Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Republic v. Kabacan, Inc. Et. Al., G.R. No. 185124, January 25, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Ann Balanza
    42 views2 pages
    (1) The National Irrigation Administration filed a complaint for expropriation of land needed for an irrigation project with the regional trial court. (2) The court adopted the findings of the committee that determined compensation, including the value of excavated soil, over NIA's objections. (3) On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but removed the value of excavated soil from compensation. (4) The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, finding no legal basis to separate the value of excavated soil from the expropriated land's value for compensation purposes.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Republic v. Kabacan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) The National Irrigation Administration filed a complaint for expropriation of land needed for an irrigation project with the regional trial court. (2) The court adopted the findings of the committee that determined compensation, including the value of excavated soil, over NIA's objections. (3) On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but removed the value of excavated soil from compensation. (4) The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, finding no legal basis to separate the value of excavated soil from the expropriated land's value for compensation purposes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views2 pages

    Republic v. Kabacan, Inc. Et. Al., G.R. No. 185124, January 25, 2012 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Ann Balanza
    (1) The National Irrigation Administration filed a complaint for expropriation of land needed for an irrigation project with the regional trial court. (2) The court adopted the findings of the committee that determined compensation, including the value of excavated soil, over NIA's objections. (3) On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but removed the value of excavated soil from compensation. (4) The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, finding no legal basis to separate the value of excavated soil from the expropriated land's value for compensation purposes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    104. Republic v. Kabacan, Inc. et. al., G.R. No.

    185124, January 25, 2012

    FACTS:

    The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) filed with the RTC a complaint for
    expropriation of land. RTC adopted the findings of the committee despite the objections
    of NIA to the inclusion of the value of the excavated soil in the computation of the value
    of the land. The RTC ruled for expropriation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
    court’s decision with modification.

    National Irrigation Authority (NIA), a government-owned-and-controlled corporation,


    needed some parcels of land for the purpose of constructing the Malitubog-Marigadao
    Irrigation Project. On 08 September 1994, it filed with the RTC of Kabacan, Cotabato a
    Complaint for the expropriation of a portion of three parcels of land. NIA filed an
    Amended Complaint and prayed that it be authorized to take immediate possession of
    the properties after depositing with the Philippine National Bank the expropriation
    money representing the provisional value thereof.

    Respondents argued that NIA had no authority to expropriate portions of their land,
    because it was not a sovereign political entity; that it was not necessary to expropriate
    their properties; that NIAs valuation of their expropriated properties was inaccurate; and
    that NIA never negotiated with the landowners before taking their properties for the
    project, causing permanent and irreparable damages to their properties.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding of just compensation of the
    land and the improvements thereon based on the report of the commissioners.

    RULING:

    No. The commissioners properly determined the just compensation to be awarded to


    the landowners whose properties were expropriated by petitioner. The records show
    that the trial court dutifully followed the procedure under Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of
    Civil Procedure when it formed a committee that was tasked to determine the just
    compensation for the expropriated properties. In the instant case, the committee
    members based their recommendations on reliable data and considered various factors
    that affected the value of the land and the improvements.

    The Court also upheld the CA ruling, which deleted the inclusion of the value of the
    excavated soil in the payment for just compensation. There is no legal basis to separate
    the value of the excavated soil from that of the expropriated properties, contrary to what
    the trial court did.
    In the context of expropriation proceedings, the soil has no value separate from that of
    the expropriated land. Just compensation ordinarily refers to the value of the land to
    compensate for what the owner actually loses. Such value could only be that which
    prevailed at the time of the taking.

    You might also like