FACTS: On April
23, 1990, the Department of Public Works and Highways initiated an action for
expropriation for the widening of Dr. A. Santos Ave, which also known as Sucat
Road. This action was brought against 26 defendants, none of whom are
respondents in this case.
On November 2, 1993, the Commissioners appointed by the
Regional Trial Court in the expropriation case submitted a resolution
recommending that just compensation for the expropriated areas be set to P12,
000.00 per square meter.
Llamas spouses filed "Most Urgent and Respectful
Motion for Leave to be Allowed Intervention as Defendants-Intervenors-Oppositors"
on January 27, 1994. They also filed their Answer-in-Intervention on March 21,
1994. After which, on August 2, 1994, they filed a "Most Urgent Motion for
the Issuance of an Order Directing the Immediate Payment of 40% of Zonal Value
of Expropriated Land and Improvements."
After years of not obtaining a favorable ruling, the Llamas
Spouses filed a "Motion for Issuance of an Order to Pay and/or Writ of
Execution dated May 14, 2002. In this Motion, the Llamas Spouses faulted the
Department of Public Works and Highways for what was supposedly its deliberate
failure to comply with the Regional Trial Court's previous Orders and even with
its own undertaking to facilitate the payment of just compensation to the
Llamas Spouses.
Department of Public Works and Highways and the Llamas
Spouses had an understanding that the resolution of the latter's claims
required the submission of: (1) certified true copies of the TCTs covering the
lots; and (2) certified true copies of the tax declarations, tax clearances,
and tax receipts over the lots. But, due
to their continued failure to comply with their undertaking, the Department of
Public Works and Highways did not pay them.
On October 8, 2007, the Regional Trial Court issued the
Order directing the payment to the Llamas Spouses of just compensation at
P12,000.00 per square meter for 41 square meters for the lot covered by TCT No.
217267. It denied payment for areas covered by TCT No. 179165 and noted that
these were subdivision road lots, which the Llamas Spouses "no longer
owned" and which "belonged to the community for whom they were
made." In the Order dated May 19, 2008, the Regional Trial Court denied
the Llamas Spouses' Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether
just compensation must be paid to respondents Francisco and Carmelita Llamas
for the subdivision road lots covered by TCT No. 179165.
HELD: The
Department of Public Works and Highways insists that the road lots are not
compensable since they have "already been withdrawn from the commerce of
man." It relies chiefly on this Court's 1991 Decision in White Plains
Association, Inc. v. Legaspi, which pertained to "the widening of the
Katipunan Road in the White Plains Subdivision in Quezon City.” More
specifically, in the 1991 White Plains Decision that shows a compulsion for
subdivision owners to set aside open spaces for public use, such as roads, and
for which they need not be compensated by Subdivision owners are mandated to
set aside such open spaces before their proposed subdivision plans may be
approved by the government authorities, and that such open spaces shall be
devoted exclusively for the use of the general public and the subdivision owner
need not be compensated for the same. A subdivision owner must comply with such
requirement before the subdivision plan is approved and the authority to sell
is issued.
On the other hand, in its assailed Decision, the Court of
Appeals set aside the Regional Trial Court's Orders and required the Department
of Public Works and Highways to similarly compensate the Llamas Spouses for the
two (2) road lots at P12, 000.00 per square meter.
The Court of Appeals correctly stated that a "positive
act" must first be made by the "owner-developer before the city or
municipality can acquire dominion over the subdivision roads." As there is
no such thing as an automatic cession to government of subdivision road lots,
an actual transfer must first be effected by the subdivision owner:
"subdivision streets belonged to the owner until donated to the government
or until expropriated upon payment of just compensation." Stated
otherwise, "the local government should first acquire them by donation,
purchase, or expropriation, if they are to be utilized as a public road."
Delineated roads and streets, whether part of a subdivision
or segregated for public use, remain private and will remain as such until
conveyed to the government by donation or through expropriation proceedings. An
owner may not be forced to donate his or her property even if it has been
delineated as road lots because that would partake of an illegal taking. He or
she may even choose to retain said properties.
Respondents have not made any positive act enabling the
City Government of Parañaque to acquire dominion over the disputed road lots.
Therefore, they retain their private character. Accordingly, just compensation
must be paid to respondents as the government takes the road lots in the course
of a road widening project.
Comments
Post a Comment