ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9518 January 3, 1916 - FRANCISCO ROSCO v. MARIANO REBUENO

    033 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10318 January 3, 1916 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETTO v. TOMAS CABREZA

    033 Phil 112

  • G.R. Nos. 11379 & 11380 January 3, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YU TEN

    033 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10992 January 6, 1916 - QUE QUAY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 10089 January 7, 1916 - VICTORIA AYLLON v. MIGUEL SIOJO

    033 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 10212 January 7, 1916 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI

    033 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 9252 January 11, 1916 - SINFOROSO PASCUAL v. WM. T. NOLTING

    033 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 9759 January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN

    033 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 10422 January 11, 1916 - A. LEMOINE v. C. ALKAN

    033 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 10863 January 11, 1916 - HERMOGENES DE JESUS v. G. URRUTIA & CO.

    033 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 11078 January 11, 1916 - CLIFFORD H. LOGAN v. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO.

    033 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 11088 January 11, 1916 - LIM CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 7798 January 14, 1916 - ANGELA C. GARCIA v. JOAQUIN DEL ROSARIO

    033 Phil 189

  • G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714 January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE

    033 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10738 January 14, 1916 - RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. v. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO.

    033 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 10849 January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO

    033 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 11015 January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 11002 January 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO P. PALACIO

    033 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 7988 January 19, 1916 - YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MANILA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    033 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 9806 January 19, 1916 - LEONIDES LOPEZ LISO v. MANUEL TAMBUNTING

    033 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 10141 January 20, 1916 - MARGARITA SANTOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA

    033 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 10711 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. KONG FONG

    033 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 10731 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO LOPEZ QUIM QUINCO

    033 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 10783 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO AGONCILLO

    033 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 10854 January 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NG TUY

    033 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10436 January 24, 1916 - FRANCISCA EGUARAS v. GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    033 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 10989 January 24, 1916 - GO PAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 10759 January 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VERZOLA

    033 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 10259 January 26, 1916 - CITY OF MANILA v. ALICE J. NEAL

    033 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9087 January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA

    033 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 10057 January 27, 1916 - DIAO CONTINO v. NOVO & COMPANY

    033 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 10099 January 27, 1916 - TEOFILA DEL ROSARIO DE COSTA v. LA BADENIA

    033 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 10528 January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO

    033 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 10537 January 27, 1916 - M. EARNSHAW & COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 10972 January 28, 1916 - LEE CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 10557 January 29, 1916 - MARIA BALTAZAR v. APOLONIA ALBERTO

    033 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10907 January 29, 1916 - ONG JANG CHUAN v. WISE & CO. (LTD.)

    033 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 10040 January 31, 1916 - EUGENIA LICHAUCO v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO

    033 Phil 350

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 9759   January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN<br /><br />033 Phil 156

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 9759. January 11, 1916. ]

    THE PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IGNACIO DURAN ET AL., Defendants. LUCINA ANDRADA, LUCIO ECHIVERE and SERAFIN ADVINCULA, Appellants.

    Leodegario Azarraga for appellants Andrada and Echivere.

    Tomas Sison for appellant Advincula.

    Lawrence, Ross & Block for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EMINENT DOMAIN; COMPENSATION; INTEREST. — In the expropriation proceedings by the Philippine Railway Company, the owner of the land expropriated is entitled to interest on the amount of the award from the time the company takes possession of the land. The deposit of the amount awarded in the court will stop the running of interest.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Capiz, on the 12th of July, 1910. Its purpose was to expropriate certain lands particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, and Exhibit A, which was made a part of the petition. The plaintiff alleged that a portion of said land was public land; that a portion was claimed by certain individuals whose names are mentioned in the complaint; that the value of the land belonging to said certain individuals was about P900.

    To the registration of said parcels of land a number of oppositions were presented.

    After the presentation of a number of oppositions and a consideration of the necessity for the said expropriation, the Honorable F. Santamaria, judge, on the 12th of January, 1912, found that the plaintiff was entitled to the expropriation of the land in question and appointed a commission for the purpose of viewing and appraising the land involved.

    On or about the 3d of April, 1912, the said commissioners rendered their report and the same was submitted to the Honorable James S. Powell, judge, on the 10th of April, 1912. Upon a consideration of said report, Judge Powell, in consideration of certain objections made thereto, set the same aside and appointed a new commission.

    Later another commission was appointed, which after due investigation and after giving each of the respective opositores as well as the petitioner an opportunity to be heard upon the value of the various parcels of land involved, made detailed report to the court, in which was set out the amount of land belonging to each of the opositores, together with their estimate of the value of the same. After an examination of said report and after hearing the respective parties, the Honorable F. Santamaria, judge, approved the same and rendered a judgment in favor of each of the opositores who proved that he was the owner of any portion of the land involved, for the amount fixed by said commissioners, together with costs against the plaintiff. To that judgment, a number of the opositores presented their exception. Lucina Andrada, Lucio Echivere, and Serafin Advincula, only, presented briefs in this court. In this court the said appellant, Lucina Andrada, alleges that the lower court committed the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) In accepting the report presented by the commissioners;

    "(b) In not allowing her the sum of P1,800 instead of the sum of P1,107 for her parcel of land;

    "(c) In not granting her interest upon the amount allowed for her land from the date on which the plaintiff took possession of the land;

    "(d) In the fact that the lower court found that the land appropriated by the plaintiff was 1,107 square meters, instead of 1,449 square meters; and

    "(e) In ordering the amount allowed for her parcel of land paid to the clerk of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With reference to the first assignment of error above noted, after a careful examination, we are of the opinion that the lower court committed no error in accepting the report of the commissioners. The record shows that said commissioners exercised the greatest care and diligence in ascertaining not only the extent of the land in question, but its real value, based upon the rules for the valuation of real property. They not only personally inspected the parcels of land involved, but heard all of the witnesses, pro and con, which the respective parties desired to present. The lower court was justified, from all the facts and circumstances, in accepting the report of the commissioners.

