Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    11 - City of Iloilo V Contreras Besana - Viel

    Uploaded by

    Evielyn Mateo
    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property should be based on the fair market value at the time the expropriation complaint was filed, not when the property was taken or when the order granting possession was issued. The case involved a city government that filed an expropriation complaint in 1981 to acquire land for a school but did not deposit compensation for the owner until 2004. Jurisprudence states that if the taking occurs after or coincides with the filing, just compensation is determined as of the filing date of the complaint. Therefore, compensation should be based on the 1981 value, not the much higher 2004 value.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    11 - City of Iloilo V Contreras Besana - Viel

    Uploaded by

    Evielyn Mateo
    57 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property should be based on the fair market value at the time the expropriation complaint was filed, not when the property was taken or when the order granting possession was issued. The case involved a city government that filed an expropriation complaint in 1981 to acquire land for a school but did not deposit compensation for the owner until 2004. Jurisprudence states that if the taking occurs after or coincides with the filing, just compensation is determined as of the filing date of the complaint. Therefore, compensation should be based on the 1981 value, not the much higher 2004 value.

    Original Title

    11_City of Iloilo v Contreras Besana_Viel.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property should be based on the fair market value at the time the expropriation complaint was filed, not when the property was taken or when the order granting possession was issued. The case involved a city government that filed an expropriation complaint in 1981 to acquire land for a school but did not deposit compensation for the owner until 2004. Jurisprudence states that if the taking occurs after or coincides with the filing, just compensation is determined as of the filing date of the complaint. Therefore, compensation should be based on the 1981 value, not the much higher 2004 value.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views1 page

    11 - City of Iloilo V Contreras Besana - Viel

    Uploaded by

    Evielyn Mateo
    The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation for expropriated property should be based on the fair market value at the time the expropriation complaint was filed, not when the property was taken or when the order granting possession was issued. The case involved a city government that filed an expropriation complaint in 1981 to acquire land for a school but did not deposit compensation for the owner until 2004. Jurisprudence states that if the taking occurs after or coincides with the filing, just compensation is determined as of the filing date of the complaint. Therefore, compensation should be based on the 1981 value, not the much higher 2004 value.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IS RECKONED AT THE TIME OF THE

    FILING OF EXPROPRIATION COMPLAINT


    City of Iloilo vs. Contreras-Besana
    G.R. No. 168967; February 12, 2010
    Del Castillo, J

    FACTS:
    In this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, petitioner City of
    Iloilo seeks to overturn the three orders issued by public respondent RTC ruling that the
    determination of just compensation is reckoned not at the time the property was condemned but
    at the time the order granting the writ of possession was issued.
    On September 18, 1981, a complaint for eminent domain was filed by petitioner against
    private respondent Elpidio T. Javellana (Javellana), seeking to expropriate two parcels of land
    owned by Javellana to be used as a school site for Lapaz High School. On May 17, 1983, the
    RTC issued an order granting petitioner's writ of possession and authorized the petitioner to
    take immediate possession of the subject property after depositing to the account of Javellana
    the amount of P40,000 for the value of the land. Sixteen years later, Javellana discovered that
    no such deposit was ever made. After failing to arrive at an amicable settlement, Javellana filed
    a complaint for recovery of possession.
    The RTC issued the first assailed order and ruled that the value of the property is
    determined not at the time it was condemned but at the time the complaint was filed in court.
    Neither party sought reconsideration of this Order. Nonetheless, the RTC issued the second
    and third assailed order and held that the value of the property should be reckoned not at the
    time it was condemned but at the time the 1983 order was issued.
    As the case reached the Supreme Court, petitioner claims that the computation for just
    compensation should be made as of September 18, 1981, the date when the expropriation
    complaint was filed. On the other hand, private respondent posits that the reckoning date should
    be in 2004 because of the "clear injustice to the private respondent who all these years has
    been deprived of the beneficial use of his properties."

    ISSUE: Whether or not just compensation for the expropriation should be based on the subject
    property's fair market value at the time of taking and not at the time filing of the complaint.

    HELD:
    No, just compensation for the expropriation is based on the subject property's fair market
    value at the time of the filing of the complaint.
    Jurisprudence constantly affirms that when the taking of the property sought to be
    expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place
    subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be
    determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.
    In this case, there is no reason to depart from the general rule that the point of reference
    for assessing the value of the subject property is the time of the filing of the complaint for
    expropriation.
    Therefore, the reckoning date for the determination of just compensation is based on
    the subject property's fair market value at the time filing of the complaint and not at the time of
    taking.

    You might also like