FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243900. October 6, 2021.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS , petitioner,
vs. EDESIO T. FRIAS, SR., respondent.

DECISION

J.Y. LOPEZ, J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised

Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) dated August 31, 2018 and its Resolution 2 dated December 18, 2018 in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 04642-MIN. The Decision of the CA affirmed the Decision 3
dated January 26, 2016 rendered by Branch 33 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Butuan City which set the just compensation due to Edesio T. Frias
(Frias) at P737.83 per square meter (sq. m.) based on the just compensation
of another land similarly situated in Baan Riverside, Butuan City. 4
The Antecedents
The facts as culled from the CA decision, shows that the Republic of
the Philippines (Republic) through the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH) instituted a case for Expropriation of the 468 sq. m. parcel
of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-4462 situated at
Barangay Baan, Butuan City. The acquisition of the subject land is part of the
implementation of the DPWH's Cotabato-Agusan River Basin Development
Project. 5
On January 16, 2006, the Republic filed a Motion for the Issuance of a
Writ of Execution and deposited in the Office of the Clerk of Court the
amount of Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P81,900.00),
representing the assessed value of the subject land. The said motion was
granted by the trial court in a Resolution dated February 3, 2006 and a Writ
of Possession was subsequently issued. On even date, the trial court issued
an Order of Expropriation finding the propriety of the expropriation of the
subject property for public use. 6
Meanwhile, on the subject of just compensation, the parties agreed to
enter into a compromise agreement. However, the case dragged on for
several years even after the completion of the project because of so many
postponements granted by the trial court, at the behest of the Republic, in
order to give ample time for the latter to come up with the specific amount
to pay Frias. 7
Unfortunately, even after several years, no compromise agreement
was reached by the parties. Thus, upon the manifestation of Frias' counsel
during the hearing on August 29, 2014 and without objection of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Republic's counsel, the trial court dispensed with the appointment of the
Board of Commissioners. Consequently, the parties were made to submit
their respective position papers. 8
The Republic submitted in evidence the Tax Declaration of the subject
property which shows its market value at P90.00 per sq. m., as well as the
BIR Zonal Valuation which indicated the zonal value at P263.14 per sq. m.
The Republic asserted that the valuation of the property should be between
P90.00 and P263.14 per sq. m. 9
On the other hand, Frias fixed the fair market value of the property at
P980.00 per sq. m. based on the significant developments and the valuation
of the adjacent properties at the time of the taking. 10
Frias likewise submitted a copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale between the
Republic and Cruzita Montejo-Taala 11 over the 300 sq. ms. of land similarly
situated in Baan riverside and likewise used for the construction of the DPWH
Lower Agusan Development Project. 12
On January 26, 2016, the RTC rendered a Decision setting the just
compensation at P737.83 per sq. m. based on the market value of another
land similarly situated in Baan Riverside, Butuan City, which was likewise
used for the construction of the Lower Agusan Development Project. 13 Thus,
the RTC ruled that for the expropriation of 468 sq. ms. of his land, Frias is
entitled to P345,304.44 plus legal interest of 12% from December 14, 2005
until June 30, 2013 and 6% from July 1, 2013 until fully paid. 14
The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by
the RTC in its Order 15 dated February 22, 2017.
Assigning error in the RTC for its determination of just compensation
based on the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Republic filed an appeal before the
C A 16 which rendered a Decision, 17 dated August 31, 2018, upholding the
decision of the RTC. It found that the RTC, in the exercise of its discretion in
determining the just compensation, acted based on established rules,
correct legal principles and competent evidence. 18 It likewise found that the
Republic was given reasonable opportunity to comment or object to the
documents submitted by Frias, since the RTC's decision was rendered more
than nine months after the Republic received Frias's position paper with
attached documents. 19 The dispositive portion of the said decision reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered the instant
appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 26 January 2016 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Butuan City in SP Civil Case No. 1267
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 20 (Emphasis in the original)
Thereafter, the Republic filed its Motion for Reconsideration, 21 dated
September 14, 2018, which was denied in the Resolution 22 dated December
18, 2018.
On August 6, 2019, Frias, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) ,
filed his Comment, 23 prompting the Republic, through the OSG to file its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Reply 24 thereto on December 27, 2019.
Issues
I
Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error in ruling that petitioner's
right to due process was not violated
II
Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error in affirming the amount of
just compensation determined by the trial court
Our Ruling
In the present petition, the Republic avers that its right to due process
was unduly infringed since it was denied the opportunity to scrutinize the
authenticity and veracity of Frias' documentary submissions after the RTC
dispensed with the convening of a Board of Commissioners (BOC) in the
determination of just compensation. 25
This Court disagrees.
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic
requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. Procedural due
process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
"To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may also
be heard through pleadings. Where the opportunity to be heard, either
through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process. 26
I n Landbank of the Phils. v. Manzano, 27 this Court ruled that in
expropriation cases, a party cannot allege lack of due process when he or
she was given every reasonable opportunity to present his or her case
before the courts, either through oral arguments or the filing of pleadings,
thus:
Petitioner was not deprived of due process since it was given
every reasonable opportunity to ventilate its claims and objections.
Petitioner submitted before the commissioners its position
paper and dispensed with the need for further hearing. Its position
paper contained its own valuations, comments, and objections to
respondents' position paper.
xxx xxx xxx
During the hearing set by the Regional Trial Court, petitioner
opted to present documentary evidence that was already
incorporated in its position paper. Thus, it would have been
unnecessary and repetitive for the trial court to receive the same
pieces of evidence.
A party cannot invoke deprivation of due process if he or
she was given the opportunity of a hearing, through either
oral arguments or pleadings. The hearing does not have to be
a trial-type proceeding in all situations. In National Power
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Corporation v. Spouses Chiong:
A formal hearing or trial was not required for the
petitioner to avail of its opportunity to object and oppose
the majority report. Petitioner could have filed a motion
raising all possible grounds for objecting to the findings
and recommendations of the commissioners. It could
have moved the trial court to remand the report to the
commissioners for additional facts. Or it could have
moved to expunge the majority report, for reasons
petitioner could muster. Petitioner, however, failed to
seize the opportunity to register its opposition or
objections before the trial court. It is a bit too late in the
day now to be asking for a hearing on the pretext that it
had not been afforded due process. 28 (Citations omitted
and emphasis supplied)
In the first place, it is undeniable that the Republic was given every
opportunity to be heard during the hearings before the RTC. It does not
escape this Court's attention that the Republic was presented with an
avenue to voice its protest, but chose not to object to the motion of Frias or
to the RTC's decision to dispense with the need to constitute the BOC. On
this note, the Court deems it proper to revisit the Order 29 dated February
22, 2017, where the RTC ruled as follows:
Records reveal that after the issuance of a writ of possession on
February 3, 2006, the parties had agreed to enter into a
compromise agreement, hence no Board of Commissioner
was constituted. On several occasions, postponements were
granted by the court, at the behest of the plaintiff, in order to
give time for the plaintiff to come up with the specific amount
to pay the defendant, viz.:
1. June 5, 2007 — Atty. Charina A. Soria of the Office
of the Solicitor General informed the court that the parties
are still on the final stage of finalizing the compromise
agreement x x x.
2. May 28, 2008 — The government, through DPWH
still lacks funds to pay the landowners, and to give time
to the government to come up with the said amount, the
case was set to another date x x x.
3. August 6, 2008 — Atty. Leilani Corvera-Empeso
requested for another date to pave the way for the
government to tender the respective amounts to
defendants (Fnas and Arlan for Sp. Civil Case No. 1270) as
just compensation x x x.
4. January 29, 2009 — Atty. Empeso manifested that
she was informed that fund will be available already and
hopefully, it is just a matter of time by which the said
amounts can be delivered to the land owners as payment
of the just compensation x x x.
5. May 8, 2009 — DPWH has to wait for the availability
of funds within which to pay the just compensation of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 affected land owners in this case x x x.
6. July 24, 2009 — Atty. Empeso asked for a resetting
because the government has still no money to pay the
just compensation of the affected land x x x.
7. November 9, 2009 — Still, plaintiff has no money to
pay the just compensation x x x.
8. March 5, 2010 — Parties have agreed that they are
already in the process of settlement, awaiting for the
availability of funds from the national government x x x.
9. May 31, 2010 — still waiting for availability of funds
x x x.
10. Feb. 17, 2011 — Atty. Roland Gualberto C. Salise
manifested that the draft of the proposed settlement was
lost in transit and need[ed], time to reconstruct the same
x x x.
11. April 12, 2011 — Defendants submitted a
