75 SUPREME COURT 1996 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City,

4 REPORTS in Civil Case No. CEB-14632, a case for eminent domain,

ANNOTATED which fixed the valuation of the land subject thereof on the
The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo basis of the recommendation of the commissioners appointed
by it.
G.R. No. 142971. May 7, 2002. *

_______________
THE CITY OF CEBU, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES APOLONIO
and BLASA DEDAMO, respondents.  FIRST DIVISION.
*

 Rollo, 20-25. Per Montoya, S., J., ponente with Vasquez, Jr., C. and

1

Constitutional Law; Eminent Domain; It is the Government’s Regino, T., JJ., concurring.

right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State,
private property for public use or purpose.—Eminent domain is a 755
fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is VOL. 381, MAY 7, 755
the Government’s right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory 2002
sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose. The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo
However, the Government must pay the owner thereof just The material operative facts are not disputed.
compensation as consideration therefor.
On 17 September 1993, petitioner City of Cebu filed
Same; Same; Just compensation shall be determined as of the
time of actual taking.—In the case at bar, the applicable law as to the
in Civil Case No. CEB-14632 a complaint for eminent domain
point of reckoning for the determination of just compensation is against respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. The
Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just petitioner alleged therein that it needed the following parcels of
compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking. land of respondents, to wit:
Lot No. 1527  
PETITION for review certiorari of a decision of the Court of Area ........................................... 1,146 square
Appeals. ......... meters
Tax 03472
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Declaration .................................
      The City Attorney for petitioner.
      Zosa & Quijano Law Office for respondents. Title 31833
No. .............................................
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: Market P240,660.00
value .....................................
In its petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Assessed P72,200.00
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner City of Cebu assails Value ..................................
the decision of 11 October 1999 of the Court of Appeals Lot No. 1528  
in CA-G.R. CV No. 59204  affirming the judgment of 7 May
1

Area ........................................... 793 square

1|Page
......... meters 756
Area sought to be 478 square 75 SUPREME COURT
expropriated ............................... meters 6 REPORTS
....... ANNOTATED
Tax 03450 The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo
Declaration ................................. not for a public purpose but for benefit of a single private
            entity, the Cebu Holdings, Inc. Petitioner could simply buy
Title 31832 directly from them the property at its fair market value if it
wanted to, just like what it did with the neighboring lots.
No. .............................................
Besides, the price offered was very low in light of the
Market value for the whole P1,666,530.00 consideration of P20,000 per square meter, more or less, which
lot .......... petitioner paid to the neighboring lots. Finally, respondents
Market value of the P100,380.00 alleged that they have no other land in Cebu City.
     Area to be A pre-trial was thereafter had.
expropriated ............. On 23 August 1994, petitioner filed a motion for the
Assessed P49,960.00 issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 19 of R.A.
Value .................................. No. 7160. The motion was granted by the trial court on 21
for a public purpose, i.e., for the construction of a public road September 1994. 3

which shall serve as an access/relief road of Gorordo Avenue On 14 December 1994, the parties executed and submitted
to extend to the General Maxilum Avenue and the back of to the trial court an Agreement  wherein they declared that they
4

Magellan International Hotel Roads in Cebu City. The lots are have partially settled the case and in consideration thereof they
the most suitable site for the purpose. The total area sought to agreed:
be expropriated is 1,624 square meters with an assessed value
of P1,786,400. Petitioner deposited with the Philippine 1. 1.That the SECOND PARTY hereby conforms
National Bank the amount of P51,156 representing 15% of the to the intention to [sic] the FIRST PARTY in
fair market value of the property to enable the petitioner to take expropriating their parcels of land in the
immediate possession of the property pursuant to Section 19 of above-cited case as for public purpose and for
R.A. No. 7160. 2
the benefit of the general public;
Respondents, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 2. 2.That the SECOND PARTY agrees to part
because the purpose for which their property was to be with the ownership of the subject parcels of
expropriated was land in favor of the FIRST PARTY provided
_______________ the latter will pay just compensation for the
2
 Entitled “The Local Government Code of 1991.”

2|Page
 same in the amount determined by the court 1. molish their house and the other structure that
after due notice and hearing; may be located thereon at their own expense;
3. 3.That in the meantime the SECOND PARTY 2. 6.That the FIRST PARTY and the SECOND
agrees to receive the amount of ONE PARTY jointly petition the Honorable Court to
MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX render judgment in said Civil Case No. CEB-
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS 14632 in accordance with this AGREEMENT;
(P1,786,400.00) as provisional payment for the 3. 7.That the judgment sought to be rendered
subject parcels of land, without prejudice to the under this agreement shall be followed by a
final valuation as maybe determined by the supplemental judgment fixing the just
court; compensation for the property of the SECOND
4. 4.That the FIRST PARTY in the light of the PARTY after the Commissioners appointed by
issuance of the Writ of Possession Order dated this Honorable Court to determine the same
September 21, 1994 issued by the Honorable shall have rendered their report and approved
Court, agreed to take possession over that by the court.
portion of the lot sought to be expropriated
where the house of the SECOND PARTY was Pursuant to said agreement, the trial court appointed three
located only after fifteen (15) days upon the commissioners to determine the just compensation of the lots
receipt of the SECOND PARTY of the amount sought to be expropriated. The commissioners were Palermo
of P1,786,400.00; M. Lugo, who was nominated by petitioner and who was
5. 5.That the SECOND PARTY upon receipt of designated as Chairman; Alfredo Cisneros, who was nominated
the aforesaid provisional amount, shall turn by respondents; and Herbert E. Buot, who was designated by
over to the FIRST PARTY the title of the lot the trial court. The parties agreed to their appointment.
and within the lapse of the fifteen (15) days Thereafter, the commissioners submitted their report, which
grace period will voluntarily de contained their respective assessments of and recommendation
as to the valuation of the property.
_______________ On the basis of the commissioners’ report and after due
deliberation thereon, the trial court rendered its decision on 7
 Rollo, 60.
3

 Annex “1” of Comment, Rollo, 57-58.

4 May 1996,  the decretal portion of which reads:
5

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby

757 rendered in accordance with the report of the commissioners.
VOL. 381, MAY 7, 757 Plaintiff is directed to pay Spouses Apolonio S. Dedamo and
2002 Blasa Dedamo the sum of pesos: TWENTY FOUR MILLION
The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND NINE

3|Page
HUNDRED THIRTY (P24,865,930.00) representing the On 16 August 1996, the commissioners submitted an
compensation mentioned in the Complaint. amended assessment for the 478 square meters of Lot No. 1528
Plaintiff and defendants are directed to pay the following and fixed it at P12,824.10 per square meter, or in the amount of
commis- P20,826,339.50. The assessment was approved as the just
1. To – P21,000.00 compensation thereof by the trial court in its Order of 27
Palermo December 1996.  Accordingly, the dispositive portion of the
6

decision was amended to reflect the new valuation.

Lugo
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which
2. To Herbert – P19,000.00 docketed the case as CA-G.R. CV No. 59204. Petitioner
Buot alleged that the lower court erred in fixing the amount of just
3. To – compensation at P20,826,339.50. The just compensation
Alfredo P19,000.00      should be based on the prevailing market price of the property
Cisneros at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
_______________ The petitioner did not convince the Court of Appeals. In its
 Rollo, 60-63. Per judgment of Judge Meinrado P. Paredes.
5
decision of 11 October 1999,  the Court of Appeals affirmed in
7

toto the decision of the trial court.

758 Still unsatisfied, petitioner filed with us the petition for
75 SUPREME COURT review in the case at bar. It raises the sole issue of whether just
8 REPORTS compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing
ANNOTATED of the complaint. It asserts that it should be, which in this case
The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo should be 17 September 1993 and not at the time the property
Without pronouncement as to cost. was actually taken in 1994, pursuant to the decision
SO ORDERED.” in “National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals.” 8

_______________
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that
the commissioners’ report was inaccurate since it included an 6
 Rollo, 64.
7
 Supra note 1.
area which was not subject to expropriation. More specifically, 8
 254 SCRA 577 [1996].
it contended that Lot No. 1528 contains 793 square meters but
the actual area to be expropriated is only 478 square meters. 759
The remaining 315 square meters is the subject of a separate VOL. 381, MAY 7, 759
expropriation proceeding in Civil Case No. CEB-8348, then 2002
pending before Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo
City. In their Comment, respondents maintain that the Court of
Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of the trial court

