FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 259123. September 7, 2022.]
CITY GOVERNMENT OF VALENZUELA REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR, HONORABLE REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES WILLIAM GOSIACO AND BELEN GOSIACO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 7September 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 259123 — (City Government of Valenzuela represented by City Mayor, Honorable Rexlon T. Gatchalian vs. Spouses William Gosiaco and Belen Gosiaco). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision dated 04 February 2021 2 and Resolution dated 29 November 2021 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 110024 which affirmed the Decision dated 05 July 2017 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Br. 269, awarding the amount of P2,700.00 per square meter or the total amount of P20,320,200.00 as just compensation in favor of respondents William Gosiaco and Belen Gosiaco (respondents).
The instant case stemmed from the institution of expropriation proceedings by petitioner City Government of Valenzuela 5 (petitioner) against respondents on 12 September 2013 before the RTC, seeking the acquisition of a 7,526-square meter lot situated at Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City (subject property), and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-114560. Allegedly, the expropriation of the subject property was for the public purpose of expanding the Sitero High School located within the same city. 6 As just compensation, petitioner offered P30.00 per square meter to respondents. 7
For their part, respondents argued that the offer was not a reasonable price, based on prevailing market and/or zonal valuations. 8
In an Order dated 22 July 2014, the RTC declared that petitioner had the lawful right to expropriate the subject property and accordingly ordered the constitution of a Board of Commissioners to determine the proper amount of just compensation. In this regard, the trial court found that the taking of the subject property for the public purpose of expanding a public school justified the city's exercise of the power of eminent domain. 9
In a Report dated 18 April 2016, 10 the Board of Commissioners recommended the amount of P400.00 per square meter or the total amount of P3,010,400.00 as the fair market value of the subject property based on existing tax declarations, the character, classification, and location of the subject property, and other factors determinative of its value. 11 The RTC however disregarded the valuation made by the Board of Commissioners as it found the initial valuation to be too low, and instead relied mainly on the BIR zonal value, among other factors, i.e., classification of the residential property, surroundings, improvements, and the adjacent properties. 12
In a Decision dated 05 July 2017, 13 the RTC fixed the amount of just compensation at P2,700.00 per square meter or the total amount of P20,320,200.00, and accordingly, ordered petitioner to pay respondents the remaining balance of P19,868,640.00, with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum computed from the time of filing of the complaint until full payment. 14 The fallo of the RTC ruling reads: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby FIXES the just compensation for the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-114560, registered under the name of defendants, Spouses William Gosiaco and Belen Gosiaco, at P2,700.00 per square meter or a total of P20,320,200.00.
Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to pay defendant-Spouses William Gosiaco and Belen Gosiaco the balance of P19,868,640.00, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum computed from the time of the filing of the Complaint until full payment.
Defendants are hereby DIRECTED to present the Owner's Duplicate of TCT No. T-114560 to the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela City, which in turn is DIRECTED, upon payment by defendants of the corresponding capital gains taxes, to cancel said title and issue, in lieu thereof, a new transfer certificate of the title under the name of the plaintiff City Government of Valenzuela.
SO ORDERED. 15
Dismayed, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the RTC ruling, which was denied in an Order dated 05 October 2017. 16 Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA, contesting the high valuation of the trial court. 17
In a Decision dated 04 February 2021, 18 the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC's ruling on the amount of just compensation. The CA agreed with the RTC in fixing the fair market value of the subject property using the BIR zonal value, among others, since the tax declaration alone cannot be the proper basis for compensation based on the several factors used in determining the fair market value of the property, i.e., location of the property, classification of the residential property, surroundings, improvements, and the adjacent properties. 19 Therefore, the CA ruled that the awarded just compensation, valued at P2,700.00 per square meter based on the BIR zonal value, was proper.
