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, $e#u for the esta#l esta#lish ishmen mentt of an e'por e'portt proces processin sin" " (one (one #y petiti petitione onerr )'port )'port Proc Process essin" in" *one *one +uthority +uthority )P*+- .he proclama proclamation tion included, included, amon" amon" others, others, four /- parcels parcels of land o0ned and re"istered in the name of the private respondent .he petitioner oered to purchase the parcels of land from the respondent in accordance 0ith the valuation set forth in 2ection 93, Presidential 4ecree P4- No //, as amended .he parties failed to reach an a"reement re"ardin" the sale of the property PD No 464:
"Section 92. Basis for payment of just compensation in expropriation proceedings. n determ determini ining ng just just compen compensat sation ion !ic !ic pri#at pri#ate e proper property ty is ac$uir ac$uired ed %y te go#ernment for pu%&ic use' te %asis sa&& %e te mar(et #a&ue dec&ared %y te o!ner o!ner or administra administrator tor or anyone a#ing &ega& interest interest in te property' property' or suc mar(et #a&ue as determined %y te assessor' assessor' !ice#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 P4 P4 No 15?? has superseded 2ections 5 to ! of =ule 7 of the =ules of $ourt on the ascertainment of ust compensation throu"h commissioners@ and that the compensation must not e'ceed the ma'imum amount set #y P4 No 15?? PD )*++: "Secti "Section on ). n determ determini ining ng just just compen compensat sation ion for pri#at pri#ate e proper property ty ac$uir ac$uired ed troug troug eminen eminentt domain domain procee proceedin dings' gs' te compen compensat sation ion to %e paid paid sa&& sa&& not exceed te #a&ue dec&ared %y te o!ner or administrator or anyone a#ing &ega& interest in te property or determined %y te assessor' pursuant to te ,ea& Property -ax ode' !ice#er #a&ue is &o!er' prior to te recommendation or decision of te appropriate /o#ernment o0ce to ac$uire te property." property." Section * of ,u&e 61 of te ,u&es of ourt: Section Section *. scertain scertainment ment of compensat compensation. ion. 3 pon te rendition of te order of expropriation' te court sa&& appoint not more tan tree 5+ competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to te court te just compensation for te property sougt to %e ta(en. -e order of appointment sa&& designate te time and p&ace of te 7rst session of te earing to %e e&d %y te te comm commis issi sion oner ers s and and spec specif ify y te te time time !it !itin in !ic !ic tei teirr repo report rt sa& sa&&& %e su%mitted to te 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 enoinin" the trial court from enforcin" the order and from further proceedin" 0ith the hearin" of the e'propriation case Petitioner maintains that P4 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 P4 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"htsD Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the ta;in" 8t means a fair and full e
Be, therefore, hold that P4 No 15??, 0hich eliminates the court>s discretion to appoint commissioners pursuant to =ule 7 of the =ules of $ourt, is unconstitutional and void .o hold other0ise 0ould #e to undermine the very purpose 0hy this $ourt e'ists in the 6rst place
