REPUBLIC vs.

CASTELLVI
Taking
G.R. No. Ponente Date
L-20620  JUSTICE ZALDIVAR August 15, 1974
Petitioners Respondents
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CARMEN M. VDA. DE CASTELLVI, ET AL.

DOCTRINE:
Eminent domain; “Taking” of property; Elements of.—A number of circumstances must be
present in the “taking” of property for purposes of eminent domain: (1) the expropriator must
enter a private property; (2) the entrance into private property must be for more than a
momentary period; (3) the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal
authority; (4) the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated
or injuriously affected; and (5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a
way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Same; Same; Entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period;
Momentary defined.—"Momentary” means “lasting but a moment; of but a moment’s duration
(The Oxford English Dictionary, Volume VI, page 596); “lasting a very short time; transitory;
having a very brief life; operative or recurring at every moment” (Webster’s Third International
Dictionary, 1963 edition). The word “momentary” when applied to possession or occupancy of
(real) property should be construed to -mean “a limited period”—not indefinite or permanent.

Same; Same; Mere notice of intention to expropriate cannot bind landowner; Expropriate must
be commenced in court.—It might really have been the intention of the Republic to expropriate
the lands at some future time, but certainly mere notice—much less an implied notice—of
such intention on the part of the Republic to expropriate the lands in the future did not, and
could not, bind the landowner, nor bind the land itself. The expropriation must be actually
commenced in court.

Same; Just compensation; Value of property expropriated determined as of the date of the
filing of the complaint.—Under section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the “just
compensation” is to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. When the
taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the
expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent
domain, the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint.

Same; Same; Circumstances considered in determining the value of the property

expropriated.—In expropriation proceedings, the owner of the land has the right to its value for
the use for which it would bring the most in the market. The owner may thus show every
advantage that his property possesses, present and prospective, in order that the price it could
be sold for in the market may be satisfactorily determined. The owner may also show that the
property is suitable for division into village or town lots.

I. Facts of the case

● The Republic of the Philippines, filed, on June 26, 1959, a complaint for eminent domain
against Carmen M. Vda. de Castellvi, judicial administratrix of the estate of the late Alfonso
de Castellvi over a parcel of land situated in the barrio of San Jose, Floridablanca,
Pampanga and that of 2 lots which belong to Maria Nieves Toledo Gozun.

● The Republic alleged, that the fair market value of the lands, according to the Pampanga
Committee on Appraisal, was not more than P2,000 per hectare, or a total market value of
P259,669.10; and prayed, that the provisional value of the lands be fixed at such, that the
court authorize it to take immediate possession of the lands upon deposit of that amount with
the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga; that the court appoint three commissioners to
ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property sought to be
expropriated, and that the court issues thereafter a final order of condemnation. The trial
court subsequently issued an Order fixing the provisional value of the lands at the fair market
value.

● Carmel Castellvi in her "motion to dismiss" alleged, that the land under her administration,
being a residential land, had a fair market value of P15.00 per square meter, so it had a total
 market value of P11,389,485.00; that the Republic, through the AFP, particularly the Air
Force, had been, despite repeated demands, had illegally occupied the property since July
1, 1956, thereby preventing her from using and disposing of it, thus causing her damages by
way of unrealized profits. She thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed, or that the
Republic be ordered to pay her P15.00 per square meter, or a total of P11,389,485.00, plus
interest thereon at 6% per annum from July 1, 1956; that she be paid P5,000,000.00 as
unrealized profits, and the costs of the suit.

