G.R. No. 202051 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented b t!e "EP#RT$ENT OF PUBLIC %OR&S ' HIGH%#(S) HIGH%#(S) ENGINEER SI$PLICIO ". GON*#LES, "+str+t En-+neer, Seond En-+neer+n"+str+t o C//r+nes Sr) /nd ENGINEER ICTORINO $. "EL SOCORRO, 3R., Pro4et En-+neer, "P%H, B/r/s, C/n//n, C//r+nes Sr, Petitioners, Sr, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES IL"EFONSO B. REGULTO REGULTO /nd FR#NCI# R. REGULTO, Respondents. REGULTO, Respondents. "ECISION PER#LT#, J.: For resolution of this Court is the petition for review on certiorari dated July 10, 2012 filed by petitioners, the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Departent of Public !or"s and #i$hways (DPWH); %n$ineer &iplicio D. 'on(ales, District %n$ineer, &econd %n$ineerin$ District of Caarines &ur) and %n$ineer *ictorino +. Del &ocorro, Jr., Proect %n$ineer, DP!#, -aras, Canaan, Caarines &ur assailin$ the rder dated +ay 2/, 2012 of the Re$ional rial Court (RTC) ofa$a City, -ranch 2, which ordered herein petitioners to pay respondents spouses 3ldefonso -. Re$ulto and Francia R. Re$ulto 4&pouses Re$ulto5 the aount of wo #undred Forty6 hree housand Pesos 4P2/7,000.005 as ust copensation for the part of their property traversed by the a$a City+ilaor -ypass Proect of the DP!#. 1
he factual antecedents are as follows8 Respondents spouses 3ldefonso -. Re$ulto and Francia R. Re$ulto are the re$istered owners of the property in controversy located at +abel, a$a City, Caarines &ur consistin$ of 700 s9uare eters covered by ransfer Certificate of itle (TCT) o. 0:62010000271. he &pouses Re$ulto ac9uired the said property by virtue of a deed of a bsolute sale e;ecuted by Julian R. Cortes, attorney6in6fact of the spouses -ienvenido and -eatri( 2
&antos, in February 1<< s9uare eters re$istered and covered by ri$inal Certificate of itle (OCT) o. 27> dated ?pril 1/, 1<>. 7
/
&oetie in ?pril 2011, the DP!# &econd %n$ineerin$ District of Caarines &ur apprised the &pouses Re$ulto of the construction of its road proect, the a$a City6+ilaor -ypass Road, which will traverse their property and other adoinin$ properties. he DP!# initially offered the spouses the su of P2/7,000.00 or Pl ,>00.00 per s9uare eter for the 12 s9uare6eter affected area as ust copensation. copensation. >
#owever, in a letter dated +ay 11, 200, the DP!#, throu$h District %n$r. Rolando P. *alde(, withdrew the offer, and infored the &pouses Re$ulto that they were not entitled to ust copensation since the title of their land ori$inated fro a Free Patent title ac9uired under Coonwealth ?ct (CA.) o. 1/1, "nown as the Public @and ?ct, which contained a reservation in favor of the $overnent of an easeent of ri$ht6of6way of twenty 4205 eters, which was subse9uently increased to si;ty 405 eters by Presidential Decree (P.D.) o. 7>, for public hi$hways and siilar wor"s that the $overnent or any public or quasi-public service enterprise ay
reasonably re9uire for carryin$ on their business, with payent of daa$es for the iproveents only. =
he &pouses Re$ulto, in their letter dated +ay 70, 2011, protested the findin$s of the DP!# and ordered the to cease fro proceedin$ with the construction. hey alle$ed that since their property is already covered by C o. 0:62010000271, it ceased to be a public land. hey counicated that the ar"et value of the property is P/>0,000.00 plus the Aonal *alue of the -ureau of 3nternal Revenue (BIR), which is ore or less the acceptable ust copensation of their property. Furtherore, they re9uested that they be furnished, within five 4>5 days fro the receipt of their letter, with a Pro$ra of !or"s and &"etch Plan showin$ the cost of the proect and the e;tent or area covered by the road that will traverse their property. :
<
10
11