settlement proposal x x x.
12. June 1, 2011 — Plaintiff's Comment on the
settlement proposal x x x.
13. June 2, 2011 — Atty. Salise asked for a deferment
on the ground that there was an imperative need that a
relocation survey be first conducted on the 388 sq. m. lot
in Baan to determine the actual value of the property x x
x.
Until several years had passed, no compromised agreement
was reached by the parties. During the hearing on August 29,
2014, although it was defendant's counsel who manifested
that the formation of the Board of Commissioners be
dispensed with, Atty. Siegfred A. Ausa, counsel for the
plaintiff, did not offer any objection to the manifestation of
Atty. Paula Sheena Paler de Guzman. Hence, the court
granted the said manifestation for purposes of expediting the
proceedings, but required the parties to submit their respective
position papers x x x. 30 (Emphasis added and underscoring supplied)
This Court has previously recognized that the appointment of
commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be
taken is a mandatory requirement. Thus, "trial with the aid of the
commissioners is a substantial right that may not be done away with
capriciously or for no reason at all." 31 In the instant case however, this Court
finds justification in the trial court's decision to dispense with the
appointment of the BOC. In the above-cited Order dated February 22, 2017,
the RTC explained that after the issuance of the writ of possession on
February 3, 2006, no constitution of the BOC was made as both parties had
agreed to enter into a compromise agreement. Further, during the hearing
on August 29, 2014, when Frias moved to dispense with the appointment of
the commissioners, petitioner's counsel interposed no objection. Since
delays due to the Republic's postponements have halted the parties'
negotiations and prolonged the proceedings, the RTC granted the motion to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 dispense with the appointment of the commissioners and required the
parties to submit their respective position papers instead.
In fact, the Republic does not deny acquiescing to the proposal and
decision to dispense with the appointment of commissioners. Clearly, its
claim that it was deprived of due process when the RTC decided to forego
with constituting the BOC is merely an afterthought deserving of scant
consideration.
Likewise, this Court agrees with the CA that the Republic was given
ample opportunity to comment, or object to the Deed of Absolute Sale and
other documents submitted by Frias to the RTC. This Court upholds the
following findings of the CA which the Republic failed to refute:
On the matter of the Republic's assertion that it was denied due
process when it was not given the opportunity to scrutinize appellee's
attached documents on his position paper, this Court finds that the
Republic was in fact given reasonable opportunity to
comment or object to the said documents.
As can be gleaned from the records of this case,
appellee's position paper was received by the Republic on 15
April 2015. The trial court rendered its decision on 26 January
2016. The Republic had nine months to question comment or
object on appellee's position paper as well as the attached
documents thereto, or even move for a hearing for the said
purpose but the Republic never did such thing.
The Republic's inaction for nine months cannot be
brushed aside now for the simple fact that it has been
afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard and
yet it failed to exercise the same. x x x.
It must be emphasized that the essence of due process is
simply an opportunity to be heard. So long as the party is given the
opportunity to advocate his/her cause or defend his/her interest in
due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.
Records will show that the Republic has been given ample
opportunity to ventilate its arguments through pleadings and that the
same pleadings were acknowledged in the text of the questioned
ruling. 32 (Emphasis supplied)
Further, it has been settled that any defect in the observance of due
process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. 33 In Zalamea
v. Ocampo , 34 this Court, on the basis of its earlier pronouncements in
Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission 35 and Autencio v. Mañara, 36 found
that the inability to file counter-affidavits by the parties therein was cured by
the numerous chances they had to thresh out their defenses in the filing of
their motion for reconsideration, petition for review, and petition for
certiorari.
Simply put, the denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked
by a party who was afforded the opportunity to be heard, such as the
Republic in this case, which was able to file its motion for reconsideration of
the RTC Decision and appeal the same before the CA. The Court, applying
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 the well-established doctrine that defects in procedural due process may be
cured when the party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, 37 finds untenable the
Republic's allegations that its right to due process was violated.
On the amount of just compensation, the Republic assails the Deed of
Absolute Sale between the Republic and Cruzita Montejo-Taala, which was
used by the RTC as a basis to fix the amount of just compensation, since it
was neither authenticated nor the veracity thereof attested to during trial.
The Republic believes that the same constitutes hearsay evidence. 38
In The Manila Banking Corp. v. Bases Conversion & Dev't. Authority, 39

