epza v dulay

7/21/2019 Epza v Dulay

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epza-v-dulay 1/3

Online version:

EPZA VS. DULAY [148 SCRA 305; G.R. No. L-59603; 29 Apr 198!

Facts: The four parcels of land which are the subject of this case is where the Mactan Export

Processing Zone Authorit in !ebu "EPZA# is to be constructed$ Private respondent %an Antonio

&evelop'ent !orporation "%an Antonio( for brevit#( in which these lands are registered under(clai'ed that the lands were expropriated to the govern'ent without the' reaching the agree'ent as

to the co'pensation$ )espondent *udge &ula then issued an order for the appoint'ent of the

co''issioners to deter'ine the just co'pensation$ +t was later found out that the pa'ent of the

govern'ent to %an Antonio would be P,- per s.uare 'eter( which was objected to b the latter

contending that under P& ,-//( the basis of just co'pensation shall be fair and according to the fair

'ar0et value declared b the owner of the propert sought to be expropriated( or b the assessor(

whichever is lower$ %uch objection and the subse.uent Motion for )econsideration were denied and

hearing was set for the reception of the co''issioner1s report$ EPZA then filed this petition for

certiorari and 'anda'us enjoining the respondent fro' further hearing the case$

+ssue: 2hether or 3ot the exclusive and 'andator 'ode of deter'ining just co'pensation in P&,-// is unconstitutional$

4eld: The %upre'e !ourt ruled that the 'ode of deter'ination of just co'pensation in P& ,-// is

unconstitutional$

The 'ethod of ascertaining just co'pensation constitutes i'per'issible encroach'ent to judicial

prerogatives$ +t tends to render the courts inutile in a 'atter in which under the !onstitution is

reserved to it for financial deter'ination$ The valuation in the decree 'a onl serve as guiding

principle or one of the factors in deter'ining just co'pensation( but it 'a not substitute the court1s

own judg'ent as to what a'ount should be awarded and how to arrive at such a'ount$ Thedeter'ination of just co'pensation is a judicial function$ The executive depart'ent or the legislature

'a 'a0e the initial deter'ination but when a part clai's a violation of the guarantee in the 5ill of

)ights that the private part 'a not be ta0en for public use without just co'pensation( no statute(

decree( or executive order can 'andate that its own deter'ination shall prevail over the court1s

findings$ Much less can the courts be precluded fro' loo0ing into the justness of the decreed

co'pensation$

My version: ☺

EPZA VS. DULAY [148 SCRA 305; G.R. No. L-59603; 29 Apr 198!

On January 15, 1979, the President of the Philippines, issued Proclamation No 1!11,

reservin" a parcel of land of the pu#lic domain in the $ity of %apu&%apu, $e#u for the

esta#lishment of an e'port processin" (one #y petitioner )'port Processin" *one

+uthority )P*+- .he proclamation included, amon" others, four /- parcels of land

o0ned and re"istered in the name of the private respondent .he petitioner oered to

purchase the parcels of land from the respondent in accordance 0ith the valuation set

forth in 2ection 93, Presidential 4ecree P4- No //, as amended .he parties failed to

reach an a"reement re"ardin" the sale of the property

PD No 464:



"Section 92. Basis for payment of just compensation in expropriation proceedings.

n determining just compensation !ic pri#ate property is ac$uired %y te

go#ernment for pu%&ic use' te %asis sa&& %e te mar(et #a&ue dec&ared %y te

o!ner or administrator or anyone a#ing &ega& interest in te property' or suc

mar(et #a&ue as determined %y te assessor' !ice#er is &o!er."

.he petitioner 6led 0ith the then $ourt of irst 8nstance a complaint for e'propriation

0ith a prayer for the issuance of a 0rit of possession a"ainst the private respondent, to

e'propriate the aforesaid parcels of land On Octo#er 31, 19!, the respondent ud"e

issued a 0rit of possession authori(in" the petitioner to ta;e immediate possession of the

premises

On e#ruary 17, 19!1, the respondent ud"e declared the petitioner as havin" the la0ful

ri"ht to ta;e the properties sou"ht to #e condemned, upon the payment of ust

compensation to #e determined as of the 6lin" of the complaint .he respondent ud"e

also appointed certain persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the

ust compensation for the properties sou"ht to #e e'propriated

.he three commissioners su#mitted their consolidated report recommendin" the amount

of P15 per s<uare meter as the fair and reasona#le value of ust compensation for the

properties

On July 39, 19!1, the petitioner 6led a Motion for =econsideration and O#ection to

$ommissioner>s =eport on the "rounds that P4 No 15?? has superseded 2ections 5 to !

of =ule 7 of the =ules of $ourt on the ascertainment of ust compensation throu"h

commissioners@ and that the compensation must not e'ceed the ma'imum amount set

#y P4 No 15??

