The Manila Banking Corporation v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority
The Manila Banking Corporation v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority
The Manila Banking Corporation v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority
No. 33
Case Title: The Manila Banking Corporation v. Bases Conversion and Development
Authority (GR No. 230144, January 22, 2018)
Ticker:
Facts
Issue
Ruling
NO. The Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court and in fixing the just
compensation at ₱75 per square meter.
The CA noted that while the trial court based its first valuation on the recommendations of the
commissioners, it did not give any explanation on how it arrived at the amount of ₱250 per square
meter. As for the second valuation of Pl90, the CA observed that the trial court gave more weight to
two documents included in Engr. Tolosa's Report, specifically: 1) Resolution No. 12-2006 of the
DPWH Provincial Appraisal Committee which fixed the just compensation of an expropriated land
for the Porac Mancatian Dike Project at ₱190 per square meter; and 2) Deed of Absolute Sale
between TMBC and DPWH over the property taken in the area for the price of ₱190 per square
meter.
There is no question that at the time of taking of the subject property, it was classified as agricultural
land. As observed by Mr. Murillo in his Commissioner's Report, the subject property consists of
sugar land and sand deposits. He further noted that while there were allegations that the property
was reclassified to industrial land, there was no sign of industrial development at the time of the
ocular inspection except for the construction of the SCTEX project.
SC found that the CA committed no reversible error in reversing and setting aside the trial court's
determination of just compensation and in fixing the just compensation of the subject property at
₱75 per square meter. The CA, guided by the standards set in RA 8974, took into consideration the
documentary evidence presented by the parties to determine the appropriate value of the property at
the time it was taken in November 2003.
Doctrine
Reminders
We may be creative in the formulation of Tickers, we may use peculiar words/
objects/ terms so we can remember the case more easily.
Feel free to not fill-out the ‘arguments’ portion if not relevant/ not applicable to the
case designated. You may modify the table accordingly.
Digests shall be arranged according to the order in the syllabus. Please follow
the format for the file name: (1) Prudential Bank vs. Hon Panis.