Implied limitation on property rights

Individuals hold their property under a tacit agreement or implied reservation vesting upon the sovereign state the right to resume the possession of it whenever the public interest so requires. This ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any private property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose is known as the right of eminent domain. The right is manifested and exercised through expropriation proceedings. Expropriation proceedings are not adversarial in nature because the State or condemning authority merely serves notice that it is taking title and possession of the property and the private owner asserts title or interest in the property not to prove right of possession, but to prove a right to compensation for the taking. If the property has already been condemned and taken by the state but the compensation has not been paid, can the private owner recover his property? This is issue that arose in this case of the heirs of Don Arsenio.

The heirs of Don Arsenio were his successors in interest over a 7.5 hectare property which were part of a 50.5 hectare property along a national highway expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines. The expropriation proceedings were filed way back on September 19, 1969 for the purpose of utilizing the property in the continued broadcast operation of the " Voice of the Philippines" of the Philippine Information Agency( PIA).The government made a deposit of P517,558.80 provisionally fixed as the reasonable value of the property, then immediately took possession of it. After more than nine years of court litigation, the Regional Trial Court finally issued an order condemning the properties and ordering the government to pay the fair market value of the land computed at the rate of P6.00 per square meters with legal rate of interest from September 19, 1969 until fully paid.

Despite the lapse of more than five years, the national government had not yet paid to the heirs the compensation ordered by the RTC. This prompted the heirs to file a motion seeking payment of the expropriated property. After ascertaining that the heirs remained unpaid in the sum of P1,058,655.05, the RTC issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of its judgment. When the writ was not complied with, the heirs filed a motion asking the RTC to release to them a portion of the sum deposited by the government at the inception of the proceedings in 1969 corresponding to their share of the deposit. The RTC granted this motion.

But the entire compensation due the heirs remained unpaid. In the meantime, some 25 hectares of the expropriated property were already transferred by the government to other agencies for some other public purpose. No action was taken on the case until September 1999, or thirty years after the expropriation was instituted, when the government filed a manifestation and motion to permit the deposit in court the amount of P 4,664,000.00 by way of just compensation of the expropriated property of the heirs subject to such final computation as might be approved by the court. This time, the heirs objected, They said that the current zonal valuation of the property is P5,000.00 per square meters which the government should pay, or in the alternative, it should return to them, the expropriated property. The heirs contended that the judgment of expropriation like any other judgment, expires in five years, so that after the lapse of said period, it could no longer be executed, payment, therefore, can no longer be made.

Were the heirs correct?

No.

The judgment rendered by the RTC in 1979 on the expropriation proceedings provides not only for the payment of the just compensation to the heirs but likewise adjudges the property condemned in favor of the government to which parties, as well as their privies are bound. The government, through the PIA, has occupied, utilized and, for all intents and purposes, exercised dominion over the property, a significant portion thereof being ceded also for public purpose. The exercise of such right vested to it as the condemnor indeed has amounted to, at least, a partial compliance or satisfaction of the 1979 judgment, thereby preempting any claim of bar by prescription on grounds of non-execution. In arguing for the return of their property on the basis of non payment, the heirs ignore the fact that their right is far from that of an unpaid seller in ordinary sales to which the remedy of recission might perhaps apply. An in rem proceeding, condemnation acts upon the property. After condemnation, the paramount title is in the public under a new and independent title; thus by giving notice to all claimants to a disputed title, condemnation proceedings provide a judicial process for securing better title against all the world than may be obtained by voluntary conveyance.

The land in question has been the subject of expropriation proceedings. By final and executory judgment in said proceedings, it was condemned for public use and ordered sold to the government. It follows that by virtue of the judgment in the expropriation suit, long final and partially satisfied when the PIA has occupied and utilized it, the heirs are not entitled to recover possession of said expropriated land which are still devoted to public use. But, although not entitled to the return of the expropriated property, they deserve to be paid promptly on the yet unpaid award for just compensation already fixed by the final judgment of the RTC at P6.00 per square meter, with legal interest at 12% per annum computed from the date of the taking of the property on September 19,1969 until the due amount shall have been fully paid (Republic vs. Court of Appeals and the Heirs of Luis Santos etc. G.R. 146587 July 2, 2002).

* * *

E-mail us at: [email protected]