The assailed CA Decision and Resolution should be set aside for being purely

speculative, contrary to the evidence on record and without support in applicable laws
and jurisprudence.

The Court declared plaintiff to have waived its right to present further exhibits and to file a
Position Paper in view of its failure to file the same within the prescribed period despite the
extension afforded by the Court.

With all due respect, the foregoing statement of facts is wholly inaccurate.

Petitioner had filed an Omnibus Motion (I) To furnish Plaintiff Copies of Transcript of
Stenographic Notes; and, (II) To Give Plaintiff Time to File Position Paper, dated 26 June
2007.
Indeed, there was an open-court ruling that allowed petitioner fifteen (l5) days from receipt
of the complete set of the requested transcript of stenographic notes within which to submit
its position paper regarding the just compensation of the expropriated properties. However,
the trial court with due respect, obviously ignored the aforestated open-court order when it
declared petitioner to have waived its right to file its position paper in the 10 August 2007
Order. Worse, the stenographer never completed transcribing the requested TSNs.

The figures recommended by the Board of Commissioners, which the trial court
adopted and the Court of Appeals affirmed in their entirety, have no factual and
evidential moorings.

Relevantly, Section 5 of R.A. No. 8974 specified the established factors and relevant
standards in determining just compensation.

The "just"-ness of just compensation can only be attained by using reliable and actual data
as bases in fixing the value of the condemned property.

Therefore, the just compensation award should be based on competent evidence.

A commissioners' report of land prices which is not based on any documentary evidence is
manifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the court.

In the present case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to consider all the
relevant factors in the determination of the just compensation awarded. Worse, it merely
accepted the values stated In the Commissioners' Report dated 19 April 2011 on the sole
ground that this report is purportedly founded on the testimonies of experts on the field of
realty business.

It must be stressed that just compensation must be based on reliable and actual data
supporting the component figures used In the computation of the total amount of just
compensation. This goes without saying that the testimonies of "experts", sans evidentiary
documents, are nothing but pure hearsay evidence; they do not have any probative value
and should accordingly be disregarded.

To reiterate, the trial court's manner of determining the just compensation award Is
arbitrary. Consequently, the findings of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's
findings Is likewise misplaced. It did not take into consideration petitioner's evidence
showing the actual use, classification, size, and area of the subject property. Instead, It relied
on, and adopted, the revised Commissioner's Report, which Is clearly and entirely based on
speculation, surmises and/or conjectures.

Worth noting also is the testimony of the City Planning Officer Jose Roni Penalosa who
affirmed that respondents' claims for opportunity losses and consequential damages are
purely speculative, as they are merely based on plans that have not been the subject of
approval, nay application, with the local government.

Petitioner submits that the nature and character of the land at the time of the taking is the
principal criterion in determining how much just compensation is to be paid to the lot
owner

Fair market value, as an eminent domain concept, is determined by, among other factors,
the character of the property at the time of the taking of the property. It is basic that the
nature and character of the land at the time of the taking is the principal criterion for
determining how much just compensation is to be given to the lot owner, not the potential
of the expropriated area.

In expropriation cases (including cases Involving lands for agrarian reform), the property's
character refers to its actual use at the time of taking, not its potential uses.

While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where
there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property, it should
never control the determination of just compensation.

The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining just
compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value
of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking,
not its potential uses.

Nonetheless, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals disregarded the classification and
use of the subject properties; instead, it anchored its findings on the supposed future use of
the properties as part of a residential and commercial center.

The testimony of Assistant City Assessor Julio F. Grecia, Jr. also proved that the subject
properties' classifications are either agricultural or residential. It also showed that the just
compensation for the affected parcels of land cannot exceed PhPl, 800.00 per square meter

Selling price of similar lands in the vicinity

It is noteworthy that in Manila Railroad Co, vs, Buenconsejo et, the Honorable Supreme
Court explained that the selling price of properties adjacent or within the vicinity of an
expropriated lot may be considered in determining the just compensation:

the sale of other lands in the vicinity shall be admissible as evidence of the value of
the condemned land when they are contemporaneous to the expropriation.

Purchases and sales of property adjoining that being expropriated are competent and
material evidence to determine the true market value of expropriated land

BIR Zonal Valuation

The BIR Zonal Valuation is basically reflective of the fair market value of real property within
a given area. If it were otherwise, then the law that imposes a tax on sale of real property
based on gross selling price or current fair market value would be intrinsically flawed.

Tax Declarations
In the same vein, the tax declarations covering the properties are entitled to great weight,
given the fact that they are made under oath.
Consequential benefits and damages
As earlier discussed, the Board of Commissioners, the trial court and the Court of Appeals
failed to take into consideration the consequential benefits that respondents are now
enjoying as a result of the construction of the floodway control project.

To stress, the major improvements, road and bridge constructed by petitioner for the
benefit of respondents' properties clearly offset whatever "consequential damages," if any,
that resulted from the expropriation. Indeed, there is no denying that the construction of
the floodway project addressed the flooding problem in the area to the benefit of
respondents affected and remaining properties.

The legal interest in expropriation cases is now at six percent (6%) per annum.
To reiterate, as per BSP Circular 799, which took effect on 1 July 2013, the rate of legal
interest is now 6% per annum.