this Court defined just compensations as follows:

x x x as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from
its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain,
but the owner's loss. The word 'just' is used to intensify the meaning
of the word 'compensation' and to convey thereby the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, and ample. Such 'just'-ness of the compensation can
only be attained by using reliable and actual data as bases in fixing
the value of the condemned property. Trial courts are required to be
more circumspect in its evaluation of just compensation due the
property owner, considering that eminent domain cases involve the
expenditure of public funds. 40
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function because
what is sought to be determined is a full, just, and fair value due to the
owner of a condemned property with an equally important consideration that
the payment of the same entails the expenditure of public funds. This can
only be attained by reception of evidence consisting of reliable and actual
data, and the circumspect evaluation thereof. Thus, issues pertaining to the
value of the property expropriated are questions of fact. 41
In this regard, this Court is not a trier of facts and questions of fact are
beyond the scope of the judicial review of this Court under Rule 45.
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are
generally binding on this Court. 42
Nonetheless, a judicious review of the case still convinces this Court
that the CA was correct in upholding the amount of just compensation
determined by the RTC. Thus, this Court fully concurs with the following
findings of fact of the RTC, as sustained by the CA in its Decision:
In arriving at the amount of [P]737.83 per square meter as just
compensation, the trial court took into consideration the Deed of Sale
between the Republic and Cruzita Z. Montejo-Taala for the 300-
square meter land similarly situated in Baan riverside and was
likewise used for the construction of the Lower Agusan Development
Project.
This is not to say that it was the only document scrutinized by
the trial court. In its decision, the trial court took into account all the
conditions of the subject property for the correct determination of just
compensation. For instance, the trial court was clear that it cannot
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 simply subscribe to the Republic's postulation that the just
compensation should be between the assessed value as shown in the
tax declaration and the zonal value as shown by the BIR Department
Order No. 16-2800 n dated 21 August 1998. It has long been
established that zonal valuation, although one of the indices of the
fair market value of real estate, cannot by itself be the sole basis of
just compensation in expropriation cases.
The trial court likewise held that appellee failed to submit
evidence that would support his claim of a [P]980.00 per square
meter valuation.
Section 5 of RA 8974 provides:
Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value
of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or
Negotiated Sale. — In order to facilitate the determination
of just compensation, the court may consider, among
other well-established factors, the following relevant
standards:
(a) The classification and use for which the property is
suited;
(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the
vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the
removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on
the land and for the value of improvements thereon;
(f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and
zonal valuation of the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular
findings, oral as well as documentary evidence
presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected
property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire
similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those
required from them by the government, and thereby
rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
From the foregoing, the trial court is correct in ruling that it
cannot simply speculate on the market value of the property sans
evidence to corroborate such claim. Appellee neither presented sworn
statements from realtors for the value of the contiguous residential
dwellings and commercial establishments nor did he present any
other evidence to support his claim of significant developments of the
adjacent properties at the time of taking.
It is clear, therefore, that the exercise of the trial court of its
discretion in determining the just compensation was not done
arbitrarily or capriciously. It was based on all established rules, upon
correct legal principles and competent evidence. 43

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 Unfortunately, the instant petition fails to demonstrate how the RTC, as
affirmed by the CA, had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically in its
evaluation of the evidence presented for the determination of just
compensation. In fact, the Republic does not even argue that the amount of
just compensation is grossly exorbitant or otherwise unjustified. As such, the
amount of just compensation in favor of Frias was properly arrived at.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for utter lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 31, 2018 and its Resolution
dated December 18, 2018 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 04642-MIN are AFFIRMED.
For the expropriation of his land by petitioner Republic of the Philippines,
respondent Edesio T. Frias, Sr. is entitled to P345,304.44, plus legal interest
of twelve percent (12%) from December 14, 2005 until June 30, 2013, and
six percent (6%) from July 1, 2013 until fully paid as just compensation.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier and M.V. Lopez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, with Associate

Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles, concurring; rollo, pp. 40-47.

2. Id. at 49-50.
3. Id. at 42.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 11-12.
6. Id. at 12.

7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. As culled from the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated February 28, 2019; id.
at 32.
12. Id. at 44.

13. Id. at 42.

14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 42-43.
17. Id. at 40-47.

18. Id. at 45.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 19. Id.
20. Id. at 47.
21. Id. at 15-17.
22. Id. at 49-50.

23. Id. at 74-82.

24. Id. at 86-94.
25. Id. at 31.
26. Zalamea v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 195433, January 15, 2020.
27. 824 Phil. 339 (2018).

28. Id. at 365-366.

29. Rollo , pp. 80A-81.
30. Id.
31. Republic v. Spouses Silvestre, G.R. No. 237324, February 6, 2019.

32. Rollo , pp. 45-46.

33. Zalamea v. Ocampo, supra note 26.
34. Id.
35. 524 Phil. 271 (2006).
36. 489 Phil. 752 (2005).

37. Vivo v. Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corporation , 721 Phil. 34, 42-43 (2013).
38. Rollo , pp. 32-33.
39. 824 Phil. 193 (2018).
40. Id. at 214-215.
41. Republic v. Barcelon, G.R. No. 226021, July 24, 2019.

42. Id.
43. Rollo , pp. 44-45.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com