he DP!# furnished the &pouses Re$ulto with the s"etch plan showin$ the e;tent of the road ri$ht6 of6way that will cut across their property. 3t also reiterated its earlier position that the title to the land was ac9uired under C.?. o. 1/1. 12
17
n ctober :, 2011, the &pouses Re$ulto filed a coplaint for payent of ust copensation, daa$es with prayer for issuance of teporary restrainin$ order andBor writ of preliinary inunction before the RC of a$a City, -ranch 2, a$ainst herein petitioners Republic of the Phili ppines, represented by the DP!#) District %n$r. *alde( of the &econd %n$ineerin$ District of Caarines &ur) and Proect %n$r. Del &ocorro, Jr. of the DP!#, -aras, Canaan, Caarines &ur. 1/
he &pouses Re$ulto averred that the DP!# acted with deceit, isrepresentation and evident bad faith in convincin$ the to si$n on a paper after relyin$ on the assurance that they would be paid with ust copensation. hey also alle$ed that their property is outside the covera$e of &ection 112, C.?. o. 1/1 because their land is a private property, and that the sae is situated beyond the 06 eter radius or width fro the public hi$hways, railroads, irri$ation ditches, a9ueducts, tele$raph and telephone lines, airport runways, an d oth er $overnent structures. 1>
1
n ?u$ust >, 2011, the petitioners, throu$h the ffice of the &olicitor 'eneral 4O!), filed a +otion to Disiss on the $round that the &pouses Re$ulto do not have a cause of action, and that their coplaint failed to state the sae. Petitioners asseverated that &ection 112 of C.?. o. 1/1 is e;plicit on the encubrance iposed upon lands ori$inally covered by a free patent or any other public land patent. Petitioners also alle$ed that the respondents failed to e;haust adinistrative reedies for not appealin$ the findin$s of the Re$ional 3nfrastructure Ri$ht6of6 !ay (IROW) Coittee with the DP!# Re$ional Director or to the &ecretary of Public !or"s and #i$hways. 1=
1:
1<
3n an rder dated ctober 1=, 2011, the RC denied the otion filed by the petitioners citin$ that the insufficiency of the cause of action ust appear on the face of the coplaint to sustain a disissal based on lac" of cause of action. 3n this case, the coplaint stated alle$ations of nonpayent of ust copensation. 21 Furtherore, the court entioned that one of the e;ceptions of the doctrine of e;haustion of adinistrative reedies is when the issue is one of law and when circustances warrant ur$ency of udicial intervention, as in the case of the &pouses Re$ulto whose portion of their property has already been occupied b y the petitioners without ust copensation. 20
22
3n the ?nswer dated oveber 1, 2011, the petitioners reiterated their defense that no le$al ri$ht has been violated since C.?. o. 1/1, as aended by P.D. o. 171, iposes a 06eter wide lien on the property ori$inally covered b y a Free Patent. Petitioners also avowed that &ection > of the 3pleentin$ Rules and Re$ulation (IRR) of the Republic ?ct (R.A.) o. :<=/ provides that if the private property or land is ac9uired 27
2/
2>
2
under the provisions of C.?. o. 1/1, the $overnent officials char$ed with the prosecution of the proects or their representative is authori(ed to ta"e i ediate possession of the property subect to the lien as soon as the need arises, and the $overnent ay obtain a 9uitclai fro the owners concerned without the need for payent for the land ac9uired under the said 9uit clai ode e;cept for the daa$es to iproveents only. #ence, petitioners aintained that the &pouses Re$ulto are not entitled to a ust copensation for the portion of their property affected by the construction of the a$a City6 +ilaor -ypass Road. 2=
2:
he petitioners, in a +otion dated Deceber 1<, 2011, prayed for the issuance of the writ of possession of the subect property in their favor for the construction of the proect to finally proceed and be copleted without further delay.
