DIGEST | Republic of the Philippines vs. Ortigas G.R. No.171496 (March 3, 2014)
expropriation; just compensation; bill of rights
Facts: Respodent Ortigas and Company Ltd. Partnership was the owner of a 70,278sqm property in Pasig City. Upon the request of DPWH, Ortigas caused the segregation of its property into five lots and reserved one portion for road widening for the C-5 flyover project. It designated Lot 5-B-2-A, a 1,445-square-meter portion of its property, for the road widening of Ortigas Avenue. Ortigas also caused the annotation of the term "road widening" on its title. The title was then inscribed with an encumbrance that it was for road widening and subject to Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree.
The C-5-Ortigas Avenue flyover was completed in 1999, utilizing only 396 square meters of the 1,445-square-meter allotment for the project. Consequently, Ortigas further subdivided Lot 5-B-2-A into two lots: one which was used for the road widening and the other which was unused.
Petition
On February 14, 2001, Ortigas filed with the RTC of Pasig a petition for authority to sell to the government Lot 5-B-2-A-1.7 Ortigas alleged that the DPWH requested the conveyance of the property for road widening purposes. Despite due notice to the public, no one appeared to oppose Ortigas’ petition.
Among other things, Ortigas, through their liason officer Mr. Romulo Rosete, alleged that they were not compensated for the use of the property.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed an opposition, alleging that Ortigas' property can only be conveyed by way of donation to the government pursuant to Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, (Property Registration Decree).
Section 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. Any owner subdividing a tract of registered land into lots which do not constitute a subdivision project as defined and provided for under P.D. No. 957, shall file with the Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands a subdivision plan of such land on which all boundaries, streets, passageways and waterways, if any, shall be distinctly and accurately delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands together with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owner’s duplicate certificate of title is presented for registration, the Register of Deeds shall, without requiring further court approval of said plan, register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, as amended: Provided, however, that the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the new certificate of title covering the street, passageway or open space, a memorandum to the effect that except by way of donation in favor of the national government, province, city or municipality, no portion of any street, passageway, waterway or open space so delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed of by the registered owner without the approval of the Court of First Instance of the province or city in which the land is situated.
Both the RTC and CA denied the Republic’s motions.
Issue: WON Ortigas’ property should be conveyed to the Republic only by donation, in accordance with Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Held: No.
Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 does not apply in a case that is the proper subject of an expropriation proceeding
Respondent Ortigas may sell its property to the government. It must be compensated because its property was taken and utilized for public road purposes.
Republic’s reliance on Section 50 of the Property Registration Decree is erroneous. Section 50 contemplates roads and streets in a subdivided property, not public thoroughfares built on a private property that was taken from an owner for public purpose. A public thoroughfare is not a subdivision road or street.
When there is taking of private property for some public purpose, the owner of the property taken is entitled to be compensated.
There is taking when the following elements are present:
1. The government must enter the private property;
2. The entrance into the private property must be indefinite or permanent;
3. There is color of legal authority in the entry into the property;
4. The property is devoted to public use or purpose;
5. The use of property for public use removed from the owner all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
All of the above elements are present in this case. Petitioner’s construction of a road on Ortigas’ property for the use of the general public is an obvious permanent entry on petitioner’s part. Given that the road was constructed for general public use stamps it with public character, and coursing the entry through the DPWH gives it a color of legal authority. As a result of petitioner’s entry, Ortigas may not enjoy the property as it did before.
Subdivision roads/streets are primarily for private use
Not all lots delineated as roads and streets form part of subdivision roads and streets that are subject to Section 50 of the Property Registration Decree. Subdivision roads and streets are constructed primarily for the benefit of the owners of the surrounding properties. They are, thus, constructed primarily for private use — as opposed to delineated road lots taken at the instance of the government for the use and benefit of the general public. In this case, the lot was reserved for road widening at the instance of the Republic.
Since the Constitution proscribes taking of private property without just compensation, any taking must entail a corresponding appropriation for that purpose. Public funds, however, may only be appropriated for public purpose as employment of public funds to benefit a private individual constitutes malversation. Therefore, private subdivision streets not taken for public use may only be donated to the government.
In contrast, when the road or street was delineated upon government request and taken for public use, as in this case, the government has no choice but to compensate the owner for his or her sacrifice, lest it violates the constitutional provision against taking without just compensation.
As with all laws, Section 50 of the Property Registration Decree cannot be interpreted to mean a license on the part of the government to disregard constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The right to compensation under Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution was put in place to protect the individual from and restrain the State’s sovereign power of eminent domain. Thus, while the government’s power to take for public purpose is inherent and immense, it is delimited by the right of an individual to be compensated.
Title to the subject lot remains under respondent Ortigas’ name. The government is already in possession of the property but is yet to acquire title to it. To legitimize such possession, petitioner Republic of the Philippines must acquire the property from respondent Ortigas by instituting expropriation proceedings or through negotiated sale, which has already been recognized in law as a mode of government acquisition of private property for public purpose.