The City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo to acquire their land for a public road. The trial court determined just compensation was P24.8 million based on commissioner recommendations, later amended to P20.8 million. The City of Cebu appealed, arguing compensation should be based on filing date. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation is determined at time of taking per the substantive law on eminent domain, not the procedural filing date. It also upheld the parties' agreement to be bound by the commissioner's valuation as a binding contract.
The City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo to acquire their land for a public road. The trial court determined just compensation was P24.8 million based on commissioner recommendations, later amended to P20.8 million. The City of Cebu appealed, arguing compensation should be based on filing date. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation is determined at time of taking per the substantive law on eminent domain, not the procedural filing date. It also upheld the parties' agreement to be bound by the commissioner's valuation as a binding contract.
The City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo to acquire their land for a public road. The trial court determined just compensation was P24.8 million based on commissioner recommendations, later amended to P20.8 million. The City of Cebu appealed, arguing compensation should be based on filing date. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation is determined at time of taking per the substantive law on eminent domain, not the procedural filing date. It also upheld the parties' agreement to be bound by the commissioner's valuation as a binding contract.
The City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo to acquire their land for a public road. The trial court determined just compensation was P24.8 million based on commissioner recommendations, later amended to P20.8 million. The City of Cebu appealed, arguing compensation should be based on filing date. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation is determined at time of taking per the substantive law on eminent domain, not the procedural filing date. It also upheld the parties' agreement to be bound by the commissioner's valuation as a binding contract.
Spouses Dedamo Facts: The City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against the spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo, alleging that it needed their two parcels of land for a public purpose, i.e. for the construction of a public road. The total area sought to be expropriated is 1,624 square meters with an assessed value of P1,786,400. The City of Cebu deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount representing 15% of the fair market value of the property to enable the petitioner to take immediate possession of the property pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160. Dedamo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because of the following reasons:(a) That the purpose for which their property was to be expropriated was not for public use, but for benefit of a single private entity; (b) That the price offered was very low; and (c) That they have no other land in Cebu City. Thereafter, the trial court directed the City of Cebu to pay the Dedamo the just compensation of P24,865,930.00 based on the recommendation of the appointed commissioners. But the said compensation was amended to P20,826,339.50, excluding an area which was not subject to expropriation. The City of Cebu elevated the case to the CA, asserting that the value of just compensation should be based on the date of the filing of the complaint. But the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Issue: WON just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint pursuant to Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling: No, the Court holds that just compensation shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property in accordance with Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, a substantive law that must prevail over procedural law. Under Art. 1315 also, contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. In the case at bar, the parties agreed to be bound by the report of the commission and approved by the trial court. The agreement is a contract between the parties. It has the force of law between them and should be complied with in good faith. Since the petitioner did not interpose a serious objection during the hearing, it is therefore too late for petitioner to question the valuation.