2<
n January 2, 2012, the RC ordered the respondents spouses to reove the obstructions that they erected on the subect property within three days, or the petitioners ay disantle the sae to proceed with the construction of the bypass road proect. @i"ewise, the petitioners were ordered to deliver the chec" already prepared in the aount of hree housand Pesos 4P7,000.005 for payent of the treesBiproveents on the property. he petitioners were also ordered to deposit with any authori(ed $overnent depository ban" the aount of hirty6&i; housand Four #undred Fifty Pesos 4P7,/>0.005 e9uivalent to the assessed value of the 12 s9uare eters of the subect property, which was assessed at P=,>00.00 by the 2010 ta; declaration, that the road proect will traverse. 70
71
72
3n an rder dated January 2=, 2012, the RC disissed the otion for reconsideration filed by the &pouses Re$ulto, and sustained its earlier order that the petitioners deposit the aount of P7,/>0.00. he RC also ac"nowled$ed the receipt of the &pouses Re$ulto of the chec" for the payent of the iproveents on the property affected by the proect. 77
7/
Conse9uently, the RC, in its rder dated +ay 2/, 2012, ordered the petitioners to pay t he &pouses Re$ulto the aount of P2/7,000.00 as ust copensation for the affected portion of their property. 7> he dispositive portion of the rder reads8 !#%R%FR%, preises considered, ud$ent is hereby rendered orderin$ the defendants %n$r. Rolando F. *alde( and %n$r. *ictorino +. del &ocorro, Jr., Republic of the Philippines and the Dept. of Public !or"s and #i$hways to pay pl aintiffs6spouses 3ldefonso and Francia Re$ulto the aount of P2/7,000.00 as ust copensation for their property traversed by the a$a6+ilaor -ypass Proect. & RD%R%D.
7
he RC concluded that the $overnent waived the encubrance provided for in C.?. o. 1/1 when it did not oppose the further subdivision of the ori$inal property covered by the free patent or ade an e;press intent on a"in$ its encubrance before the residential lots, which are p art of the said subdivision, were sold to other innocent purchasers for value, especially after the 2>6year period has lapsed since the free patent. 7=
#ence, the petitioners, throu$h the &', filed the instant petition raisin$ the followin$ issues8
THE RTC ERRE" IN HOL"ING TH#T RESPON"ENTS #RE ENTITLE" TO #N" IN OR"ERING PETITIONERS TO P#( 3UST CO$PENS#TION "ESPITE THE UN"ISPUTE" F#CT TH#T THE L#N" %#S ORIGIN#LL( PUBLIC L#N" #% #R" E" TO RESPON"ENTS PRE"ECESSORS6 IN6INTEREST B( FREE P#TENT, #N" THUS # LEG#L E#SE$ENT OF RIGHT6OF6%#( E7ISTS IN F#OR OF THE GOERN$ENT. #% R3?@ CER& R?3C3?3 6 #? #% &E-J%C PRP%RG #?& IPO "ACTOC%?&%D -% HPE-@3C @?DH ?D #E& @'%R &E-J%C #% @3% 3+P&%D -G &?3D PR*3&3 F C.?. . 1/1, -G *3RE% F #% &E-J%C PRP%RG -%3' ?@R%?DG C*%R%D -G ? R?&F%R C%R3F3C?% F 3@% 3 #%3R ?+% I CR?*%%& &%C3 // F P.D. . 1>2< ?D #ATIO#A$ IRRI!ATIO# AD%I#ITRATIO# &. CO'RT O" APPA$. #% RC %RR%D 3 #@D3' #? &%C3 : 4H%PRPR3?3H5, &%C3 > 4HKE3 C@?3+H5, F #% 3+P@%+%3' RE@%& ?D R%'E@?3& F R.?. . :<=/ 3& #% ?PP@3C?-@% PR*3&3 R%'?RD3' #% +D% F ?CKE3&33 F R%&PD%& PRP%RG. 7:
his Court finds the instant petition partially eritorious. ?t the outset, it is noted that petitioners filed the instant petition before this Court without appealin$ the said case before the Court of ?ppeals (CA). ? strict application of the policy of strict observance of the udicial hierarchy of courts is unnecessary when cases brou$ht before the appellate courts do not involve factual but purely le$al 9uestions. &ection 2 4c5, Rule /1, of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a decision or order of the RC ay, as done in the instant petition, be appealed to the &upree Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule />, provided that such petition raises only 9uestions of law. 7<
