REPUBLIC V. PHIL-VILLE (REMEDIAL)

Issue: Whether or not a final determination of just compensation in an expropriation proceeding must first be made before an order of expropriation may be issued by the court.

Jurisprudential law has already settled that condemnation suits involve two stages:

1. the order authorizing expropriation; and
2. the judgment on just compensation.

Petitioner Republic is correct in saying that an order of expropriation denotes the end of the first stage of expropriation. Its end then paves the way for the second stage - the determination of just compensation, and ultimately, payment. An order of expropriation puts an end to any ambiguity regarding the right of the petitioner to condemn the respondent's properties.

Because an order of expropriation merely determines the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of such exercise, its issuance does not hinge on the payment of just compensation. After all, there would be no point in determining just compensation if in the first place, the plaintiff's right to expropriate the property was not first clearly established.

To stress, payment of just compensation is not a condition sine qua non to the issuance of an order of expropriation. In expropriation proceedings, it is the transfer of title to the land expropriated that must wait until the indemnity is actually paid. This is made all the more clear when note is taken of the second paragraph of Section 4, Rule 67, which states that the defendant may appeal from the order of expropriation by filing a record on appeal, which appeal does not prevent the court form determining the just compensation to be paid.

Clearly, it is after the rendition of the order of expropriation that the court shall appoint commissioners to ascertain the just compensation for the property sought to be taken.

NAPOCOR V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Issue: At what point should the value of the land subject of expropriation be computed: at the time of taking or at the time of the filing of the complaint for eminent domain?

Normally, the time of the taking coincides with the filing of the complaint for expropriation. Hence, many rulings of this Court have equated just compensation with the value of the property as of the time of filing of the complaint.

The general rule however admits of an exception where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date it was taken and not at the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.

In the old case of Provincial Government of Rizal v. Caro de Araullo, the Court ruled that ..."the owners of the land have no right to recover damages for this unearned increment resulting from the construction of the public improvement (lengthening of Taft Avenue from Manila to Pasay) for which the land was taken. To permit them to do so would be to allow them to recover more than the value of the land at the time when it was taken, which is the true measure of the damages, or just compensation and would discourage the construction of important public improvements.

In Municipality of La Carlota v. Spouses Felicidad Baltazar and Vicente Gan, Justice Fernando said ..."the owner as is the constitutional intent, is paid what he is entitled to according to the value of the property so devoted to public use as of the date of taking. From that time, he had been deprived thereof. He had no choice but to submit. He is not, however to be despoiled of such a right. No less than the fundamental law guarantee is just compensation. It would be an injustice to him certainly if from such a period, he could not recover the value of what was lost. There could be on the other hand, injustice to the expropriator if by a delay in the collection, the increment in price would accrue to the owner. The doctrine to which this Court has been committed is intended precisely to avoid contingency fraught with unfairness."