CITY OF CEBU vs. SPOUSES APOLONIO and BLASA DEDAMO No.

No. Just compensation should not be determined as of the date of the filing of the
[G.R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002] complaint.

FACTS:
On 17 September 1993, Petitioner City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent
domain against respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. The petitioner
alleged that they needed the parcels of land owned by the respondents for public
purpose because they are planning to construct a public road which will serve as an
access or relief road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the General Maxilum Avenue
and the back of Magellan International Hotel Roads in Cebu City.
However, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because
the purpose of expropriation was not for public purpose but for the benefit of the Cebu
Holdings, Inc. They alleged that the petitioner could simply buy directly the property
from them at its fair market value just like what they did with the neighboring lots and
the price offered was very low. They also alleged that they have no other land in
Cebu City.
From this, a pre-trial was conducted. On 23 August 1994, the petitioner filed
a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No.
7160. The motion was granted by the trial court on 21 September 1994. The parties
executed an agreement and submitted to the trial wherein they declared that they
have partially settled the case in consideration of the stipulations in the agreement.
Eminent domain is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It
is the Governments right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the
State, private property for public use or purpose.[9] However, the Government must
pay the owner thereof just compensation as consideration therefor.
In this case, the applicable law as to the point of determining the just compensation is
Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just compensation shall
be determined as of the time of actual taking. The SC justifies that although the
general rule in determining just compensation in eminent domain is the value of the
property as of the date of the filing of the complaint, the rule admits of an exception:
where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date it was taken and not at
the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
Moreover, both of the parties agreed to be bound by the report of the commission so
they need to comply on the agreement in good faith. Also, the petitioner was too late
to question the valuation without violating the principle of equitable estoppel. And
lastly, Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court cannot prevail over R.A. 7160, which
is a substantive law.
Therefore, the petition was denied.

Pursuant to the said agreement, the trial court appointed Palermo M. Lugo,
Alfredo Cisneros and Herbert E. Buot to be the commissioners to determine the just
compensation of the lots sought to be expropriated. The commissioner’s report
contained that the plaintiff is directed to pay a just compensation costs
P24,865.930.00 to the respondents.

But the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the
commissioner’s report was inaccurate since it included an area which was not subject
to expropriation. Then the commissioners submit an amendment which made the just
compensation costs P20,826,339.50 which was later approved by the trial court.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals alleging that the lower
court erred in fixing the amount of just compensation at P20,826,339.50. They also
alleged that just compensation should be based on the prevailing market price of the
property at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. However, the Court
of Appeals was not convinced and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The petitioner filed with a petition for review to the SC. They asserted that
just compensation should be determined on September 17, 1993, as of the date of
the filing of the complaint and not at the time the property was actually taken in 1994.

ISSUE:

whether just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint.

HELD: