Case Title Secretary of DPWH vs Tecson

G.R. no. G.R. No. 179334

Main Topic Power of Eminent Domain
Other Related Topic State Immunity
Date: Jul. 1, 2013

DOCTRINES
1. Power of Eminent Domian. Just compensation is the value of the property at the time of
the taking.
2. State Immunity. The State could not be sued unless the 4Cs (confiscation, contract,
consent, counter-claim). The case at bar is about confiscation, thus State Immunity is not
applicable.
FACTS:
Spouses Tecson are co-owners of a parcel of land located in San Pedro Malolos, Bulacan. Their
property was among the properties taken by the government sometime in 1940 without the
owner’s consent and without the expropriation proceeding. The property was used for the
construction of MacArthur Highway.

On Dec. 15, 1994, respondents demanded for the payment of the fair market value of the said
property. DPWH offered to pay 0.70 per square. However, the offer was rejected by the
respondents, thus demanding the return of their property or the payment of compensation at the
current fair market value.

Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint stating the suit is against the State which
may not be sued without consent. RTC rules in favor of the petitioners. However, when elevated
to the CA, it was found instead that the doctrine of state immunity from suit is not applicable.

While in the RTC, the case was later referred to the Provincial Appraisal Committee (PAC).
PAC recommended the amount of 1,500 per sq. meter as just compensation. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification that the just compensation stated should earn
an interest of 6% per annum computed from the filing of the action on Mar. 17, 1995 until fully
paid.

Petitioners assailed the decision of the CA. According to the SC, just compensation is the fair
value of the property fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.

SEPARATE OPINION:
There is gross injustice if the amount awarded is 0.70 per sq. meters instead of the current fair
market value. Moreover, the Court should not tolerate DPWH’s illegal act and penalize
respondents by awarding them with a miserable amount of just compensation after going through
the grueling process of justifying their constitutional and property rights. (I agree with this, but
I’m not the judge. Just imagine the respondents would get 27k instead of 22M for the said
property)
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the just compensation is based from the current fair market value.
HELD:
No, it was held that just compensation if the value of the property at the time of the taking.
Which means that the amount of 0.70 per sq. meter is the just compensation with interest rate of
6% per annum from the time the property was taken.