CASE DIGEST
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES V. LIM
G.R. No. 161656, June
29, 2005
EN BANC, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.
Eminent Domain; Just
Compensation; Recovery of Expropriate property in case of non-payment of Just
Compensation
Just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment for the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just”.
On September 5, 1938, the Republic of the Philippines initiated an expropriation action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to acquire lots in Lahug, Cebu City, for a military reservation. The Republic took possession after depositing ₱9,500.00. The court later ordered the Republic to pay ₱4,062.10 as just compensation to the Denzons, the original lot owners. In 1962, another court ruled in favor of Valdehueza and Panerio, successors of the Denzons, there having no payment of just compensation by Republic. Meanwhile, in 1964, Valdehueza and Panerio mortgaged and foreclosed Lot 932 to Vicente Lim for failure to pay. In 1992, respondent filed a complaint for quieting of title with the (RTC) seeking an absolute and exclusive possession of the property. RTC rendered a decision in favor of Lim, declaring that Lim is the absolute and exclusive owner of the lot with all the rights of an absolute owner. CA affirmed. OSG then filed petition for review with the Court.
Whether the owner of the expropriated land is
entitled for the repossession of his property when party condemning refuses to
pay the compensation which has been assessed or agreed upon.
Yes. The Republic has not retained ownership of Lot 932 for its failure to pay respondent’s predecessors-in-interest the just compensation pursuant to the judgment of the CFI rendered as early as May 14, 1940. The recognized rule is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation. Clearly, without full payment of just compensation, there can be no transfer of title from the landowner to the expropriator. Otherwise stated, the Republic’s acquisition of ownership is conditioned upon the full payment of just compensation within a reasonable time.
While the prevailing doctrine is that “the non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. To be sure, the five-year period limitation will encourage the government to pay just compensation punctually. This is in keeping with justice and equity.
After all, it is the duty of the government,
whenever it takes property from private persons against their will, to
facilitate the payment of just compensation which the court defined as not only
the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the property owner but
also the payment of the property within a reasonable time. Without prompt
payment, compensation cannot be considered “just.”
No comments:
Post a Comment