CASE DIGEST
EPZA vs DULAY
G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987
EN BANC, GUTIERREZ,
JR., J.
Eminent Domain; Determination
Just Compensation is a Judicial Function
The determination of “just compensation” in eminent domain cases is a judicial function.
On January 15, 1979, the President of
the Philippines, issued Proclamation No. 1811, reserving a certain parcel of
land of the public domain situated in the City of Lapu-Lapu, Island of Mactan,
Cebu, for the establishment of an export processing zone by petitioner Export
Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). The parties failed to reach an agreement
regarding the sale of the property. Respondent Judge Dulay then issued an order
for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the just compensation. It
was later found out that the payment of the government to San Antonio would be
P15 per square meter, which was objected to by the latter contending that under
PD 1533, the basis of just compensation shall be fair and according to the fair
market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be expropriated,
or by the assessor, whichever is lower. The petitioner Objection to
Commissioner’s Report on the grounds that P.D. No. 1533 has superseded Sections
5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court on the ascertainment of just
compensation through commissioners; and that the compensation must not exceed
the maximum amount set by P.D. No. 1533.
Whether or not the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in PD1533 is unconstitutional
Yes.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of just compensation in
PD 1533 is unconstitutional. The determination of “just compensation” in
eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the
legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a
violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not
be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or
executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the
court’s findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the
“just-ness” of the decreed compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment