ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 150220.January 23, 2002]
LRT AUTHORITY vs. CLAYTON INDUSTRIAL CORP., et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 23 JAN 2002.
G.R. No. 150220(Light Rail Transit Authority, Petitioner, vs. Clayton Industrial Corporation and Alfonso Chua (SCA 1671), and Rodolfo L. See, Carmelita L. See, Erlinda See, Jolly Ting, Carmelita Uy Sy, Manolito Sy, Eduardo Sy, See Put, Poh Lin and Ruben See (SCA 1768), Respondents.)
This petition for review on certiorari [1] cralaw arose out of the two (2) consolidated special civil actions for eminent domain [2] cralaw filed by petitioner Light Rail Transit Authority ("LRTA") against respondents in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City.
On October 20, 1998, LRTA filed an eminent domain case against respondents Clayton Industrial Corporation and Alfonso Chua. [3] cralaw On May 12, 1999, LRTA filed another eminent domain case against respondents Rodolfo L. See, Carmelita L. See, Erlinda See, Jolly Ting, Carmelita Uy Sy, Manolito A. Sy, Eduardo A. Sy, See Put, Poh Lin and Ruben See. [4] cralaw On June 23, 1999, the defendants (herein respondents) filed a motion for consolidation of the two (2) cases. [5] cralaw
Respondents are owners of adjacent lots near Marcos Highway, Pasig City sought to be expropriated by LRTA for the construction of the Metro Manila Strategic Mass Rail Transit Development (Line 2) Project.
The trial court formed a Committee of Commissioners, chaired by Deputy Clerk of Court Atty. Ma. Cielo Paz Alba Celera, to determine the just compensation due to private respondents. The Committee submitted its Report dated November 15, 1999, and recommended, thus:
"Admittedly, it is very difficult to exactly determine the just compensation or fair market value of the lots in question which are subject of the herein expropriation proceedings. On the one hand, there is the matter of the national government who would definitely want to pay the lowest price for the properties to be expropriated. On the other hand, the right to just compensation of the owners of the properties to be expropriated must equally be protected. While the owners cannot prevent the government from exercising its right of eminent domain, the least that these owners can look forward to is that they are fairly, reasonably and justly compensated for the loss of their properties. Thus, based on the studies and analysis submitted by the members of the committee, the range of the values of the four (4) subject properties (taken as one) which it may command are as high as PHP 27,500 per square meter to as low as PHP 24,700.00 per square meter. The median of the highs and lows being PHP 26,100.00 per square meter.
"Anent the value of the improvements in the said properties, the Committee values the same at PHP 27,076,614.56 the median of the values submitted by Mr. Gatan and Mr. Santos.
"Notably absent in the report submitted by Mr. Gatan is the value for the consequential damages suffered by herein defendants for the loss of their properties, especially for the Clayton property which houses five (5) business enterprises, namely: (1) Clayton Industrial Corporation, (2) Standard Precision Cutting Tools, (3) Alta quality Battery Inc., (4) Polyflex Industrial Corp., and (5) Azalea Garments Corp. Based on the documentary evidences (sic) submitted by the defendants and taking into consideration the estimated value thereof pegged at PHP 25,000,000.00 submitted by Mr. Santos, the Court is inclined to accept said valuation as the reasonable estimation therefore.
"In sum, the Committee recommends to the Honorable Court the adoption of PHP 26,100.00 per square meter for the four (4) contiguous lots with a total area of 34,946 square meters as the closest estimation or approximation of the just compensation or fair market value which said properties may command.
"In addition, the Committee likewise recommends to the Hon. Court the payment in favor of the registered owners the amounts of P27,076,614.56 and P25,000,000.00 for the improvements and as and by way of disturbance fee, respectively." [6] cralaw
Taking into consideration several factors that increase or decrease property values, such as location of the properties and the development along the vicinity, the trial court accepted the Committee's report and recommendation. On January 14, 2000, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, plaintiff Light Rail Transit Authority is hereby DIRECTED to pay defendants Clayton Industrial Corporation, Alfonso Chua and Rodolfo L. See, et al., the fair market value of their properties with a total area of 34,946 square meters, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 11876, PT-105030, PT-111402 and 42585 in the amount of PHP 26,100.00 per square meter, plus the amount of PHP 27,076,714 and PHP 25,000,000.00 for the improvements and consequential damages, respectively, on the said properties. From the total amount shall be deducted the sum of PHP 28,811,670.00 representing the assessed value of the properties earlier remitted by the plaintiff to the defendants. The balance shall earn legal interest counted from the date plaintiff has taken or will take possession of the subject properties until full payment of the just compensation therefore, pursuant to Sec. 10, Rule 67 of 1997 rules of Civil Procedure.
"Plaintiff is further ordered to pay the costs, including the fees of the Commissioners, pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule 67, of said Rules." [7] cralaw
Petitioner appealed the trial court decision to the Court of Appeals. [8] cralaw On September 28, 2001, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. [9] cralaw
Hence, this appeal. [10] cralaw The sole issue is what is the just compensation for the taking of private respondents' properties. [11] cralaw
We resolve to deny the petition. The issue is factual.
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petition may raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. In the case at bar, petitioner seeks, in effect, a review by this Court of the facts presented during trial and re-determine the just compensation due the private respondents. Time and again we have held that "factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Supreme Court - and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court;" [12] cralaw they cannot be set aside by this Court unless it is sufficiently shown that there is no evidence on record to support them. [13] cralaw
We find no reason to depart from this rule. The assailed decision is amply supported by evidence and the expert appraisal by the members of the Board of Commissioners specifically appointed by the court for the purpose of determining the just compensation. The trial court did not err in adopting the report submitted by the Board of Commissioners. Section 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides, thus:
����������� "SEC.� 8.Action upon commissioners' report. - Upon the expiration of the period xxx, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith; xxx." (emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68022, affirming that of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 70, in SCA Nos. 1671 and 1768, is hereby affirmed in toto.No costs.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Rule 45, 1997 Revised Rules of Court.
[2] cralaw SCA No. 1671 and SCA No. 1768 (Rollo, pp 50-65).
[3] cralaw Docketed as SCA No. 1671 (RolIo, pp. 50-57).
[4] cralaw Docketed as SCA No. 1768 (Rollo, pp. 58-65).
[5] cralaw Rollo, pp. 81-86.
[6] cralaw Petition, Annex "G" (Rollo, pp. 103-106, at pp. 105-106).
[7] cralaw Decision, p. 6 (Rollo, pp. 117-122, at p. 122).
[8] cralaw The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 68022.
[9] cralaw Rollo, pp. 36-48, at p. 48.
[10] cralaw Filed on November 26, 2001.
[11] cralaw Rollo, pp. 9-33, at p. 23.
[12] cralaw Borromeo vs. Sun, 317 SCRA 176, 182 (1999).
[13] cralaw Ceremonia vs. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 731, 739 (1999).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
