Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-5080 November 29, 1954

REPUBLIC O T!E P!ILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ENRI"UE L#R#, ET #L., defendants-appellants. RE$ES, %.B.L, J.: The Republic of the Philippines as well as defendants Enri ue !ara, et al., are appealin" fro# the decision of the Court of $irst %nstance of Batan"as, in its Civil Case No. &', file b( the Republic for the e)propriation of a lar"e area of land *coverin" +,- parcels. located in !ipa Cit(, upon which the Ar#ed $orces of the Philippines constructed and now operates and #aintains the $ernando Air Base. The land in uestion was, durin" the later part *+/&'.of the 0apanese occupation, occupied b( the ene#( forces and converted into a ca#psite and airfield. The houses alon" the National 1i"hwa( and the provincial roads were destro(ed, and the fruit trees, orchards, and su"ar crops cut down2 in place thereof, the 0apanese forces built concrete airstrips, concrete ta)i-wa(s, du"-outs, canals, concrete ra#ps, ditches, "ravel roads, and air raid shelters. The battle for the liberation added to the devastation of the area in uestion. 3pon liberation, the 3nited 4tates Ar#( too5 possession of the airfield2 and on 0ul( &, +/&6, the air base was handed over b( the 3.4. "overn#ent to the Ar#ed $orces of the Philippines. The Philippine Ar#( then too5 steps to ne"otiate for the purchase of the area for the purpose of constructin" thereat a per#anent air base. A co##ittee was appointed to #a5e an appraisal of the parcels covered2 several land-owners sold their properties to the "overn#ent at the prices fi)ed b( the Appraisal Co##ittee. The e)tra7udicial ne"otiations, however, fell throu"h with respect to the "reater #a7orit( of the land owners, who did not want to accept the prices offered b( the "overn#ent2 hence, steps were ta5en towards the filin" of the co#plaint for e)propriation. 8n 0ul( /,+/&/, the co#plaint was finall( filed in the Court of $irst %nstance of Batan"as, describin" in detail the +,- parcels sou"ht to be e)propriated. 8n Au"ust 9, +/&/, the lower Court fi)ed the provisional value of the parcels in uestion at P++-,:/-.9;, which a#ount the plaintiff deposited with the Philippine National Ban5 to the credit of the Cit( Treasurer of !ipa. As none of the defendants uestioned the purpose of the e)propriation in their respective answers, the lower Court appointed three co##issioners to view the land, hear the evidence, and ascertain the 7ust and reasonable co#pensation for the properties sou"ht to be ta5en. %n the #eanti#e, #an( of the defendants, with the approval of the Court, #ade withdrawals fro# the provisional deposit #ade b( the "overn#ent. 8n $ebruar( /, +/9+, the Co##issioner sub#itted their report to the Court below, classif(in" the parcels in uestion into residential and a"ricultural, and reco##endin" as fair and reasonable #ar5et value< *+. for residential lands, P+ per s uare #eter2 *;. for a"ricultural lands within 9:: #eters fro# either the National 1i"hwa( "oin" to Batan"as or the provincial road leadin" to the town of Mataas na =aho( *desi"nated as >roup A., P;,9:: a hectare or P:.;9 per s uare #eter2 and *'. for the rest of the a"ricultural lands *desi"nated as >roup B., P;,::: a hectare or P:.;: per s uare #eter. The Co##issioners further reco##ended the pa(#ent of 6 per cent interest per annu# to the defendants on the a#ount awarded or re#ainin" pa(able co#puted fro# Nove#ber +-, +/&/2 the pa(#ent of P;:: on each parcel of which onl( a portion was bein" e)propriated, as conse uential da#a"es, plus the e)penses for the subdivision and issuance of new certificates of title2 and the inde#nification to so#e defendants of the value of fruit trees found on their lands.

