REPUBLIC VS. CASTELVI
Facts:
In 1947, the republic, through the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),
entered into a lease agreement with Castelvi on a year-to-year basis. When
Castelvi gave notice to terminate the lease in 1956, the AFP refused. She then
instituted an ejectment proceeding against the AFP. In 1959, however, the
republic commenced the expropriation proceedings for the land in question.
Issue: Whether or Not the compensation should be determined as of 1947 or 1959.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the “taking” should not be reckoned as of
1947, and that just compensation should not be determined on the basis of the
value of the property as of that year.
The requisites for taking are: 1) the expropriator must enter a private
property, 2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period, 3) it must be under
warrant or color of authorities, 4) the property must be devoted for public use
or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected, and 5) the
utilization of the property for public use must be such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. Under Sec. 4 Rule 67
of the Rules of Court, “just compensation” is to be determined as of the date
of the filing of the complaint. The Supreme Court has ruled that 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. In the instant case,
it is undisputed that the Republic was placed in possession of the Castelvi
property, by authority of court, on August 10, 1959. The “taking” of the Castelvi
property for the purposes of determining the just compensation to be paid must,
therefore, be reckoned as of June 26, 1959 when the complaint for eminent
domain was filed.
There is no basis to the contention of the Republic that a lease on a
year-to-year basis can give rise to permanent right to occupy since by express
provision a lease made for a determinate time, as was the lease of Castelvi
land in the instant case, ceases upon the day fixed, without need of a demand
(Art. 1669, New Civil Code). The Supreme Court, however, did not apply Art.
1250 of the New Civil Code for the adjustment of the peso rate in times of
extraordinary inflation or deflation because in eminent domain cases the
obligation to pay arises from law independent of contract.