/0
/1
he distinction between 9uestions of law and 9uestions of fact are e;plained in the case of #a* O++icers &illae Associatio, Ic. (#O&A/) . Republic o+ t0e P0ilippies as follows8 /2
? 9uestion of law e;ists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or urisprudence on a certain state of facts. he issue does not call for an e;aination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of the facts bein$ aditted. 3n contrast, a 9uestion of fact e;ists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the 9uery invites the calibration of the whole evidence considerin$ ainly the credibility of the witnesses) the e;istence and relevancy of specific surroundin$ circustances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole) and the probability of the situation. 3n the case at bar, the petitioners raise 9uestions of law i n disputin$ the denial by the RC in the application of C.?. o. 1/1 to ipose the le$al easeent of ri$ht6of6way to the subect property, and the application of &ection :(1propriatio) of the 3RR of R.?. o. :<=/ instead of &ection > (2uit Clai3) in the ac9uisition of the said property. %ssentially, the issue for resolution of this Court is whether the petitioners are liable for ust copensation iri enforcin$ the 'overnents le$al easeent of ri$ ht6of6way on the subect property which ori$inated fro the =,=>< s9uare6eter of public land awarded by free patent to the predecessor6in6interest of the &pouses Re$ulto. Petitioners alle$e that a le$al easeent of ri$ht6of6way e;ists in favor of the 'overnent since the land in controversy was ori$inally public land awarded by free patent to the &pouses Re$ultos predecessors6in6interest.
he RC, however, ruled that the provision of C.?. o. 1/1 re$ardin$ the easeent of ri$ht6of6way in favor of the $overnent is not applicable to the subect property since the law is clearly eant for lands $ranted $ratuitously by the $overnent in favor of individuals tas"ed to a"e it a$riculturally productive. 3t ruled that the subect property is already a private property since the &pouses Re$ulto ac9uired the sae throu$h a deed of absolute sale fro the spouses -ienvenido and -eatri( &antos in February 1<
//
his Court finds that the RC erroneously ruled that the provisions of C.?. o. 1/1 are not applicable to the case at bar. n the contrary, this Court held that Ha le$al easeent of ri$ht6of6way e;ists in favor of the 'overnent over land that was ori$inally a public land awarded by free patent even if the land is subse9uently sold to another.H his Court has e;pounded that the Hrulin$ would be otherwise if the land was ori$inally a private property, to which ust copensation ust be paid for the ta"in$ of a part thereof for public use as an easeent of ri$ht6of6way.H />
/
3t is undisputed that the subect property ori$inated fro and was a part of a =,=><6s9uare6eter property covered by free patent re$istered under C o. 27>. ..Furtherore, the &pouses Re$ultos transfer certificate of title, which the RC relied, contained the reservation8 4sub5ect to t0e proisios o+ t0e Propert* Reistratio Decree a6 t0e Public $a6 Act, as 7ell as to t0ose o+ t0e %ii $a7, i+ t0e la6 is 3ieral, a6 sub5ect, +urt0er, to suc0 co6itios cotaie6 i t0e oriial title as 3a* be subsisti.4 /=
/:
Jurisprudence settles that one of the reservations and conditions u nder the ri$inal Certificate of itle of land $ranted by free patent is that the said land is subect 4to all co6itios a6 public ease3ets a6 seritu6es recoi8e6 a6 prescribe6 b* la7 especiall* t0ose 3etioe6 i ectios 9:, 99:, 999, 99<, 99= a6 99>, Co33o7ealt0 Act #o. 9>9, as a3e6e6. H /<