4|Page
because (1) the trial court decided the case on the basis of the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based
agreement of the parties that just compensation shall be fixed on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
by commissioners appointed by the court; (2) petitioner did not _______________
interpose any serious objection to the commissioners’ report of
12 August 1996 fixing the just compensation of the 1,624- 9
 Moday v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 586, 592 [1997].
square meter lot at P20,826,339.50; hence, it was estopped 760
from attacking the report on which the decision was based; and 76 SUPREME COURT
(3) the determined just compensation fixed is even lower than
0 REPORTS
the actual value of the property at the time of the actual taking
ANNOTATED
in 1994.
Eminent domain is a fundamental State power that is The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo
inseparable from sovereignty. It is the Government’s right to The petitioner has misread our ruling in The National Power
appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, Corp. vs. Court of Appeals.  We did not categorically rule in
10

private property for public use or purpose.  However, the

9 that case that just compensation should be determined as of the
Government must pay the owner thereof just compensation as filing of the complaint. We explicitly stated therein that
consideration therefor. although the general rule in determining just compensation in
In the case at bar, the applicable law as to the point of eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of
reckoning for the determination of just compensation is Section the filing of the complaint, the rule “admits of an exception:
19 of R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date it
compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual was taken and not at the date of the commencement of the
taking. The Section reads as follows: expropriation proceedings.”
SECTION 19. Eminent Domain.—A local government unit may, Also, the trial court followed the then governing procedural
through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, law on the matter, which was Section 5 of Rule 67 of the Rules
exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose or of Court, which provided as follows:
welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of SEC. 5. Ascertainment of compensation.—Upon the entry of the
just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and order of condemnation, the court shall appoint not more than three
pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent (3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to
domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the
been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not property sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall
accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be
immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the held by the commissioners and specify the time within which their
expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the report is to be filed with the court.
proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value
of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to More than anything else, the parties, by a solemn document
be expropriated: Provided finally, That, the amount to be paid for the freely and voluntarily agreed upon by them, agreed to be bound

5|Page
by the report of the commission and approved by the trial commissioners. It cannot detract from its agreement now and
court. The agreement is a contract between the parties. It has assail correctness of the commissioners’ assessment.
the force of law between them and should be complied with in Finally, while Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court
good faith. Article 1159 and 1315 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that just compensation shall be determined at the time
provides: of the filing of the complaint for expropriation,  such law 13

Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law cannot prevail over R.A. 7160, which is a substantive law. 14

between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed
faith. judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59204,
Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that the petition in this case is hereby DENIED.
moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has No pronouncement as to costs.
been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which,
SO ORDERED.
according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage
and law.       Puno, Kapunan,  Ynares-Santiago and Austria-
Martinez, JJ., concur.
Furthermore, during the hearing on 22 November 1996,
petitioner did not interpose a serious objection.  It is therefore
11
Petition denied.
_______________
too late
_______________  Ibaan Rural Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 88, 93
12

[1999]; Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 315 SCRA 309, 314

 Supra note 8.
10
[1999].
 Rollo, 64, Per Order of Judge Meinrado P. Paredes, 27 December 1996.
11
 SEC. 4. Order of condemnation.—When such motion is overruled or
13

when any party fails to defend as required by this rule, the court may enter an
761
order of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
VOL. 381, MAY 7, 761 property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the
2002 complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the
date of the filing of the complaint. x x x (emphasis, ours).
The City of Cebu vs. Dedamo  See Philippine National Bank v. Independent Planters Association,
14

for petitioner to question the valuation now without violating Inc., 122 SCRA 113 [1983].
the principle of equitable estoppel. Estoppel in pais arises when
762
one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own
76 SUPREME COURT
silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through
culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to 2 REPORTS
exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so ANNOTATED
that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the People vs. Bertulfo
existence of such facts.  Records show that petitioner
12 Note.—The exercise of local government units of the power
consented to conform with the valuation recommended by the of eminent domain is not without limitations. (Filstream

6|Page
International Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA
716 [1998])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights

reserved.

7|Page