More about the Cavite expropriation case
More about the Cavite expropriation case
Updated 11:15pm (Mla time) Nov 12, 2004
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 13, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
I RECEIVED a long letter from Renato A. Ignacio, provincial legal officer of Cavite, who said he was seeking to rectify some factual errors in my recent column about the curious case of the compromise agreement on the acquisition of certain lands earlier sought to be expropriated by the province in 1982. That agreement calls for the payment of P50 million to the private owners for about half of the original tract claimed in the complaint for expropriation filed 22 years ago.
He says that "the Compromise Agreement hewed closely to the recommendation of the 1992 Appraisal Committee which determined the prevailing price in 1992 at Php 1,000 per sq m and recommended the price of Php 500 per sq m to the Court considering the fact that the filing of the expropriation case/taking of possession was in 1982."
As Ignacio himself stresses, "the filing of the expropriation case/taking of possession was in 1982." This should be the year when the property should be assessed for determination of the just compensation to be paid the private owners. Yet "the Appraisal Committee determined the prevailing price in 1992" and not the prevailing price in 1982, when the expropriation case was filed.
The prevailing price then was P0.86 per sq m or a total market value of P215,000 for 250,000 sq m of the expropriated land, as the government itself claimed. Even the owners, for their part, argued that the market value of the property was P45 per sq m or P11,272,500 for the entire area. Yet in 2004, the parties "hewed closely to the recommendation of the 1992 Appraisal Committee which determined the prevailing price in 1992 at Php 1,000 per sq m and recommended the price of Php 500 to the Court considering the fact that the filing of the expropriation case/taking of possession was in 1982."
Inasmuch as the property was taken in 1981 and the expropriation case was filed in 1982, I am wondering why the government accepted the just compensation based on the fair market value of the land in 1992, more than 10 years later. The amount reached in the Compromise Agreement, even with the 6 percent accrued interest from 1981 added, was very much higher--perhaps unconscionably so--than the original value of the property at the time it was taken by the expropriator in 1981. The property had since then been considerably improved and as a result tremendously increased in value by 1992.
According to the case of Republic v. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336, which I cited in my original article:
"Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the 'just compensation' is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. This Court has ruled that 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. (Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine National Bank, 1 SCRA 597). In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Republic was placed in possession of the Castellvi property, by authority of the Court, on August 10, 1959. The 'taking' of the Castellvi property for the purpose of determining the just compensation to be paid must, therefore, be reckoned as of June 26, 1959, when the complaint for eminent domain was filed."
The above-mentioned rule has been retained in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. I know it is not strictly applicable to the Compromise Agreement, which deals now with a voluntary sale, the expropriation case having been withdrawn. Nevertheless, I see no reason why the Compromise Agreement does not "hew more closely" to that rule, which would have provided for a just compensation much lower than the P50 million agreed upon by the province and the private owners. If the latter were unwilling, the province could have simply proceeded with the expropriation, which it would certainly have won and for a lower price.
Significantly, the Compromise Agreement calls for the payment of P50 million for practically only one-half of the property originally sought to be expropriated. Even with the accrued interest added from 1981, the resultant just compensation would have been much more advantageous to the province than the P50 million it agreed to pay the private owners, and for much less than the original area it had intended to acquire.
I suppose that the petition of Vice Gov. Juanito Victor C. Remulla questioning the Compromise Agreement has already been filed with the Court of Appeals, which makes the case now sub judice. I leave it now for his lawyers to debate the matter with Cavite's Provincial Legal Officer Ignacio, who speaks of certain "reciprocal concessions" of the defendants to establish in their retention areas a university, a mall, and a public parking lot. To be owned by the province? This may be the justification for the higher price agreed upon, so let's see how the court decides.
I hope that this case which began in 1982 will not take another 22 years to resolve.
Updated 11:15pm (Mla time) Nov 12, 2004
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 13, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
I RECEIVED a long letter from Renato A. Ignacio, provincial legal officer of Cavite, who said he was seeking to rectify some factual errors in my recent column about the curious case of the compromise agreement on the acquisition of certain lands earlier sought to be expropriated by the province in 1982. That agreement calls for the payment of P50 million to the private owners for about half of the original tract claimed in the complaint for expropriation filed 22 years ago.
He says that "the Compromise Agreement hewed closely to the recommendation of the 1992 Appraisal Committee which determined the prevailing price in 1992 at Php 1,000 per sq m and recommended the price of Php 500 per sq m to the Court considering the fact that the filing of the expropriation case/taking of possession was in 1982."
As Ignacio himself stresses, "the filing of the expropriation case/taking of possession was in 1982." This should be the year when the property should be assessed for determination of the just compensation to be paid the private owners. Yet "the Appraisal Committee determined the prevailing price in 1992" and not the prevailing price in 1982, when the expropriation case was filed.
The prevailing price then was P0.86 per sq m or a total market value of P215,000 for 250,000 sq m of the expropriated land, as the government itself claimed. Even the owners, for their part, argued that the market value of the property was P45 per sq m or P11,272,500 for the entire area. Yet in 2004, the parties "hewed closely to the recommendation of the 1992 Appraisal Committee which determined the prevailing price in 1992 at Php 1,000 per sq m and recommended the price of Php 500 to the Court considering the fact that the filing of the expropriation case/taking of possession was in 1982."
Inasmuch as the property was taken in 1981 and the expropriation case was filed in 1982, I am wondering why the government accepted the just compensation based on the fair market value of the land in 1992, more than 10 years later. The amount reached in the Compromise Agreement, even with the 6 percent accrued interest from 1981 added, was very much higher--perhaps unconscionably so--than the original value of the property at the time it was taken by the expropriator in 1981. The property had since then been considerably improved and as a result tremendously increased in value by 1992.
According to the case of Republic v. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336, which I cited in my original article:
"Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the 'just compensation' is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. This Court has ruled that 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. (Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine National Bank, 1 SCRA 597). In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Republic was placed in possession of the Castellvi property, by authority of the Court, on August 10, 1959. The 'taking' of the Castellvi property for the purpose of determining the just compensation to be paid must, therefore, be reckoned as of June 26, 1959, when the complaint for eminent domain was filed."
The above-mentioned rule has been retained in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. I know it is not strictly applicable to the Compromise Agreement, which deals now with a voluntary sale, the expropriation case having been withdrawn. Nevertheless, I see no reason why the Compromise Agreement does not "hew more closely" to that rule, which would have provided for a just compensation much lower than the P50 million agreed upon by the province and the private owners. If the latter were unwilling, the province could have simply proceeded with the expropriation, which it would certainly have won and for a lower price.
Significantly, the Compromise Agreement calls for the payment of P50 million for practically only one-half of the property originally sought to be expropriated. Even with the accrued interest added from 1981, the resultant just compensation would have been much more advantageous to the province than the P50 million it agreed to pay the private owners, and for much less than the original area it had intended to acquire.
I suppose that the petition of Vice Gov. Juanito Victor C. Remulla questioning the Compromise Agreement has already been filed with the Court of Appeals, which makes the case now sub judice. I leave it now for his lawyers to debate the matter with Cavite's Provincial Legal Officer Ignacio, who speaks of certain "reciprocal concessions" of the defendants to establish in their retention areas a university, a mall, and a public parking lot. To be owned by the province? This may be the justification for the higher price agreed upon, so let's see how the court decides.
I hope that this case which began in 1982 will not take another 22 years to resolve.
posted by Dante at 10:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home