Both parties ob7ected to the report2 but the lower Court on March '+, +/9+ rendered its decision, acceptin" #ost of the reco##endation of the Co##issioners on the 7ust and reasonable co#pensation for the parcels e)propriated, as well as the pa(#ent of conse uential da#a"es to so#e of the defendants, and of 6 per cent interest to all of the# on the a#ounts awarded and unpaid2 but re7ected the report insofar as it reco##ended the pa(#ent of P+; per s uare #eter for the concrete, airstrip, ta)i-wa(, and ra#p built b( the 0apanese forces on so#e of the parcels in uestion2 the inde#nification for the value of fruit trees found on the lands of so#e of the defendants2 and the pa(#ent of the e)penses for the subdivision and issuance of new certificates of title to those whose lands were onl( partiall( e)propriated. Both the plaintiff and the defendants *with the e)ception of Eliseo 4ilva, Enri ue !u#bera, the Teru brothers, and Eleno ?i@on. in ti#e perfected their 7oint appeal to this Court. The basic dispute naturall( lies on the reasonable value of the lands sou"ht to be e)propriated, with the uestion of the e)tent of da#a"es and interest pa(able to the defendants as a secondar( issue. The #ain propositions sub#itted b( the plaintiff-appellant are as follows< *+. None of the parcels sou"ht to be e)propriated were residential at the ti#e of the e)propriation2 *;. The value of the land e)propriated #ust be rec5oned as of the ti#e of the actual possession thereof b( the plaintiff in +/&6, and not as of the ti#e of the filin" of the co#plaint in +/&/2 *'. The lower Court awarded to so#e of the defendants unproved conse uential da#a"es but failed to consider the conse uential benefits2 *&. The interest that should be awarded to the defendants should be co#puted onl( on the a#ount due to the# in e)cess of the provisional deposit #ade after the filin" of the co#plaint. 8n their part, the defendants-appellants raise the followin" uestions< *+. The lower Court should have awarded at least P+.-: per s uare #eter for residential lots2 P&,::: a hectare or P:.&: per s uare #eter for a"ricultural lands under A>roup AA2 and P',9:: a hectare or P:.'9 per s uare #eter for a"ricultural lands under A>roup BA2 *;. The lower Court should have awarded co#pensation at least P9 per s uare #eter for the concrete airstrip, ra#pwa(s, and ta)i-wa(s found on so#e of the parcels in uestion2 *'. 4o#e of the lands should have been classified as residential instead of a"ricultural2 and others which are near or alon" the provincial road should be classified under >roup A instead of under >roup B a"ricultural lands2. *&. %n fi)in" the 7ust co#pensation for the parcels in uestion, the lower Court should have ta5en into account the fact that the said lots are alread( valuable for and adapted to airfield purposes2 that plaintiff did not pa( an( rentals fro# 0ul( &, +/&6 when it too5 possession, up to Nove#ber ;+, +/&/, when the trial court authori@ed it to ta5e possession2 and that #an( of the defendants-appellants have been rendered landless b( the e)propriation of their sole landholdin"s. Plaintiff-appellantBs first ar"u#ent that none of the parcels in uestion should be classified as residential because at the ti#e the( were ta5en, the( were no lon"er fit for residential purposes, is without #erit. Accordin" to the findin"s of the Co##issioners appointed b( the Court below, before the war and up to 4epte#ber, +/&', when the 0apanese occupied the area in uestion and converted the sa#e into an air field, there were houses ;: to &: (ears old alon" the National 1i"hwa( leadin" to !ipa, Batan"as, and provincial road to Mataas na =aho(2 and it appears fro# the evidence that after the war, the defendants would have a"ain built their ho#es on these lands had not the Ar#( authorities restrained the# fro#

