FACTS: Resondent Ismael Andaya is the registered owner of
two parcels of land in Bading, Butuan City. This property was subject to a 60-meter wide perpetual easement for public highways, irrigation ditcher, aqueducts, and other similar works of the government public enterprise. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) negotiated with Andaya to enforce the 60-meter easement of right-of-way. The parties, however, failed to reach an agreenent.
Petitioner Republic filed a case for an action for expropriation
and won the case. Per study by the appointed Board of Commissioners, assigned to determine the just compensation for the said execution, they found out that there was a discrepancy in the description of the property. Thus, the complaint was modified. The 60-meter wide easement representing 4,443 square meters was reduced to the now 10- meter wide easement representing 701 square meters. The amount of just compensation is pegged in the amount of P2,820,430.00. Respondent demanded the amount of P11,373,405 just compensation on the fact that the basis should have been the remaining area of 9,679 square meters.
The court rendered a decision which was appealed by both
parties. The Republilc contested the severance of damages and attorney’s fees while Andaya demanded just compensation for his entire property minus the easement. He alleged tha the easement would prevent ingress and egress to his property and turn it in to a catch basin for the floodwaters coming from the Agusan River. As a result it would render his property unusable and uninhabitable.
CA modified the trial court’s decision by imposing a 6% interest
on the consequential damages from the date of the writ of possession or the actual taking and by deleting the attorney’s fee.
ISSUE: Is the Republic liable for just compensation if in
enforcing the legal easement of right-of-way on a property, the remaining area would be rendered unsuable and uninhabitable?
HELD: Yes the Republic is liable. “Taking” in the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of his property. Using this standard, there was undoubtedly a taking of the remaining area of Andaya’s property. True enough, Andaya retains ownership of the said area but due to the expropriation, the nature and the effect of the floodwalls would deprive Andaya of the normal use of the remaining areas. It would prevent ingress and egress to the property and turn it into a catch basin for the floodwaters coming from the Agusan River. For this reason Respondent is entitled to payment of just compensation which must be neither more or less the monetary equivalent of the land. Invoking the constitutional mandate no person shall be deprived of his private property without due process of law. Clearly, although the Republic will use only 701 square meters. It should not be liable for the 3,742 square meters, which constitute the difference between this area of 701 square meters and the 4,43 square meters to which it is fully entitled to use as easement, free of charge except for damages to affected existing improvements, if any, under Section 112 of the Public Land Act.
As a result, Republic is liable for just compensation of only the
remaining areas consisting of 5,937 square meters, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of the wrwit of possession or the actual taking until full payment is made. Wherefore the Decision of the CA is hereby affirmed with Modification. Case remanded to the Regional Trial Court for the determination of the final just compensation of the compensable area consisiting of 5,937 square meters, as mentioned above.