Facts:
Victoria
Amigable is the owner of parcel of land situated in Cebu City with an area of
6,167 square meters. Sometime in 1924, the Government took this land for
road-right-of-way purpose. The land had since become streets known as Mango
Avenue and Gorordo Avenue in Cebu City.
On February
6, 1959, Victoria Amigable filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu a
complaint, to recover ownership and possession of the land.
The
Republic alleged that the land was either donated or sold by its owners to the
province of Cebu to enhance its value, and that in any case, the right of the
owner, if any, to recover the value of said property was already barred by
estoppel and the statute of limitations, defendants also invoking the
non-suability of the Government.
In a
decision rendered on July 29, 1959 by Judge Amador E. Gomez, the plaintiff's
complaint was dismissed on the grounds relied upon by the defendants therein. 3
The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Supreme Court where it was reversed,
and the case was remanded to the court of origin for the determination of the
compensation to be paid the plaintiff-appellant as owner of the land, including
attorney's fees. The Supreme Court decision also directed that to determine
just compensation for the land, the basis should be the price or value thereof
at the time of the taking.
In the
hearing held pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court, the Government
proved the value of the property at the time of the taking thereof in 1924 with
certified copies, issued by the Bureau of Records Management, of deeds of
conveyance executed in 1924 or thereabouts, of several parcels of land in the
Banilad Friar Lands in which the property in question is located, showing the
price to be at P2.37 per square meter. For her part, Victoria Amigable presented
newspaper clippings of the Manila Times showing the value of the peso to the
dollar obtaining about the middle of 1972, which was P6.775 to a dollar.
Issue:
Whether
or not the provision of Article 1250 of the New Civil Code is applicable in
determining the amount of compensation to be paid to respondent Victoria
Amigable for the property taken.
Held:
Respondent
judge did consider the value of the property at the time of the taking, which
as proven by the petitioner was P2.37 per square meter in 1924. However,
applying Article 1250 of the New Civil Code, and considering that the value of
the peso to the dollar during the hearing in 1972 was P6.775 to a dollar, as
proven by the evidence of the private respondent Victoria Amigable the Court
fixed the value of the property at the deflated value of the peso in relation,
to the dollar, and came up with the sum of P49,459.34 as the just compensation
to be paid by the Government. To this action of the respondent judge, the
Solicitor General has taken exception.
Article
1250 of the New Civil Code seems to be the only provision in our statutes which
provides for payment of an obligation in an amount different from what has been
agreed upon by the parties because of the supervention of extra-ordinary
inflation or deflation. Thus, the Article provides:
ART. 1250. In case extra-ordinary inflation or deflation of
the currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time
of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there
is an agreement to the contrary.
It is
clear that the foregoing provision applies only to cases where a contract or
agreement is involved. It does not apply where the obligation to pay arises
from law, independent of contract. The taking of private property by the
Government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain does not give rise to
a contractual obligation.
In the
present case, the unusually long delay of private respondent in bringing the
present action-period of almost 25 years which a stricter application of the
law on estoppel and the statute of limitations and prescription may have
divested her of the rights she seeks on this action over the property in
question, is an added circumstance militating against payment to her of an
amount bigger-may three-fold more than the value of the property as should have
been paid at the time of the taking. For conformably to the rule that one
should take good care of his own concern, private respondent should have
commenced proper action soon after she had been deprived of her right of
ownership and possession over the land, a deprivation she knew was permanent in
character, for the land was intended for, and had become, avenues in the City
of Cebu. A penalty is always visited upon one for his inaction, neglect or
laches in the assertion of his rights allegedly withheld from him, or otherwise
transgressed upon by another.
No comments:
Post a Comment