doin" so. $urther#ore, the residential nature of the lands alon" these two roads is, as found b( the Court a uo, borne out not onl( b( the topo"raph( of the land and other advanta"es #entioned in the Co##issionerBs Report, but also b( the ta) declarations E)hs. R to R-+;,, *presented b( the plaintiffappellant as its evidence without ualification., based on a "eneral revision throu"hout the countr( in accordance with a schedule of values approved b( the 4ecretar( of $inance*Record on App., p. -,+., and not upon declaration of the ta)pa(ers. %t is of no #o#ent that at the ti#e the Philippine Ar#( too5 possession of the whole area in uestion, it had been thorou"hl( cleared and converted into an air-field b( the 0apanese ene#( forces2 and that the battle for liberation left the area even #ore devastated that it was not then fit for residential purposes. As we have held in Republic vs. Garcia, /+ Phil., &6. Nor is the absence of private houses a decisive factor in the classification of land as a"ricultural or residential. 3nder the circu#stances of this case, the important consideration is the use to which the land was dedicated before the war and the use to which it could have been dedicated thereafter if it had not been taken by the U.S. Army . Plaintiff-appellantBs second ar"u#ent C that the value of the lands e)propriated #ust be rec5oned as of the ti#e of the actual possession b( it in +/&6 and not as of the ti#e of the filin" of this co#plaint in +/&/is, however, well ta5en. De believe the Court below erred in holdin" that because section 9 of Rule 6/ now provides that the pa(#ent of 7ust co#pensation #ust be deter#ined as of the date of filin" of the co#plaint, our rulin" in the case of Provincial Government vs. Claro , 9, Phil., ':,, is dee#ed superseded. 8rdinaril(, in uir( is li#ited to actual #ar5et values at the ti#e of the institution of the conde#nation proceedin"s because, under nor#al circu#stances, the filin" of the co#plaint coincides or even precedes the ta5in" of the propert( b( the plaintiff2 and Rule 6/ si#pl( fi)es this convenient date for the evaluation of propert( sou"ht to be e)propriated. Dhere, however, the actual ta5in" or occupation b( the plaintiff, with the consent of the landowner, lon" precedes the filin" of the co#plaint for the e)propriation, the rule to be followed #ust still be that enunciated b( us in Provincial Government of Rizal vs. Caro supra , that Athe value of the propert( should be fi)ed as of the date when it was ta5en and not the date of the filin" of the proceedin"s.A $or where propert( is ta5en ahead of the filin" of the conde#nation proceedin"s, the value thereof #a( be enhanced b( the public purpose for which it is ta5en2 the entr( b( the plaintiff upon the propert( #a( have depreciated its value thereb(2 or there #a( have been a natural increase in the value of the propert( fro# the ti#e it is ta5en to the ti#e the co#plaint is filed, due to "eneral econo#ic conditions. The owner of private propert( should be co#pensated onl( for what he actuall( loses2 it is not intended that his co#pensation shall e)tend be(ond his loss or in7ur(. And what he loses is onl( the actual value of his propert( at the ti#e it is ta5en. This is the onl( wa( the co#pensation to be paid can be trul( 7ust2 i.e., A7ustA not onl( to the individual whose propert( is ta5en Abut to the public, which is to pa( for itA *+, A#. 0ur., ,-', ,-&.. The in uir(, therefore, is< Dhat would be the reliable standard for deter#inin" the reasonable worth of the parcels in uestion when the plaintiff be"an occup(in" the# in +/&6E 8n this uestion, courts have consistentl( considered as co#petent evidence bona fide sales of nearb( parcels at ti#es sufficientl( coeval to the ta5in" as to e)clude "eneral chan"es of value2 and we see no reason to divert fro# this rule, considerin" that neither the price that the owners as5 for their propert(, nor the assessed value thereof, is relevant in deter#inin" the reasonable #ar5et value *Manila Railroad Co. vs. Mitchel, &/ Phil., ,:+2 Municipalit( of Tarlac vs. Besa, 99 Phil., &;'.. The onl( deeds of sale of nearb( lands presented b( the plaintiff-appellant are E)hibits B to M, e)ecuted durin" the (ears +/'6 to +/&+2 and E)hibits T to T-&, e)tra7udicial sales of so#e parcels within the $ernando Air Base #ade b( the owners to the "overn#ent before the filin" of these proceedin"s at the prices offered b( the Appraisal Co##ittee of the Philippine Ar#(. As correctl( held b( the Court below, these sales are inco#petent in deter#inin" the reasonable value of the lands in uestion at the ti#e the( were ta5en in +/&6. $or, apart fro# bein" unsupported b( oral evidence, E)hibits B to M were #ade before the war, at least 9 (ears before the ta5in" in this case, and 7udicial notice #a( be ta5en of the fact that because of post war inflation, prewar prices of real estate had arisen considerabl( in +/&6 and subse uent (ears2 while the sales E)hibits T to T-& are Ain the nature of a co#pro#ise to avoid the ris5 of

