation the price or value
of the land at the time of the taking.

ISSUE: W/N the compensation presented by Amigable based on Art. 1250 is correct?

RULING: NO. Art. 1250 provides that in case extraordinary inflation or deflation of the
currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the
establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there is an agreement
to the contrary.

This provision applies only to cases where a contract or agreement is involved. It does not
apply where the obligation to pay arises from law, independent of contract. The taking of