REPUBLIC V. ANDAYA (REMEDIAL)

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 unusable and uninhabitable?

It is undisputed that there is a legal easement of right-of-way in favor of the Republic. We are unable t sustain Republic's argument that it is not liable to pay consequential damages if in enforcing the legal easement of Andaya's property, the remaining area would be rendered unusable and uninhabitable.

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 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, no burden was imposed thereon and Andaya still retained title and possession of the property. But 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 form the Agusan River.

For this reason, in our view, Andaya is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor less that the monetary equivalent of the land.

JC (Just Compensation) = FMV (Fair Market Value) + CD (Consequential Damages) - CB (Consequential Benefits) (CB should not exceed CD)

Eminent Domain is the substantive law. Expropriation is the procedural law. Public use or public purpose may cater only to a minority.

PREYSLER V. CA (CIVIL)

The CA was correct in its findings that the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested situation that preceded the controversy was solely the access of petitioner and his household to his property outside the subdivision for visits and inspections. At the time the writ was applied for in 1995, there was still no construction going on in the property. It was merely raw land. The use of the subdivision roads for ingress and egress of construction workers, heavy equipment, delivery of construction materials, and installation of power lines, are clearly not part of the status quo in the original writ. Along this time, the CA properly set aside the amended writ and reinstated the original writ.

However, under Article 656 of the New Civil Code, if the RIGHT OF WAY is indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration, or beautification of a building, a temporary easement is granted after payment of indemnity for the damage caused to the servient estate.

In our view, however, "indispensable" in this instance is not to be construed literally. Great convenience is sufficient. In the present case, the trial court found that irrespective of which route petitioner used in gaining access to his property, he has to pass private respondent's subdivision. Thus, we agree that petitioner may be granted a temporary easement. This temporary easement in the original writ differs from the permanent easement of right of way now being tried in the main case.