SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243485. January 28, 2019.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, petitioner,vs. ISABELO A. CHANG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243485 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Isabelo A. Chang)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 23, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 29, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108433 for failure of petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways, to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 (RTC) which fixed the just compensation of respondent Isabelo A. Chang's (respondent) property at P7,000.00 per square meter.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the RTC properly took into account: (a) the Joint Commissioners' Report, 4 which considered the necessary factors in determining just compensation; 5 and (b) the court-adjudged just compensation for two (2) expropriated properties similar and adjacent to respondent's property. 6 Moreover, case law provides that zonal valuation is just one of the indices in determining the amount of just compensation. 7 Finally, factual issues pertaining to the valuation of the expropriated property are beyond the pale of review under a Rule 45 petition, save for certain exceptions, 8 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-17.
2.Id. at 22-29. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
3.Id. at 31-32.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. The CA found that the said Report took into consideration the following factors: (a) location; (b) neighborhood and land classification; (c) utilities; (d) amenities; (e) most profitable use of the remaining area; (f) size; (g) shape; (h) accessibility; (i) the listing of other property within the vicinity; (j) occupancy and usage; and (k) highest and best usage and land value. (See rollo, pp. 25 and 36.)
6. See Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 218628 & 218631, September 6, 2017; See also Republic v. C.C. Unson Company, Inc., 781 Phil. 770, 785-786 (2016).
7. See Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corporation, 729 Phil. 402, 416 (2014).
8.Id. at 413.