le"al proceedin"s and are not prices *of land. obtained b( one who desires but is not obli"ed to sell it, and is bou"ht b( one who is under no necessit( for havin" itA. *Cit( of Manila vs. Estrada, ;9 Phil., ;;;-;;'.. 3pon the other hand, the defendants-appellants presented E)hibits ;, &, +', +9, +6 and ;+-!in"ao, sales of nearb( parcels in +/&9, +/&-, and +/&, to +/9:, and dul( identified b( either the vendees or the vendors and affir#ed as havin" been #ade in the ordinar( course of business. De particularl( note that E)hibit &-!in"ao and E)hibit ;+-!in"ao were #ade in +/&9 and +/&- respectivel(, 7ust a (ear before and after the actual occupation b( the plaintiff of the parcels in uestion in +/&6. 3nder E)hibit &-!in"ao, a parcel of riceland located about one 5ilo#eter fro# the western boundar( of the air base*t.s.n. p. '::. was sold for about P:.+, per s uare #eter. %n an effort to discredit this e)hibit, the plaintiff-appellant insists that this sale not onl( includes the land conve(ed but also Athe i#prove#entsA thereon. As correctl( observed b( the Court below, however, the inclusion of the phrase Aand the i#prove#entsA in the deed appears to have been a #ere #atter of for#, for it is an undisputed fact that the whole area in uestion was so devastated after the liberation that no i#prove#ents could possibl( have re#ained thereon in +/&9 when E)hibit &-!in"ao was #ade *4ee Plaintiff-AppellantBs Brief, p. ,.. The other e)hibit, ;+-!in"ao, e)ecuted in +/&-, is a sale of riceland about 9:: #eters fro# the nearest lot in the base *t.s.n. p. &//. at appro)i#atel( P:.;+ per s uare #eter. %t should be noted that the lands sold under these two deeds appear to be below the ualit( of the land covered b( the air base, which the Co##issioners found to be Afirst class su"ar landA *t.s.n. pp. ;:', ;:,, ;,-.. Now, while the other e)hibits for the defendants-appellants are sales of nei"hborin" a"ricultural lands durin" the (ears +/&, to +/9:, the( do not show an( appreciable increase in price fro# those uoted in E)hibits & and ;+-!in"ao #ade in +/&9 and +/&-2 the lands sold thereunder appear to be "enerall( priced at about P:.;: per s uare #eter. 1ence, we see no error in the lower CourtBs approval of the reco##endations of the Co##issioners on the 7ust and reasonable value of the parcels in uestion classified as a"ricultural land2 that is, P:.;9 per s uare #eter for Class A *within 9:: #eters fro# the road. and for Class B *be(ond 9:: #eters. P:.;: per s uare #eter. As to the value of the lots classified as residential b( the Co##issioners, the relevant transactions appearin" on record are< E)hibit +&-!in"ao, sale #ade in +/&/, at about P+.-+ per s uare #eter2 E)hibit ;;-!in"ao, dated +/9:, at about P:.,& per s uare #eter2 E)hibit +:-Re(es, dated $ebruar( ,, +/&,, at P+ per s uare #eter2 and E)hibit +&-Re(es, a sale of residential land in +/9:, at about the sa#e price. 3pon this evidence, the value of P+ per s uare #eter, adopted b( the Co##issioners and the Court below, appears ade uatel( 7ustified. $or the above reasons, we overrule the contention of defendants-appellants that the values of their respective parcels are hi"her than the prices reco##ended b( the Co##issioners on Appraisal appointed b( the Court below. De also find untenable the ar"u#ent of defendants-appellants that lots 6+';-A, 6+'', 6+'9-A, 66+', 66+;, and 66:/, which are located alon" the provincial road to Mataas na =aho(, should be classified as residential. The findin"s of the Co##issioners that these lands are adapted for residential purposes obviousl( cannot refer to the totalit( of said lots, so#e of which are thousands of s uare #eters in area, and hundreds of #eters awa( fro# the road. %t was incu#bent upon the defendants to prove what portions of these lots are residential, but the( have failed to do so. 1ence, these parcels #ust be classified onl( as >roup A a"ricultural lands. As the decision appealed fro# alread( includes lots 6+';-A, 6+'', and 6+'9-A and 6+'9-B under this cate"or(, it is to be #odified in the sense that lots 66+', 66+;, and 66:/ should also be classified as >roup A a"ricultural lands. 1owever, we find well-ta5en the error raised b( the defendants-appellants that lots Nos. 66:&-A, 66:6A,66+:-A, 66++-A, ,,&9, and 6;&--A should be classified as Class A a"ricultural lands *that is, lands found within 9:: #eters fro# the National 1i"hwa( or the provincial roads. because the surve( plan, E)hibit F of the plaintiff, discloses that these lots are located within 9:: #eters fro# the provincial road to Mataas na =aho(.