&ection 112 of C.?. o. 1/1, as aended, provides that lands $ranted by patent shall be subected to a ri$ht6of6way in favor of the 'overnent, to wit8 &ec. 112. &aid land shall further be subect to a ri$ht6of6way not e;ceedin$ si;ty 405 eters on width for public hi$hways, railroads, irri$ation ditches, a9ueducts, tele$raph and telephone lines, airport runways, includin$ sites necessary for terinal buildin$s and other $overnent structures needed for full operation of the airport, as well as areas and sites for $overnent buildin$s for Resident andBor Proect %n$ineers needed in the prosecution of $overnent6infrastructure proects, and siilar wor"s as the 'overnent or any public or 9uasi6public service or enterprise, includin$ inin$ or forest concessionaires, ay reasonably re9uire for carryin$ on their business, 8+t! d//-es or t!e +pro9eents on:. 'overnent officials char$ed with the prosecution of these proects or their representatives are authori(ed to ta"e iediate possession of the portion of the property subect to the lien as soon as the need arises and after due notice to the owners. 3t is however, understood that ownership over said properties shall iediately revert to the title holders should the airport be abandoned or when the infrastructure proects are copleted and buildin$s used b y proect en$ineers are abandoned or disantled, but subect to the sae lien for future iproveents.LL >0
3n other words, lands $ranted by patent shal l be subect to a ri$ht6of6way not e;ceedin$ 0 eters in width for public hi$hways, irri$ation ditches, a9ueducts, and other siilar wor"s of the $overnent or any public enterprise, free of char$e, e;cept only for the value of the iproveents e;istin$ thereon that ay be affected. >1
!e are not persuaded with the rulin$ of the RC that the $overnent waived the encubrance iposed by C.?. o. 1/1 (Public $a6 Act) when it did not oppose the subdivision of the ori$inal property covered by the free patent. he reservation and condition contained in the C of lands $ranted by free patent, li"e the ori$ins of the subect property, is not liited by any tie period, Hthus, the sae is subsistin$. . his subsistin$ reservation contained in the transfer certificate of title of the &pouses Re$ulto belies such supposition that the 'overnent waived the enforceent of its le$al easeent of ri$ht6of6way on the subect property when it did not oppose to the subdivision of the property in 1<<>. >2
Petitioners alle$e that since the property in controversy was ori$inally ac9uired under the provisions of special laws, particularly C.?. o. 1/1, then &ection > of the 3RR of R.?. o. : <=/ should be applied in the present case. Petitioners insist that the ac9uisition of the portion of the subect property is throu$h e;ecution of 9uitclais. &ection > of the 3RR of R.?. o. :<=/ provides8 &%C3 >. 2uit Clai3 6 3f the pr+9/te propert or :/nd +s /;+red under the provisions of &pecial @aws, particularly Coon8e/:t! #t No. 1<1, =no8n /s t!e Pb:+ L/nd #t, which provides a 206eter strip of land easeent by the $overnent for public use with daa$es to iproveents only, P.D. o. 7> which increased the reserved area to a 06eter strip, and P.D. o. 171 which authori(es $overnent officials char$ed with the prosecution of proects or their representative to ta"e iediate possession of portion of the property subect to the lien as soon as the need arises and after due notice to the owners, then a ;+t :/+ ro t!e o8ners onerned s!/:: be obt/+ned b t!e Ip:eent+n- #-en. No p/ent b t!e -o9ernent s!/:: be /de or :/nd /;+red nder t!e ;+t :/+ ode. >7