● After the Republic had deposited with the Provincial Treasurer the amount of P259,669.10,
the trial court ordered that the Republic be placed in possession of the lands of which such
was actually placed in possession of the lands on August 10,
1959
● In her "motion to dismiss", dated October 22, 1959, Toledo-Gozun alleged, among other
things, that her two parcels of land were residential lands, in fact a portion such had already
been subdivided into different lots for sale to the general public, and the remaining portion
had already been set aside for expansion sites of the completed subdivisions; that the FMV
of said lands was P15.00 per square meter, so they had a total market value of
P8,085,675.00; and she prayed that the complaint be dismissed, or that she be paid the
amount of P8,085,675.00, plus interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from October
13, 1959, and attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00.
● The Court authorized the Provincial Treasurer on 2 dates, on November 4, 1959 to pay
Toledo-Gozun the sum of P107,609.00 as provisional value of her lands and on May 16,
1960 for Castellvi, the amount of P151,859.80 as provisional value of the land under her
administration. It also ordered Castellvi to deposit the amount with the PNB under the
supervision of the Deputy Clerk of Court. In another order of May 16, 1960 the trial Court
entered an order of condemnation.

● The Court appointed three commissioners: Atty. Amadeo Yuzon, commissioner for the court;
Atty. Felicisimo G. Pamandanan, for the plaintiff; and Atty. Leonardo F. Lansangan, for the
defendants. After having qualified themselves, proceeded to the performance of their duties.
On March 15,1961 they submitted their report and recommendation, having determined that
the expropriated lands were residential, they recommended unanimously that the lowest
price that should be paid was P10.00 per square meter, for both the lands of Castellvi and
Toledo-Gozun; that an additional P5,000.00 be paid to Toledo-Gozun for improvements
found on her land; that legal interest on the compensation, computed from August 10, 1959,
be paid after deducting the amounts already paid to the owners, and that no consequential
damages be awarded. The Commissioners' report was objected to by all the parties in the
case, who insisted that the FMV of their lands should be fixed at P15.00 per square meter;
and by the Republic, which insisted that the price to be paid for the lands should be fixed at
P0.20 per square meter.

● Subsequently the Trial Court issued a Decision, the dispositive portion of which is quoted
below:

WHEREFORE, taking into account all the foregoing circumstances, and that the lands are
titled, ... the rising trend of land values ..., and the lowered purchasing power of the
Philippine peso, the court finds that the unanimous recommendation of the commissioners of
ten (P10.00) pesos per square meter for the three lots of the defendants subject of this
action is fair and just.

xxx xxx xxx

The plaintiff will pay 6% interest per annum on the total value of the lands of defendant
Toledo-Gozun since (sic) the amount deposited as provisional value from August 10, 1959
until full payment is made to said defendant or deposit therefor is made in court.

In respect to the defendant Castellvi, interest at 6% per annum will also be paid by the
plaintiff to defendant Castellvi from July 1, 1956 when plaintiff commenced its illegal
possession of the Castellvi land when the instant action had not yet been commenced to
July 10, 1959 when the provisional value thereof was actually deposited in court, on the total
value of the said (Castellvi) land as herein adjudged. The same rate of interest shall be paid
from July 11, 1959 on the total value of the land herein adjudged minus the amount
deposited as provisional value, or P151,859.80, such interest to run until full payment is
made to said defendant or deposit therefor is made in court. All the intervenors having failed
to produce evidence in support of their respective interventions, said interventions are
ordered dismissed.

The costs shall be charged to the plaintiff.

 ● On June 21, 1961 the Republic filed a motion for a new trial and/or reconsideration, upon the
grounds of newly-discovered evidence, that the decision was not supported by the evidence,
and that the decision was against the law, of which Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun filed their
respective oppositions. On July 8, 1961, the Republic filed a supplemental motion for new
trial upon the ground of additional newly-discovered evidence. Both motions were denied by
the court on July 12, 1961.
● On July 17, 1961 the Republic gave notice of its intention to appeal from the decision of May
26, 1961 and the order of July 12, 1961. Castellvi also filed, on July 17, 1961, her notice of
appeal from the decision of the trial court. The Republic filed various motions for extension of
time to file, which it subsequently did on December 6, 1961, which were opposed by
Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun. The Trial Court subsequently declared in an Order dated
December 27, 1961 that both notices were filed out of time and subsequently dismissed both
appeals.
● The Republic filed a Motion to strike the December 27, 1961 Order, but Castellvi and Toledo-
Gozun did not, subsequently the Trial Court

II. Issue/s

Whether the lower court erred in holding that the "taking" of the properties under
expropriation commenced with the filing of this action?

