Danilo Bartolata vs. Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 223334, VELASCO, JR., 7 Jun 2017
The application of the two-pronged test to determine entitlement to just
compensation. The first prong requires establishing that the remainder of
the property is not subject to the statutory lien of right of way, and the
second prong involves proving that the enforcement of the right of way
results in the practical destruction or material impairment of the value of
the remaining property, or the property owner being dispossessed or
otherwise deprived of the normal use of the said remainder.
Facts:
Petitioner Danilo Bartolata acquired ownership over a 400 square meter
parcel of land in Taguig, Metro Manila. In 1997, the government acquired
223 square meters of petitioner's property for the development of the
Metro Manila Skyway Project. The parties agreed that petitioner would
be paid just compensation for the appraised value of the property.
Petitioner received a partial payment of P1,480,000, but the government
refused to settle the outstanding balance of Php10,785,000. Petitioner
filed a complaint for a sum of money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Pasig City.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the subject property owned by petitioner is subject to an
easement of right of way in favor of the government. YES
2. Whether or not respondents are liable to pay just compensation to
petitioner. NO
3. Whether or not petitioner should return the initial payment made by
respondents in the amount of P1,480,000. NO
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the subject property is subject to an easement of
right of way in favor of the government. The Court also ruled that
respondents are not liable to pay just compensation to petitioner for the
portion of the property subject to the easement. However, the Court held
that petitioner is entitled to retain ownership of the remaining portion of
the property. The Court further ruled that petitioner is not obligated to
return the initial payment made by respondents.
Ratio:
The Court based its decision on the provisions of Commonwealth Act No.
141 (CA 141) and the interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 2004 (PD
2004) and Republic Act No. 730 (RA 730). The Court held that the subject
property is subject to the easement of right of way under Section 112 of
CA 141. The Court also held that PD 2004 and RA 730 do not apply to
the subject property, as they only cover public lands sold without public
auction. The Court further ruled that petitioner is not entitled to just
compensation for the portion of the property subject to the easement, but
is entitled to retain ownership of the remaining portion. The Court also
held that respondents are barred by estoppel from recovering the initial
payment made by them.
If these conditions are met, the property owner may be entitled to just
compensation for the deprivation of use consequent to the enforcement of
the right of way.