8n the uestion of whether the owners of the parcels upon which the 0apanese Ar#( had built a concrete air-strip, runwa(, and ta)i wa( should be co#pensated for the value of these i#prove#ents, we a"ree with the Court below that these i#prove#ents should be e)cluded as an ele#ent of appreciation or da#a"e, on the "round that Athe Republic of the Philippines as victor in the last war should be considered the le"iti#ate successor to the properties owned b( the 0apanese in the PhilippinesA *Rec. on App., p. -,'.. ?efendants-appellants insist that a belli"erent occupant could not ta5e private propert( without co#pensation2 that the 0apanese forces were possessors of their lands in bad faith2 and that therefore, the i#prove#ents constructed thereon b( the# should, under our civil law, belon" to the owners of the lands to which the( are attached. This ar"u#ent is untenable. %n the first place, the rules of Civil Code concernin" industrial accession were not desi"ned to re"ulate relations between private persons and a soverei"n belli"erent, nor intended to appl( to constructions #ade e)clusivel( for prosecutin" a war, when #ilitar( necessit( is te#poraril( para#ount. %n the second place, while art. &6 of the 1a"ue Re"ulations provide that Aprivate propert( #a( not be confiscatedA, confiscation differs fro# the te#porar( use b( the ene#( occupant of private land and buildin"s for all 5inds of purposes de#anded b( the necessities of war *%% 8ppenhei#, %nt. !aw, !auterpacht Edition, sec. +&:.2 thus, the 3.4. Dar ?epart#ent Rules of !and Darfare of +/&: provide that C the rule re uirin" respect for private propert( is not violated throu"h da#a"e resultin" fro# operations, #ove#ent, or co#bats of the ar#(, that is, real estate #a( be utili@ed for #arches, ca#psites, construction of trenches, etc. Buildin"s #a( be used for shelter for troops, the sic5 and wounded, for ani#als, for reconnaisance, cover defense, etc. $ences, woods, crops, buildin"s, etc. #a( be de#olished, cut down, and re#oved to clear a field of fire, to construct brid"es, to furnish fuel if i#perativel( needed for the ar#(. *Guoted in 1(de, %nt. !aw, Fol. %%, p. +,/&. Conse uentl(, the 0apanese occupant is not re"arded as a possessor in bad faith of the lands ta5en fro# the defendants-appellants and converted into an airfield and ca#psite2 its use thereof was #erel( te#porar(, de#anded b( war necessities and e)i"encies. But while the defendants-appellants re#ained the owners of their respective lands, the Republic of the Philippines succeeded to the ownership or possession of the constructions #ade thereon b( the ene#( occupant for war purposes, unless the treat( of peace should otherwise provide2 and it is under no obli"ation to pa( inde#nit( for such constructions and i#prove#ents in these e)propriation proceedin"s. Dith respect to the uestion of the propriet( of the award of conse uential da#a"es to the owners of parcels which are onl( bein" partiall( e)propriated, we do not thin5 it was error for the Court below to award to each of these owners the su# of P;:: as reco##ended b( the Co##issioners, to co#pensate the# for the da#a"es to their re#ainin" land. The rule is clear that Awhere onl( a part of a parcel of land is ta5en b( e#inent do#ain, the owner is not restricted to co#pensation for the land actuall( ta5en2 he is also entitled to recover for the da#a"e to his re#ainin" land. . . . And there is no re uire#ent that this da#a"e be special and peculiar, or such as would be actionable at co##on law2 it is enou"h that it is a conse uence of the ta5in"A *+, A#. 0ur., /:92 also, 0ahr on E#inent ?o#ain, Fol. %%%, p. +''-+'& ;/ C.0.4., /-6-/,+.. As #a(be observed fro# the surve( plan of these parcels *E)hibit 3 of plaintiff., the partial e)propriation would leave the residue of so#e of the# without access to the roads2 while the re#ainin" portions of other parcels would be so irre"ular in shape or so s#all in area as to "reatl( depreciate their practical worth and #ar5et value. %t #a( be added that as the Co##issioners who reco##ended the pa(#ent of conse uential da#a"es to these owners had the opportunit( to view the pre#ises and deter#ine the e)tent to which these re#ainin" portions have been da#a"ed, their report and reco##endations as to the pa(#ent of da#a"es are naturall( entitled to "reat wei"ht. As for the alle"ed conse uential benefits that would accrue to these parcels as a result of the establish#ent of the air base b( the plaintiff, in that the value of the properties in the vicinit( has "enerall( increased, and that people have started to live and construct houses outside the base, the( are #uch too speculative and uncertain. The fact is that three (ears after the ta5in" over of the area b( the

