CA resolves 20-year-old just compensation case
Published Jun 11, 2019 01:55 pm
By Rey Panaligan
The Court of Appeals (CA) has settled the 20-year-old just compensation case between a government-owned corporation and a private firm involving 33.7 hectares of land in Misamis Oriental where the Mindanao International Container Terminal (MICT) is located.
Court of Appeals (MANILA BULLETIN)
In a decision issued by the CA branch in Mindanao based in Cagayan de Oro City, the appellate court affirmed the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) P300 per square meter zonal value for the land as the appropriate just compensation.
Thus, the CA – in a decision written by Associate Justice Loida S. Posadas Kahulugan – said the Cagayan City regional trial court (RTC) was correct in pegging the just compensation at P300 per square meter for the land owned by Capitol Steel Corporation and expropriated by the Phividec Development Authority for the MICT project.
Case records showed that on Aug. 24, 1999, Phividec filed an expropriation case before the RTC which issued a writ of possession in favor of the government-owned corporation on Sept. 1, 1999.
Phividec told the RTC the land owned by Capitol Steel in Tagoloan town was perfect for its MICT project which involved “the phased production of an 800-meter berth and the acquisition of port equipment to handle the volume of seaborne break-bulk and container traffic in Mindanao.”
However, since Phividec engaged the services of a private lawyer, instead of its legal officer, the expropriation case was dismissed. The Supreme Court annulled the entire proceedings in the case in 2003 but ruled that the annulment was without prejudice to the filing of another expropriation case.
Phividec took over the possession of the property with the issuance of a writ of possession by the RTC and immediately started the construction of the MICT which has become operational.
On Nov. 21, 2003, Phividec filed a new expropriation case and informed Capitol Steel that it had deposited P116.56 million as just compensation with the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines.
It told Capitol Steel the amount deposited represented the 100 per cent zonal value of the 33.7 hectares of land and may be withdrawn anytime.
Capitol Steel insisted that the BIR’s zonal valuation of the property was incorrect. It pointed out that the realistic valuation should be P700 per square meters.
The RTC appointed three commissioners to assist the court in pegging the appropriate just compensation.
In its Nov. 22, 2017 decision, the RTC said that “after a thorough evaluation of the reports submitted by the commissioners the Court is of the view that valuation of the property should be at P300 per square meter reckoned from the time of taking which is Sept.1, 1999.”
The RTC also said:
“Moreover, record shows that relative to this expropriation case, amounts were already deposited by plaintiff (Phividec) for the accounts of defendant (Capitol Steel) as evidenced by DBP Certification dated Nov. 21, 2003 and LBP Certification dated Nov. 21, 2003.
“The Court notes that defendant has withdrawn the amount of P139,682,405.73 as shown by the certificate of withdrawals issued by LBP dated March 9, 2009 and DBP dated November 4, 2008.
“It is apparent in the map showing an aerial view of the area of the subject properties sought to be expropriated that the properties had all been used for public purpose to which this eminent domain was filed.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the just compensation for the expropriation of defendant's property is at P300 per square meter and the total amount is P101,319,900.00. The difference between the just compensation and the amount actually withdrawn by the defendant from the DBP and the LBP will be the award of consequential damages.
“The reversion of the portion of the property allegedly not used by the plaintiff is denied.”
Affirming the RTC’s decision and dismissing Capitol Steel’s petition, the CA said:
“To recall, the RTC painstakingly elaborated how it considered that P300.00 per square meter is the fair and reasonable price for just compensation of the subject properties, with the aid of three (3) commissioners, as required by law.
“Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Capitol Steel had already withdrawn the bulk of the money that Phividec had deposited with the DBP and LBP in appellant's favor.
“To allow Capitol Steel to assail the issue of allegedly inadequate payment of just compensation after it had already benefited from the payment and to even consider the possibility of the supposedly unused areas of the properties to be reverted to Capitol Steel would be grossly unfair to Phividec, and would ultimately violate the public policy against unjust enrichment.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED.”
Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Florencio M. Mamauag Jr. concurred in the decision.
Court of Appeals (MANILA BULLETIN)
In a decision issued by the CA branch in Mindanao based in Cagayan de Oro City, the appellate court affirmed the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) P300 per square meter zonal value for the land as the appropriate just compensation.
Thus, the CA – in a decision written by Associate Justice Loida S. Posadas Kahulugan – said the Cagayan City regional trial court (RTC) was correct in pegging the just compensation at P300 per square meter for the land owned by Capitol Steel Corporation and expropriated by the Phividec Development Authority for the MICT project.
Case records showed that on Aug. 24, 1999, Phividec filed an expropriation case before the RTC which issued a writ of possession in favor of the government-owned corporation on Sept. 1, 1999.
Phividec told the RTC the land owned by Capitol Steel in Tagoloan town was perfect for its MICT project which involved “the phased production of an 800-meter berth and the acquisition of port equipment to handle the volume of seaborne break-bulk and container traffic in Mindanao.”
However, since Phividec engaged the services of a private lawyer, instead of its legal officer, the expropriation case was dismissed. The Supreme Court annulled the entire proceedings in the case in 2003 but ruled that the annulment was without prejudice to the filing of another expropriation case.
Phividec took over the possession of the property with the issuance of a writ of possession by the RTC and immediately started the construction of the MICT which has become operational.
On Nov. 21, 2003, Phividec filed a new expropriation case and informed Capitol Steel that it had deposited P116.56 million as just compensation with the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines.
It told Capitol Steel the amount deposited represented the 100 per cent zonal value of the 33.7 hectares of land and may be withdrawn anytime.
Capitol Steel insisted that the BIR’s zonal valuation of the property was incorrect. It pointed out that the realistic valuation should be P700 per square meters.
The RTC appointed three commissioners to assist the court in pegging the appropriate just compensation.
In its Nov. 22, 2017 decision, the RTC said that “after a thorough evaluation of the reports submitted by the commissioners the Court is of the view that valuation of the property should be at P300 per square meter reckoned from the time of taking which is Sept.1, 1999.”
The RTC also said:
“Moreover, record shows that relative to this expropriation case, amounts were already deposited by plaintiff (Phividec) for the accounts of defendant (Capitol Steel) as evidenced by DBP Certification dated Nov. 21, 2003 and LBP Certification dated Nov. 21, 2003.
“The Court notes that defendant has withdrawn the amount of P139,682,405.73 as shown by the certificate of withdrawals issued by LBP dated March 9, 2009 and DBP dated November 4, 2008.
“It is apparent in the map showing an aerial view of the area of the subject properties sought to be expropriated that the properties had all been used for public purpose to which this eminent domain was filed.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the just compensation for the expropriation of defendant's property is at P300 per square meter and the total amount is P101,319,900.00. The difference between the just compensation and the amount actually withdrawn by the defendant from the DBP and the LBP will be the award of consequential damages.
“The reversion of the portion of the property allegedly not used by the plaintiff is denied.”
Affirming the RTC’s decision and dismissing Capitol Steel’s petition, the CA said:
“To recall, the RTC painstakingly elaborated how it considered that P300.00 per square meter is the fair and reasonable price for just compensation of the subject properties, with the aid of three (3) commissioners, as required by law.
“Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Capitol Steel had already withdrawn the bulk of the money that Phividec had deposited with the DBP and LBP in appellant's favor.
“To allow Capitol Steel to assail the issue of allegedly inadequate payment of just compensation after it had already benefited from the payment and to even consider the possibility of the supposedly unused areas of the properties to be reverted to Capitol Steel would be grossly unfair to Phividec, and would ultimately violate the public policy against unjust enrichment.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED.”
Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Florencio M. Mamauag Jr. concurred in the decision.