The dispositive portion of the assailed 04 February 2021 Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 05 October 2017, rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 269, Valenzuela City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.20
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied in a Resolution dated 29 November 2021. 21
Hence, the instant petition, 22 raising the sole issue of whether the CA correctly upheld the RTC's determination of just compensation.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision dated 04 February 2021 23 and Resolution dated 29 November 2021 24 of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 110024 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the valuation of just compensation reflected in the Decision dated 05 July 2017 25 of Br. 269, RTC, Valenzuela City, in the amount of P2,700.00 per square meter or the total amount of P20,320,200.00 for respondents.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the valuation of the RTC was appropriate since it was computed using reliable and actual data, and there was circumspect evaluation of the same. 26 As supported by jurisprudence and contrary to petitioner's claim, the RTC used the BIR zonal valuation as simply one of the indices of the fair market value of the subject property. 27
Petitioner bewails the "utter and complete disregard" of the tax declarations which reclassified the subject property from "riceland" to "residential land" at the instance of respondents in determining the fair and just compensation. 28 Case law however provides that the fair market value of an expropriated property does not merely equate to its market value as may be specified in the property's tax declaration. Rather, just compensation should be valued using several factors to arrive at the fair and full equivalent of the loss suffered by the owner. 29
In any event, the issue pertaining to the correct amount of just compensation for the expropriated parcel of land is a factual question and is not cognizable as a rule by the Court under a Rule 45 petition, since the same should be generally limited to the review of legal issues. 30 Indeed, the resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect. As such, the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal absent any of the exceptions laid down by jurisprudence, 31 as in this case.
Finally, it bears to clarify that the legal interest on the remaining balance of just compensation should be reckoned from the time of taking or on 20 November 2013 and not from the filing of the Complaint on 12 September 2013. Jurisprudence provides that delay begins only upon the taking of the property not from the filing of the complaint because it is from the date of the taking that the fact of deprivation of property can be established, to wit: 32
With regard to the remaining balance, while the CA correctly imposed the legal interest thereon, said interest should be reckoned from the taking of the property, i.e., from issuance of the writ of possession, not from the filing of the complaint as the owners of the condemned property are entitled to the full just compensation only upon the taking of the property. In fine, petitioner's delay begins only upon the taking of the property not from filing of the complaint since it is from the date of the taking that the fact of deprivation of property can be established. 33
To this extent, the questioned CA decision and resolution are modified.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 04 February 2021 and Resolution dated 29 November 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110024 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ordered to pay the balance of just compensation, in the amount of P19,868,640.00, with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum34 reckoned from the date of the taking of the property on 20 November 2013 until finality of this Resolution. The total amount of the foregoing shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until full payment. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-26.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong; id. at 37-51.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Walter S. Ong; id. at 34-35.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Emma C. Matammu; id. at 67-78.
5. As represented by Mayor Rexlon T. Gatchalian.
6.Rollo, pp. 37-38.
7.Id. at 68.
8.Id. at 38-39.
9.Id. at 69.
10. Penned by Commissioners Nicolas A. Jimenez and Atty. Dalisay V. Sacdalan-Martinez; id. at 63-66.
11.Id. at 69-71.
12.Id. at 71.
13. Penned by Presiding Judge Emma C. Matammu; id. at 67-78.
14.Id. at 71.
15.Id. at 78.
16.Id. at 79-80.
17.Id. at 46.
18.Id. at 37-51.
19.Id. at 46-50.
20.Id. at 50.
21.Id. at 34-35.
22.Id. at 9-26.
23.Id. at 37-51.
24.Id. at 34-35.
25.Id. at 67-78.
26.Republic v. Frias, Sr., G.R. No. 243900, 06 October 2021.
27.National Grid Corporation of the Philippines v. Bautista, G.R. No. 232120, 30 September 2020, citing Leca Realty Corp. v. Rep. of the Phils., 534 Phil. 693, 696 (2006).
28. See rollo, pp. 21-22.
29. See also Republic v. Estate of Posadas III, G.R. No. 214310, 24 February 2020, citing National Transmission Corporation v. Oroville Development Corporation, 815 Phil. 91, 105 (2017).
30.Mariveles v. Wilhelmsen-Smithbell Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 238612, 13 January 2021.
31.Chuanico v. Legacy Consolidated Plans, Inc., 719 Phil. 284 (2013) and Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 472 Phil. 11-12 (2004), where the Court held that "[it] is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court."
32.Republic v. Barcelon, G.R. No. 226021, 24 July 2019.
33.Id.
34. The legal interest on loans and forbearance of money was reduced from 12% to 6% per annum by BSP Circular No. 799 on 01 July 2013. (Republic v. Spouses Goloyuco, G.R. No. 222551, 19 June 2019). It was after 01 July 2013 or on 20 November 2013, the time of taking, when the property owner was deprived of the property. Thus, 6% as legal rate per annum will apply.