>overn#ent, the Co##issioners onl( found on ocular inspection, te#porar( shac5s *baron"-baron". #ostl( used for "a#blin" purposes. The increase in assessed values, #oreover, was due to >overn#ent action and did not arise fro# voluntar( ad#ission of the ta)pa(ers. As its last assi"n#ent of error, plaintiff-appellant sub#its that the lower Court erred in orderin" it to pa( 6H interest on the a#ounts awarded and unpaid to the defendants, co#puted fro# the filin" of the co#plaint on Nove#ber +-, +/&/. %t is plaintiff-appellantBs contention that it should be re uired to pa( interest onl( on the balance of the a""re"ate value of the whole area in uestion, after deductin" therefro# the su# P++-,:/-.9; which it had deposited at the co##ence#ent of these proceedin"s. 8n this uestion, this Court has held Ain une uivocal ter#s that the owners of e)propriated lands are entitled to recover interest fro# the date that the co#pan( e)ercisin" the ri"ht of e#inent do#ain ta5es possession of the conde#ned lands, and the a#ounts "ranted b( the court shall cease to earn interest onl( fro# the #o#ent the( are paid to the owners or deposited in the court. *Philippine Railwa( Co. vs. 4olon, +' Phil., '& and Philippine Railwa( Co. vs. ?uran, '' Phil., +96..A *Manila Railwa( Co. vs. Attorne(->eneral, &+ Phil., +6'.. Appl(in" this doctrine to the case at bar, the defendants-appellants should be paid le"al interest on the a#ounts respectivel( awarded to the# fro# the ti#e the plaintiff too5 actual possession of their lands in 0ul(, +/&62 the deposit b( the plaintiff of the a#ount of P++-,:/-.9; in +/&/, however, stops the runnin" of such interest with respect to the a#ount thus deposited. $inall(, the defendants-appellants clai# that in fi)in" the reasonable co#pensation for the parcels bein" e)propriated, the followin" facts should be considered< *+. that said lots are alread( valuable for and adapted to airfield purposes2 *;. that plaintiff did not pa( an( rentals fro# 0ul( &, +/&6, when it be"an occup(in" the whole area2 and*'. that #an( defendants-appellants have been rendered landless b( the proceedin"s. Dith respect to the first point, Athe value of the land ta5en to the part( ta5in" it is not the test of what should be paid, nor should the fact that the land is desired or needed for a particular public use be considered when it is ta5en for that use. The necessities of the public or of the part( see5in" to conde#n land cannot be ta5en into consideration in fi)in" the value.A *+, A#. 0ur., pp. ,,+-,,;..8n the second point raised, aside fro# the fact there is no evidence whatever to deter#ine the reasonable rentals on the parcels in uestion, the inde#nit( for such rentals is inconsistent with defendantsB ri"ht to be paid le"al interest on the value of their properties fro# the ti#e of their actual ta5in" in +/&62 for if plaintiff-appellant is to pa( interest on the co#pensation due to the defendants fro# the ti#e of the actual ta5in" of their propert(, the pa(#ent of such co#pensation is dee#ed to retroact to the actual ta5in" of the propert(2 hence, there is no basis for defendantBs clai# for rentals fro# the ti#e of actual ta5in" to the filin" of the co#plaint in court. Anent the last point, that #an( of the defendants-appellants have been rendered ho#eless and landless b( these proceedin"s, it has been held that the inconvenience resultin" fro# the loss of a ho#e, or its senti#ental value to the owner, is not a proper ele#ent of da#a"e. A%f the loss be #erel( the cost of #ovin" fro# one place to another, that is #ade up to the owner b( the use of the #one( which the corporation #ust pa( to hi# before he is re uired to #ove2 and an( other inconvenience of a #ere senti#ental nature he is re uired to suffer for the public benefit.A *Madisonville, 1.I E.R. Co. vs. Rose, +' !.R.A. JN.4.K &;:.. Dherefore, with the #odification that lots Nos. 66+',66+;, 66:/, 66:&-A, 66:6-A, 66+:-A, 66++-A, ,&&9, and 6;&--A should be classified and valued as >roup-A a"ricultural lands, the 7ud"e#ent appealed fro# is, in all other respects, affir#ed. !et the records of this case be re#anded to the Court of ori"in for a revaluation of the afore#entioned lots in accordance with this opinion. Dithout costs in this instance. Paras C.!. Pablo "en#zon Padilla $ontemayor Reyes A. !u#o "autista An#elo and Concepcion !!. concur.

S-ar putea să vă placă și