City of Manila v.

Estrada
25 PHIL 208 | September 9, 1913
J. TRENT

The court is empowered to make such final order and judgment as shall secure to the
plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his rights under the law, and to the
defendant just compensation for the land so taken. The final order and judgment are
reviewable by this court by means of a bill of exceptions in the same way as any ordinary
action.

FACTS

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The city of Manila sought to expropriate an entire parcel of land with its improvements for use in
connection with a new market at that time being created in the district of Paco. The several
sessions of the commissioners at which evidence was heard took place.
George Sellner, a real estate agent, stated that the land in question was worth 60% more
than the value of the surrounding land and placed its value at P10/m2. He made
negotiations regarding the land opposite the estero a month before, and the land was
valued at P6/m2.
Enrique Brias, another real estate agent, testified that P10/m2 was a good price for the
land. He was the man whose land was sold at P6/m2.
Mr. Powell of the BIR testified that the Estrada land was appraised for taxation at P6/m2.
The president of the Municipal Board of Manila testified that a parcel of land on the
opposite side of Calle Herran (Clarke Case) had been expropriated by the city in 1908. In
this case it seems that the city was a part of a parcel fronting on Calle Herran. The
commissioners appraised the total area at P6.50/m2. However, because of the
consequential damage to the rest of the property, the land was bought at P19.85/m2.
Ariston Estrada testified that the land should be worth P25/m2 at this time, since about
P19.85/m2 was paid for Mr. Clarkes land, and this was three years ago. The property
values have increased since then.

Because of the improvements also situated on the land, the committee fixed its value at
P20/m2. The court duly rendered its decision, confirming the majority report as to the
improvements, but reducing the price of the land from P20/m2, as fixed by the majority
report, to P15/m2.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. Whether the P10/m2 was just compensation. YES.

Compensation is defined as an equivalent for the value of land or property taken. It is said to be
just if it conveys the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken is real,
substantial, full, and ample.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 1
Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that just compensation means a fair and full
equivalent for the loss sustained. The interests of the public and of the owner and all the
circumstance of the particular appropriation should be taken into consideration.

To assess would be to perform a juridical act. The commissioners power is limited to assessing
the value and determining the amount of damages. They are to discharge the trust reposed in
them according to well-established rules and form their judgment upon correct legal principles.

To allow the court to set-up the compensation is not contrary to former adjudication cases.
Philippine Railway Co. v. Solon provides that the courts should not interfere with the
report of the commissioners to correct the amount of damages except in cases of gross
error, showing prejudice, and corruption.

The court may intervene if it is clear that:

a. The testimony was conflicting
b. That the award as allowed by the commissioners was not within the amounts fixed by the
witnesses.
c. That the award was grossly excessive.

2. Whether the court has the power to dispose of the case after the court already changed the
award and rendered final judgment. YES.

According to Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the report of the commissioners is not
final. The judgment of the court is necessary.

The court is also empowered to make such final order and judgment as shall secure to the
plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his rights under the law, and to the defendant
just compensation for the land so taken. The final order and judgment are reviewable by this
court by means of a bill of exceptions in the same way as any ordinary action.

The court may also, in its discretion, correct the commissioners report in any manner deemed
suitable to the occasion so that final judgment may be rendered and thus end the litigation.

Thus, the court is permitted to act upon the commissioners report in one of several ways, so
long as it can satisfy itself that just compensation will be made to the defendant.

After a careful examination of the entire record in this case and the law applicable to the
questions raised therein, we are of the opinion that P10 per square meter is a just
compensation for the land taken. Without prejudice to filing a more extended opinion in
which our reasons will be set forth in full, judgment will be entered accordingly, without
costs. So ordered.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

TORRES, J.; Dissenting,

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 2
For the reasons stated in the appealed judgment, and those expressed in the latter part of majority
opinion, the judgment should be affirmed with the costs against the appellant.

Value of the land fixed at no per square meter.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 3