!ith the e;istence of the said easeent of ri$ht6of6way in favor of the 'overnent, the petitioners ay appropriate the portion of the land necessary for the construction of the bypass road without payin$ for it, e;cept for daa$es to the iproveents. Conse9uently, the petitioners are ordered to obtain the necessary 9uitclai deed fro the &pouses Re$ulto for the 126s9uare6eter strip of land to be utili(ed in the bypass road proect. 3t is noted that the 12 s9uare eters of the subect property traversed by the bypass road proect is well within the liit provided by the law !hile this Court concurs that the petitioners are not obli$ed to pay ust copensation in the e nforceent of its easeent of ri$ht6of6way to lands which ori$inated fro public lands $ranted by free patent, we, however, rule that petitioners are not free fro any liability as to the conse9uence of enforcin$ the said ri$ht6of6way $ranted over the ori$inal =,=><6s9uare6eter property to the 7006s9uare6eter property belon$in$ to the &pouses Re$ulto. here is Hta"in$,H in the conte;t of the &tates inherent power of einent doain, when the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property) when there is a practical destruction or aterial ipairent of the value of his property or when he is deprived of the ordinary use thereof. Esin$ one of these standards, it is apparent that there is ta"in$ of the reainin$ area of the property of the &pouses Re$ulto. 3t is true that no burden was iposed thereon, and that the spouses still retained title and possession of the property. he fact that ore than half of the property shall be devoted to the bypass road will undoubtedly result in aterial ipairent of the value of the property. 3t reduced the subect property to an area of 17: s9uare eters. >/
9?7p0i9
hus, the petitioners are liable to pay ust copensation over the reainin$ area of the subect property, with interest thereon at the rate of si; percent 4M5 per au3 fro the date of writ of possession or the actual ta"in$ until full payent is ade. he case of Republic . Ho. @esus % %upas elucidated ust copensation in this lan$ua$e8 >>
Just copensation is defined as Hthe full and fair e9uivalent of the property ta"en fro its owner by the e;propriator.H he word HustH is used to 9ualify the eanin$ of the word HcopensationH and to convey the idea that the aount to be tendered for the property to be ta"en shall be real, substantial, full and aple. n the other hand, the word HcopensationH eans Ha full in denity or reuneration for the loss or daa$e sustained b y the owner of property ta"en or inured for public use.H &iply stated, ust copensation eans that the forer owner ust be returned to the onetary e9uivalent of the position that the owner had when the ta"in$ occurred. o achieve this onetary e9uivalent, we use the standard value of Hfair ar"et valueH of the property at the tie of the filin$ of the coplaint for e;propriation or at the tie of the ta"in$ of property, whichever is earlier. >
Conse9uently, the case is reanded to the court of ori$in for the purpose of deterinin$ the final ust copensation for the reainin$ area of the subect property. he RC is thereby ordered to a"e the deterination of ust copensation payable to the respondents &pouses Re$ulto with deliberate dispatch. he R C is cautioned to a"e a deterination based on the paraeters set forth by law and urisprudence re$ardin$ ust copensation. %HEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari dated July 10, 2012 filed by the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Departent of Public !or"s and #i$hways) %n$ineer &iplicio D. 'on(ales, District %n$ineer, &econd %n$ineerin$ District of Caarines &ur) and %n$ineer *ictorino +. Del &ocorro, Jr., Proect %n$ineer, DP!#, -aras, Canaan, Caarines &ur, is hereby P#RTI#LL( GR#NTE". he case is hereby RE$#N"E" to the Re$ional rial Court of a$a City, -ranch 2 for the deterination of the final ust copensation of the copensable area consistin$ of 17 : s9uare eters, with interest thereon at the rate of si; percent 4M5 per au3 fro the date of writ of possession or the actual ta"in$ until full payent is ade. SO OR"ERE".