    With reference to the second assignment of error, the commissioners reported that the land involved was worth P1,107. There is nothing in the record which shows that said amount is grossly inadequate for the land in question. The appellant claims that the land is worth P1,800. We think the proof adduced fairly justifies the conclusion of the commissioners. We find no reason for reversing the conclusions of the lower court upon the second assignment of error.

    With reference to the third assignment of error, to wit, that the appellant is entitled to interest from the date on which the plaintiff took possession of the land, we are of the opinion that the contention of the appellant is tenable; that she is entitled to interest upon the amount allowed her from the date on which the plaintiff took possession of her land.

    In the case of Philippine Railway Co. v. Solon (13 Phil. Rep., 34) we held that the owner of land taken in condemnation proceedings is entitled to interest upon the amount awarded from the time the company takes possession of the land. The period for which the owner of the land is entitled to recover interest might depend upon whether there had been a tender of the amount awarded or not. For instance, if the plaintiff in the present case had, at the commencement of the action, deposited with the court an amount equal to the amount which the court finally found was the real value of the land, and if that amount was left on deposit at the disposition of the owner of the land, then and under those circumstances, there might be some question of the right of the owner of the land to collect interest from the date of said deposit. In the present case, however, no deposit was made equal to the value of the land, as declared by the court in its final judgment. No tender of any character whatever was made by the plaintiff to the defendant. Under these circumstances, therefore, we are of the opinion that the doctrine declared in the case of Philippine Railway Co. v. Solon (supra) should be followed, and that the defendant should recover of the plaintiff interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date on which the plaintiff took possession of the particular parcel of land in question. There is nothing in the record which shows the exact date on which the plaintiff took possession of the parcel of land belonging to the defendant. The judgment of the lower court is therefore hereby modified and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendant recover from the plaintiff, not only the sum of P1,107, but interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent from the date on which the plaintiff took possession of the parcel of land, [for] which date, the record is hereby returned to the lower court to be ascertained by it.

    With reference to the assignment of error, that the land in question contained 1,449 square meters instead of 1,107 square meters, it may be said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) That the commissioners found that the parcel of land contained 1,107 square meters and not 1,449 square meters; and

    (b) That the plans prepared by the engineer of said parcel of land also show that it contained 1,107 square meters instead of 1,449 square meters.

    There is nothing in the record, which, in our opinion, is sufficient to reverse or modify the finding of the lower court upon that question.

    With reference to the fifth assignment of error above noted, that the lower court committed an error in ordering the amount awarded by the commissioners deposited with the clerk instead of ordering the same paid to the defendant-appellant, we are of the opinion that the lower court committed no reversible error in that order, for the reason that the defendant, by her appeal and her exception to the judgment rendered by the lower court, clearly indicated that she was not satisfied with the amount allowed her. And, moreover, she made no request in the lower court that the money should be delivered to her at that time. Until the appeal was settled, it was perfectly proper that the lower court order the money deposited with the court; nevertheless, no error would have been committed had he ordered the amount awarded paid to the defendant, with the consent of the plaintiff.

    With the modification above noted, the judgment of the lower court relating to the appellant, Lucina Andrada, is hereby affirmed.

    With reference to the appeal of Lucio Echivere, it may be said that his assignments of error, so far as they present any important question in this court, are substantially the same as those presented by the appellant Lucina Andrada. While the facts are not exactly the same, they are analogous and the argument which is presented above in answer to the assignments of error made by Lucina Andrada, may, in our judgment, be repeated here in answer to the assignments of error presented by Lucio Echivere. Lucio Echivere also raises the question of his right to collect interest from the date on which the plaintiff took possession of his parcel of land. What was said above upon that question may be referred to again, for the purpose of answering the assignment of error upon that question, and for the reasons stated above under the assignment of Lucina Andrada, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the judgment of the lower court should be modified and that Lucio Echivere should be allowed interest upon the sum allowed him, from the date on which the plaintiff took possession of his land. There is nothing in the record which shows that date. For the purpose of ascertaining said date, the record is returned to the lower court, with direction that proof be taken upon that question, and to render a judgment in accordance herewith, in favor of Lucio Echivere and against the plaintiff.

    The only assignment of error made by the appellant Serafin Advincula is that the lower court committed an error in rendering his judgment, based solely upon the report of the commissioners. The decision of the lower court was not based solely upon the report of the commissioners. The judge clearly indicates that he not only examined the report of the commissioners, but the documentary and oral proof presented to it. There is nothing in the record which justifies us in reversing or modifying the judgment of the lower court, upon that ground.

    For all of the foregoing reasons and with the modifications above indicated, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, and without any finding as to the costs of this instance, it is so ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    CARSON, J., with whom TRENT, J., concurs, concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur, except that I think interest should not be allowed on funds actually on deposit in the court below, after the date of the judgment in that court which is affirmed by this court in an appeal by the owners of the land. (Philippine Railway Co. v. Solon, 13 Phil. Rep., 34.)

    G.R. No. 9759   January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN<br /><br />033 Phil 156


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED