Lawyerly

GR No. 182431

2010-11-17

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA

PEREZ, J.

We similarly upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[22] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[23] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[24] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[25] Nepomuceno v. City of Surigao,[26] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[27]

GR No. 164195

2010-10-12

APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

BRION, J.

We subsequently upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[20] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[22] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[23] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[24]

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

In the sixth petition (G.R. No. 170683), PPA assails the July 28, 2005 Decision[11] and the November 24, 2005 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 70023 entitled PPA v. Felipa Acosta, et al., which affirmed the September 7, 2000 RTC Order,[12] setting the just compensation at PhP 5,500 per square meter pursuant to the August 15, 2000 Order (Second Compensation Order), for intervenors Caroline B. Acosta, et al.

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

Finally, in the seventh and last petition (G.R. No. 173392), pending resolution is the motion for reconsideration[13] interposed by PPA of the Court's Decision[14] dated August 24, 2007 which affirmed the July 3, 2006 CA Resolution[15] in consolidated cases CA-G.R. CV No. 77668 (PPA v. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al.), SP No. 87844 (PPA v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an, Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al.), and SP No. 90796 (PPA v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an), and dismissed PPA's appeal from the August 15, 2000 RTC Order (Second Compensation Order). The CA Resolution affirmed the May 29, 2001[16] and November 18, 2004[17] RTC Orders granting the November 22, 2004 Writ of Execution[18] and the November 23, 2004 Notices of Garnishment.[19] Lastly, it denied PPA's petition to cite RTC Judge Paterno V. Tac-an for contempt for lack of merit.

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

Executive Order No. (EO) 385,[20] Series of 1989, and EO 431,[21] Series of 1990, delineated the BPZ and placed it under the PPA for administrative jurisdiction of its proper zoning, planning, development, and utilization. Pursuant thereto, the PPA instituted on October 14, 1999 a Complaint[22] for expropriation of 185 lots before the RTC of Batangas City. Owned by some 231 individuals or entities, the 185 lots, with a total area of about 1,298,340 square meters, were intended for the development of Phase II of the BPZ.

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

SO ORDERED.[47]

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

THE INTEREST RATE APPLICABLE TO EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS IS 6% PER ANNUM.[122]

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

Second, the characterization of the disputed lots is undeniably agricultural lands coming in the form of horticultural land, salt bed, fish ponds and swampy areas. Since EO 385 and EO 431 did not ipso facto reclassify the subject expropriated lands into commercial or industrial, they remain agricultural. Adding corroborative, but certainly significant, support to the above conclusion on the agricultural nature of the lots at the proposed port site are the uncontroverted aerial photographs[140] of the areas that were submitted by the PPA. If the adage "pictures don't lie" is to be followed, then those aerial photographs give a conclusive dimension to what they depict.

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

Third, the tax declarations of private respondents veritable admissions against interest clearly show that the subject expropriated lots were agricultural. The exhibits[141] submitted by, inter alia, the private respondents, represented by Atty. Ortega (Ortega Group), indicate that all but three described their landholdings as agricultural. In the ordinary scheme of things, these exhibits carry a high evidentiary value, being, as to the tax-declaring respondents, in the nature of admissions against interest.

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

Per DO 31-97, the expropriated lots located at Brgy. Calicanto, Batangas City, were assigned the value of PhP 400 per square meter; and those located at Brgy. Bolbok, Batangas City, the value of PhP 290 per square meter. The valuation made under DO 31-97 is reflected in the Batangas City BIR Revenue District No. 58 zonal valuation as zonal valuation of agricultural lands in Barangays Calicanto and Bolbok.[145] This is not to mention that the subject expropriated lots are duly itemized in the Lists for Deposit Based on the 1998 Zonal Valuation as per Court Order.[146]

	GR No. 182431 2010-11-17	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
We similarly upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[22] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[23] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[24] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[25] Nepomuceno v. City of Surigao,[26] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[27]
	GR No. 164195 2010-10-12	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
We subsequently upheld Republic's 12% per annum interest rate on the unpaid expropriation compensation in the following cases: Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[20] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[21] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[22] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[23] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[24]
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
In the sixth petition (G.R. No. 170683), PPA assails the July 28, 2005 Decision[11] and the November 24, 2005 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 70023 entitled PPA v. Felipa Acosta, et al., which affirmed the September 7, 2000 RTC Order,[12] setting the just compensation at PhP 5,500 per square meter pursuant to the August 15, 2000 Order (Second Compensation Order), for intervenors Caroline B. Acosta, et al.
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Finally, in the seventh and last petition (G.R. No. 173392), pending resolution is the motion for reconsideration[13] interposed by PPA of the Court's Decision[14] dated August 24, 2007 which affirmed the July 3, 2006 CA Resolution[15] in consolidated cases CA-G.R. CV No. 77668 (PPA v. Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al.), SP No. 87844 (PPA v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an, Remedios Rosales-Bondoc, et al.), and SP No. 90796 (PPA v. Hon. Paterno V. Tac-an), and dismissed PPA's appeal from the August 15, 2000 RTC Order (Second Compensation Order). The CA Resolution affirmed the May 29, 2001[16] and November 18, 2004[17] RTC Orders granting the November 22, 2004 Writ of Execution[18] and the November 23, 2004 Notices of Garnishment.[19] Lastly, it denied PPA's petition to cite RTC Judge Paterno V. Tac-an for contempt for lack of merit.
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Executive Order No. (EO) 385,[20] Series of 1989, and EO 431,[21] Series of 1990, delineated the BPZ and placed it under the PPA for administrative jurisdiction of its proper zoning, planning, development, and utilization. Pursuant thereto, the PPA instituted on October 14, 1999 a Complaint[22] for expropriation of 185 lots before the RTC of Batangas City. Owned by some 231 individuals or entities, the 185 lots, with a total area of about 1,298,340 square meters, were intended for the development of Phase II of the BPZ.
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
SO ORDERED.[47]
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
THE INTEREST RATE APPLICABLE TO EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS IS 6% PER ANNUM.[122]
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Second, the characterization of the disputed lots is undeniably agricultural lands coming in the form of horticultural land, salt bed, fish ponds and swampy areas. Since EO 385 and EO 431 did not ipso facto reclassify the subject expropriated lands into commercial or industrial, they remain agricultural. Adding corroborative, but certainly significant, support to the above conclusion on the agricultural nature of the lots at the proposed port site are the uncontroverted aerial photographs[140] of the areas that were submitted by the PPA. If the adage "pictures don't lie" is to be followed, then those aerial photographs give a conclusive dimension to what they depict.
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Third, the tax declarations of private respondents veritable admissions against interest clearly show that the subject expropriated lots were agricultural. The exhibits[141] submitted by, inter alia, the private respondents, represented by Atty. Ortega (Ortega Group), indicate that all but three described their landholdings as agricultural. In the ordinary scheme of things, these exhibits carry a high evidentiary value, being, as to the tax-declaring respondents, in the nature of admissions against interest.
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
Per DO 31-97, the expropriated lots located at Brgy. Calicanto, Batangas City, were assigned the value of PhP 400 per square meter; and those located at Brgy. Bolbok, Batangas City, the value of PhP 290 per square meter. The valuation made under DO 31-97 is reflected in the Batangas City BIR Revenue District No. 58 zonal valuation as zonal valuation of agricultural lands in Barangays Calicanto and Bolbok.[145] This is not to mention that the subject expropriated lots are duly itemized in the Lists for Deposit Based on the 1998 Zonal Valuation as per Court Order.[146]

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. REMEDIOS ROSALES-BONDOC