PATRICIA I. TIONGSON, et al. v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY 558 SCRA 56 (2008), SECOND DI ISION, (Ca!"#$ %$!ale&, '.

) In a situation where a government agency, in this case the National Housing Authority, took possession of properties belonging to private individuals for purposes of expropriation and the laws by virtue of which such government agency expropriated the subject properties were subsequently declared to be unconstitutional by the upreme !ourt, the determination of just compensation should be reckoned from the date of filing the complaint for expropriation and not from the time of actual taking of the properties" Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) took possession in 1978, for purposes of expropriation, of properties belonging to petitioners atri!ia "# $iongson, et al# pursuant to #%# Nos# 1&&9 and 1&7'# $he t(o #%#)s (ere thereafter de!lared un!onstitutional by the *upre+e ,ourt# -n *epte+ber 1., 1987, the NHA filed before the Regional $rial ,ourt (R$,) a !o+plaint against $iongson, et al# for expropriation of par!els of land (hi!h (ere !o/ered by #%# Nos# 1&&9 and 1&7'# $he R$, held that the deter+ination of 0ust !o+pensation of the properties should be re!koned fro+ the date of filing of NHA)s petition or on *epte+ber 1., 1987# Ho(e/er, on appeal, the ,ourt of Appeals re/ersed and set aside the trial !ourt)s orders and held that the 0ust !o+pensation should be based on the a!tual taking of the property in 1978# Hen!e, this petition# ISSUE1 2hether or not 0ust !o+pensation should be re!koned fro+ the ti+e of the taking of the property or on the filing of the !o+plaint H ELD1 3n de!laring, in its !hallenged %e!ision, that the deter+ination of 0ust !o+pensation should be re!koned fro+ NHA)s taking of the properties in 1978, the appellate !ourt si+ply relied on Annex 4, of NHA)s petition before it, the -rder dated 5une 16, 1988 of the then residing 5udge of the trial !ourt, and thus !on!luded that 4the parties ad+itted that 7NHA8 took possession of the sub0e!t properties as early as 1978# $he appellate !ourt rea!hed that !on!lusion, despite its re!ital of the ante!edents of the !ase in!luding $iongson, sustained +o/es, e/en before the trial !ourt, in (a#)ta#)#)* that the re!koning of 0ust !o+pensation should be fro+ the date of filing of the petition for expropriation on *epte+ber 1., 1987# $he earlier9:uoted allegations of the body and prayer in NHA)s etition for ;xpropriation filed before the R$, !onstitute 0udi!ial ad+issions of NHA<that it possessed the sub0e!t properties until this ,ourt)s de!laration, in its abo/e9stated %e!ision in =#R# No# "9661&& pro+ulgated on >ay ?1, 1987, that #%# No# 1&&9 pursuant to (hi!h NHA took possession of the properties of petitioners in 1978 (as un!onstitutional and, therefore, null and /oid# $hese ad+issions, the appellate !ourt either un(ittingly failed to !onsider or es!aped its noti!e# $iongson, et al", e/en brought to the appellate !ourt)s attention, in their >otion for Re!onsideration of its %e!ision of 5une 1&, 1999, the fa!t that they had !alled the trial !ourt)s attention to NHA)s allegation9 ad+issions in the body and prayer of its petition# @ut the appellate !ourt, by resolution of -!tober 7, 1999, denied petitioners) +otion upon the ground that it raised substantially the sa+e issues that (ere already !onsidered and passed upon in arri/ing at its de!ision# $he appellate !ourt)s 5une 1&, 1999 de!ision glaringly sho(s, ho(e/er, that the +atter of 0udi!ial ad+issions of NHA in the body and prayer in its petition (ere not !onsidered by it# #is$a$vis the fa!tual ba!kdrop of the !ase, the 0ust !o+pensation of $iongson, et al"%s properties +ust be deter+ined 4as of the date of # # # the filing of 7NHA)s8 !o+plaint on *epte+ber 1., 1987#