III. Ratio/Legal Basis

● NO, the lower court did NOT err in holding that the taking of the properties under
expropriation only commenced with the filing of the action.
● A number of circumstances must be present in the "taking" of property for purposes of
eminent domain. First, the expropriator must enter a private property; Second, the entrance
into private property must be for more than a momentary period; Third, the entry into the
property should be under warrant or color of legal authority; Fourth,  the property must be
devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; Fifth,  the
utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
● The Republic argues that the "taking" should be reckoned from the year 1947 when by virtue
of a special lease agreement between the Republic and appellee Castellvi, the former was
granted the "right and privilege" to buy the property should the lessor wish to terminate the
lease, and that in the event of such sale, it was stipulated that the fair market value should
be as of the time of occupancy; and that the permanent improvements amounting to more
that half a million pesos constructed during a period of twelve years on the land, subject of
expropriation, were indicative of an agreed pattern of permanency and stability of occupancy
by the Philippine Air Force in the interest of national Security
● Castellvi, on the other hand, maintains that the "taking" of property under the power of
eminent domain requires two essential elements, to wit: (1) entrance and occupation by
condemn or upon the private property for more than a momentary or limited period, and (2)
devoting it to a public use in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all
beneficial enjoyment of the property. This appellee argues that in the instant case the first
element is wanting, for the contract of lease relied upon provides for a lease from year to
year; that the second element is also wanting, because the Republic was paying the lessor
Castellvi a monthly rental of P445.58; and that the contract of lease does not grant the
Republic the "right and privilege" to buy the premises "at the value at the time of occupancy.
● It is clear, therefore, that the "taking" of Catellvi's property for purposes of eminent domain
cannot be considered to have taken place in 1947 when the Republic commenced to occupy
the property as lessee thereof. We find merit in the contention of Castellvi that two essential
elements in the "taking" of property under the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) that the
entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent, or indefinite period,
and (2) that in devoting the property to public use the owner was ousted from the property
and deprived of its beneficial use, were not present when the Republic entered and occupied
 the Castellvi property in 1947.
● We hold, therefore, that the "taking" of the Castellvi property should not be reckoned as of
the year 1947 when the Republic first occupied the same pursuant to the contract of lease,
and that the just compensation to be paid for the Castellvi property should not be determined
on the basis of the value of the property as of that year. The lower court did not commit an
error when it held that the "taking" of the property under expropriation commenced with the
filing of the complaint in this case.

IV. Disposition

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified, as follows:

(a) the lands of appellees Carmen Vda. de Castellvi and Maria Nieves Toledo-
Gozun, as described in the complaint, are declared expropriated for public use;

(b) the fair market value of the lands of the appellees is fixed at P5.00 per square
meter;

(c) the Republic must pay appellee Castellvi the sum of P3,796,495.00 as just
compensation for her one parcel of land that has an area of 759,299 square meters,
minus the sum of P151,859.80 that she withdrew out of the amount that was
deposited in court as the provisional value of the land, with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from July 10, 1959 until the day full payment is made or deposited in
court;

(d) the Republic must pay appellee Toledo-Gozun the sum of P2,695,225.00 as the
just compensation for her two parcels of land that have a total area of 539,045
square meters, minus the sum of P107,809.00 that she withdrew out of the amount
that was deposited in court as the provisional value of her lands, with interest at the
rate of 6%, per annum from July 10, 1959 until the day full payment is made or
deposited in court; (e) the attorney's lien of Atty. Alberto Cacnio is enforced; and

(f) the costs should be paid by appellant Republic of the Philippines, as provided in
Section 12, Rule 67, and in Section 13, Rule 141, of the Rules of Court.