Some Jurisprudence on

the Reckoning Date to

Determine Just
Compensation
(Culled from the OSG General
Guidelines on Expropriation)
I
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE
DETERMINED EITHER AS OF THE DATE OF
THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OR THE
FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WHICHEVER
COMES FIRST;
Manansan vs. Republic, 498 SCRA 348 [2006]
Tan vs. Republic, 523 SCRA 203 [2007]
Manansan vs. Republic, 498 SCRA 348 [2006]
The rule is that the value of the property must be
determined either as of the date of the taking of the
property or the filing of the complaint, whichever comes
first.
[22]
In this case, the complaint was filed on April 17,
1979, and the trial court issued the writ of possession
on January 10, 1981. The City Treasurer, City Assessor and
the AACI based their assessment reports as of 1995 and
not as of 1979 or a difference of 16 years. Indeed, the fair
market value of the property in 1979 cannot be fixed by
the mere expedient of cutting in half the assessment
made by the City Treasurer and City Assessor or AACI for
that matter as of 1997. Such a process is arbitrary and a
grave abuse of the trial courts discretion.
Tan vs. Republic, 523 SCRA 203 [2007]
Section 2, Rule 67 (on Expropriation) of the same
Rules provides, among others, that upon the filing of
the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due
notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the
right to take or enter upon the possession of the real
property involved if he deposits with the authorized
government depositary an amount equivalent to the
assessed value of the property. It bears reiterating
that in Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi,
[17]
we ruled
that just compensation is determined as of the
date of the taking of the property or the filing of
the complaint, whichever came first.
II.
COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY
EXPROPRIATED MUST BE DETERMINED AS OF
THE TIME THE EXPROPRIATING AUTHORITY
TAKES POSSESSION THEREOF AND NOT AS
OF THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS;
Republic vs. Sarabia, GR. No. 157847, 2005
Republic vs. Sarabia, GR. No. 157847, 2005
The value of the property should be fixed as of the date when it
was taken and not the date of the filing of the proceedings. For
where property is taken ahead of the filing of the condemnation
proceedings, the value thereof may be enhanced by the public
purpose for which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff upon the
property may have depreciated its value thereby; or, there may
have been a natural increase in the value of the property from the
time it is taken to the time the complaint is filed, due to general
economic conditions. The owner of private property should be
compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that
his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And what
he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is
taken. This is the only way the compensation to be paid can be
truly just; i.e., just not only to the individual whose property is
taken, but to the public, which is to pay for it
III.
WHEN THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE
EXPROPRIATED COINCIDES WITH THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXPROPRIATION
PROCEEDINGS, OR TAKES PLACE SUBSEQUENT TO THE
FILING OF THE COMPLAINT FOR EMINENT DOMAIN,
THE JUST COMPENSATION SHOULD BE DETERMINED
AS OF THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT;
City of Iloilo vs. Besana, 612 SCRA 458 (2010)
City of Iloilo vs. Besana, 612 SCRA 458 (2010)
When the taking of the property sought to be
expropriated coincides with the commencement of
the expropriation proceedings, or takes place
subsequent to the filing of the complaint for
eminent domain, the just compensation should be
determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint.
39
Even under Sec. 4, Rule 67 of the 1964
Rules of Procedure, under which the complaint for
expropriation was filed, just compensation is to be
determined "as of the date of the filing of the complaint."
Here, there is no reason to depart from the general rule
that the point of reference for assessing the value of the
Subject Property is the time of the filing of the
complaint for expropriation.
IV.
BECAUSE OF EJECTMENT/RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION CASE, TRANSCO WAS CONSTRAINED
TO INSTITUTE EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS,
PROVISIONAL DEPOSIT IS MADE UNDER RA 8974.
FINAL JUST COMPENSATION BEING INSISTED ON
TIME OF TAKING RULE;
The general rule is determination of just compensation at
the time of filing. However, this admits of exceptions:
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:
GRAVE INJUSTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER
(Heirs of Pidacan vs. Air Transportation Office,
2007)
As a rule, the determination of just compensation in
eminent domain cases is reckoned from the time of
taking.
[14]
In this case, however, application of the said
rule would lead to grave injustice. Xxx
xxx justice and fairness dictate that the appropriate
reckoning point for the valuation of petitioners
property is when the trial court made its order of
expropriation in 2001

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:
THE TAKING DID NOT HAVE COLOR OF LEGAL
AUTHORITY (NPC vs. Lucman Ibrahim, et al., 2007)
xxx to allow petitioner to use the date it constructed the
tunnels as the date of valuation would be grossly unfair. First,
it did not enter the land under warrant or color of legal
authority or with intent to expropriate the same.
xxx The trial court, therefore, as affirmed by the CA, rightly
computed the valuation of the property as of 1992, when
respondents discovered the construction of the huge
underground tunnels beneath their lands and petitioner
confirmed the same and started negotiations for their
purchase but no agreement could be reached.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:
THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT INITIALLY
FOR EXPROPRIATION(Tan vs. Republic, 2007)
when PEA entered petitioners land in 1985, it was not for the
purpose of expropriating it. We stress that after its entry, PEA
wrote SADC requesting to donate or sell the land to the
government. Indeed, there was no intention on the part of
PEA to expropriate the subject property. xxx"
xxx The trial court, therefore, was correct in ordering
respondent, through PEA, upon the filing of its complaint
for expropriation, to pay petitioner just compensation on
the basis of the BIR zonal valuation of the subject property
at P20,000.00 per square meter.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:
THE OWNER WILL BE GIVEN UNDUE INCREMENT
ADVANTAGES BECAUSE OF THE EXPROPRIATION
(Provincial Government of Rizal vs. Araullo, 1933)
the owners of the land have no right to recover damages
for this unearned increment resulting from the
construction of the public improvement for which the
land was taken. xxx"
xxx the property is to be considered in its condition
and situation at the time it is taken, and not as
enhanced by the purpose for which it is taken..

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:
THE OWNER WILL BE GIVEN UNDUE INCREMENT
ADVANTAGES BECAUSE OF THE EXPROPRIATION
(Provincial Government of Rizal vs. Araullo, 1933)
the owners of the land have no right to recover damages
for this unearned increment resulting from the
construction of the public improvement for which the
land was taken. xxx"
xxx the property is to be considered in its condition
and situation at the time it is taken, and not as
enhanced by the purpose for which it is taken..

End of Part 1