PD )*++:

"Section ). n determining just compensation for pri#ate property ac$uired

troug eminent domain proceedings' te compensation to %e paid sa&& not

exceed te #a&ue dec&ared %y te o!ner or administrator or anyone a#ing &ega&

interest in te property or determined %y te assessor' pursuant to te ,ea&

Property -ax ode' !ice#er #a&ue is &o!er' prior to te recommendation or

decision of te appropriate /o#ernment o0ce to ac$uire te property."

Section * of ,u&e 61 of te ,u&es of ourt:

Section *. scertainment of compensation. 3 pon te rendition of te order of

expropriation' te court sa&& appoint not more tan tree 5+ competent and

disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to te court te

just compensation for te property sougt to %e ta(en. -e order of appointment

sa&& designate te time and p&ace of te 7rst session of te earing to %e e&d %y

te commissioners and specify te time !itin !ic teir report sa&& %e

su%mitted to te court.

On Novem#er 1/, 19!1, the trial court denied the petitioner>s motion for reconsideration

On e#ruary 19!3, the petitioner 6led this petition enoinin" the trial court from enforcin"

the order and from further proceedin" 0ith the hearin" of the e'propriation case

Petitioner maintains that P4 No 15?? is the applica#le la0 herein, the #asis of ust

compensation shall #e the fair and current mar;et value declared #y the o0ner of the

property sou"ht to #e e'propriated or such mar;et value as determined #y the assessor,



0hichever is lo0er .herefore, there is no more need to appoint commissioners as

prescri#ed #y =ule 7 of the =evised =ules of $ourt and for said commissioners to

consider other hi"hly varia#le factors in order to determine ust compensation .he

petitioner further maintains that P4 No 15?? has vested on the assessors and the

property o0ners themselves the po0er or duty to 6' the mar;et value of the properties

and that said property o0ners are "iven the full opportunity to #e heard #efore the %ocalAoard of +ssessment +ppeals and the $entral Aoard of +ssessment +ppeals .hus, the

vestin" on the assessor or the property o0ner of the ri"ht to determine the ust

compensation in e'propriation proceedin"s, 0ith appropriate procedure for appeal to

hi"her administrative #oards, is valid and constitutional

8ssue: Bhether or Not the e'clusive and mandatory mode of determinin" ust

compensation in P4 15?? is unconstitutional

Celd: .he mode of determination of ust compensation in P4 15?? is unconstitutional

.he method of ascertainin" ust compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes

impermissi#le encroachment on udicial prero"atives 8t tends to render this $ourt inutilein a matter 0hich under the $onstitution is reserved to it for 6nal determination Be are

convinced and so rule that the trial court correctly stated that the valuation in the decree

may only serve as a "uidin" principle or one of the factors in determinin" ust

compensation #ut it may not su#stitute the court>s o0n ud"ment as to 0hat amount

should #e a0arded and ho0 to arrive at such amount + return to the earlier 0ell&

esta#lished doctrine, to our mind, is more in ;eepin" 0ith the principle that the udiciary

should live up to its mission D#y vitali(in" and not deni"ratin" constitutional ri"htsD

Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the ta;in" 8t means a

fair and full e<uivalent for the loss sustained +ll the facts as to the condition of the

property and its surroundin"s, its improvements and capa#ilities, should #e considered

-e determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicia& function.

-e executi#e department or te &egis&ature may ma(e te initia& determinations %ut

!en a party c&aims a #io&ation of te guarantee in te Bi&& of ,igts tat pri#ate property

may not %e ta(en for pu%&ic use !itout just compensation' no statute' decree' or

executi#e order can mandate tat its o!n determination sa&& pre#ai& o#er te court8s

7ndings. uc &ess can te courts %e prec&uded from &oo(ing into te "justness" of te

decreed compensation.

Be, therefore, hold that P4 No 15??, 0hich eliminates the court>s discretion to appoint

commissioners pursuant to =ule 7 of the =ules of $ourt, is unconstitutional and void .o

hold other0ise 0ould #e to undermine the very purpose 0hy this $ourt e'ists in the 6rstplace

epza v dulay

Documents