Facts:
The
undisputed fact that in this certiorari proceeding against respondent Judge for
failure to comply with the provision of the Presidential Decrees as to the
amount to be paid by petitioner to entitle it to a writ of possession in an
expropriation proceeding, no question was raised as to their validity, calls
for the grant of the remedy sought. The controversy started with the filing of
a complaint with the then Court of Agrarian Relations, Seventh Regional
District, Branch II, Cavite City, against private respondents, for the
expropriation, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 757, of a parcel of land,
with an area of 25,000 square meters, owned and registered in the name of
respondent Quirino Austria, and needed for the expansion of the Dasmariñas
Resettlement Project. Then came from petitioner about a year later, a motion
for the issuance of a writ of possession. Petitioner was able to secure an
order placing it in possession. Thereafter, private respondent Quirino Austria
filed a Motion to Withdraw Deposit in the amount of P6,600.00, a sum which was
equivalent to the value of the property assessed for taxation purposes and
which was deposited by petitioner pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 42 .
There was an Opposition to the Motion to Withdraw Deposit by petitioner, citing
Section 92 of Presidential Decree No. 464.
Petitioner's submission is that the owner's declaration at P1,400.00
which is lower than the assessor's assessment, is the just compensation for the
respondents' property, respondents thus being precluded from withdrawing any
amount more than P1,400.00. Respondent
Judge, however, issued an order dated July 13, 1978 which, according to
petitioner, is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the aforecited
laws. There was a Motion for Reconsideration
dated July 21, 1978. Its basis is the
provision in Presidential Decree No. 1224: "In the determination of just
compensation for such private lands and improvement to be expropriated, the
government shall choose between the value of the real property and improvements
thereon as declared by the owner or administrator thereof or the market value
determined by the City or provincial assessor, whichever is lower, at the time
of the filing of the expropriation complaint." It was then submitted that under the
aforequoted statutory provision, the owner's declared market value at P1,400.00
which is lower than that fixed by the assessor is the just compensation of
respondent Quirino Austria's property sought to be expropriated. The motion for
reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.
Issue: Whether or not there was just
compensation.
Ruling:
The
issue in this petition for certiorari and mandamus involves the application of
a rule introduced by P.D. No. 76 and
reiterated in subsequent decrees that not only promotes social justice but also
ends the one-sided practice supported by the conniving consent of government
officials and employees, of under declaring properties for the purpose of
taxation but ballooning the price thereof when the same properties are to be
acquired by the government for public purposes. Put to test is the power of the
government to introduce rationality in the laws and to discourage a deceitful
practice that is not only damaging to the government officers but also
undermines its effort at awakening a democratic responsiveness of the citizenry
toward good government and its economic and social programs. The courts should
recognize that the rule introduced by P.D. 76 and reiterated in subsequent
decrees does not upset the established concepts of justice or the
constitutional provision on just compensation for, precisely, the owner is
allowed to make his own valuation of his property. The writ of certiorari is
granted and the order of respondent judge of July 13, 1978 is hereby nullified
and set aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment