G.R. No.

146062 June 28, 2001

Elsaban v Vda. de Enorio

MAIN TOPIC – EMINENT DOMAIN

I. FACTS
 Calrita Vda. De Enorio is the owner of a lot in Barangay M. Roxas, Sto. Nino, South Cotabato with an area of
39,512 sqm, which is registered in the Registry of Deeds in South Cotabato.
 On October 6, 1981, Santiago Esteban, Jr., Project Manager of the National Irrigation Agency, approved the
construction of the main irrigation canal of NIA on the said lot affecting 24,660 sqm of 39,512 sqm. The husband
of de Enorio agreed and a Right-of-Way agreement was executed between de Enorio and NIA.
 In 1983, De Enorio executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees whereby she waived any compensation for
damages to crops and improvements which she suffered as a result of the construction of a right-of-way on her
property.
 In the same year, NIA offered the respondent the sum of 35,000.00 by way of amicable settlement pursuant to EO
No. 1035 which provides that “financial assistance may also be given to owners of lands acquired under C.A. 141
as amended, for the area or portion subject to the reservation under Section 12”
 De Enorio then demanded payment for taking of her property, however, NIA refused to pay her.
 Accordingly, de Enorio filed in December 1990 a complaint against NIA with the RTC, PRAYING that NIA be
ORDERED TO PAY the sum of P111,299.55 as compensation for the portion of her property used in the
construction of the canal constructed by NIA, litigation expenses and costs.
 NIA then files an Ansswer, through the Solicitor-General, and interposed de Enorio that
o The government had not consented to be sued;
o The total area used by NIA for its irrigation canal was only 2.27 hectares and not 24,600 sqm; and
o De Enorio was not entitled to compensation for her taking that she secured title over the property by
virtue of a homestead patent under CA 141.
 The RTC then rendered judgement in favor of de Enroio against the NIA ordering the latter to pay the sum of
107,517.60 as just compensation.
 The CA then affirmed the RTC’s decision
 Henceforth the petition before the SC.

II. ISSUE
 W/N the subject property which was acquired by NIA is subject to just compensation under the rule of Eminent
Domain.

III. HELD
 Yes, the land under litigation which was acquired by NIA is subject to just compensation under the rule of Eminent
Domain.
 The SC held that pursuant to the Land Registration Act, de Enorio is only required to recognize in favor of the
government the easement of a “public highway, way, private way established by law xxxx where the certifacte of
title does not state the boundaries thereof have been pre-determined”. This means that if there is no pre-existing
easement and that same is imposed only after the land has been registered under the Land Registration Act, then
there should be proper expropriation proceedings and that the owners are entitled to just compensation.
o In the case at bar, the NIA constructed the irrigation canal in 1981, several years AFTER it has already
been registered in 1976. Accordingly, there should have been prior expropriation proceedings and just
compensation should have been paid to the owner before the land was taken for public use.
 The SC also held that there is a well settled rule that when a private property is needed for conversion for some
public use, the first thing that the government should do is to offer to buy the said land. If the owner is willing to sell
the property and the parties can agree on the price and the other conditions of the sale, a voluntary transaction can
then be concluded and the transfer effected without the necessity of a judicial action. Otherwise, the government
will use its power of eminent domain, subject to the payment of just compensation, to acquire private property in
order to devote it to public use.
 Moreover, the amount to be paid to the owners should be fair or “just” and should be considered at the time of the
taking, not at the time of the filing of action of eminent domain.
o Since the time of the taking took place in 1981, the amount to be paid to the owners should be based on
this period, and not when they filed for the complaint in 1991. Therefore, the correct amount to be paid is
Ponente: Mendoza, J.

Digest Maker: LJ Tiam

 G.R. No. 146062 June 28, 2001

Elsaban v Vda. de Enorio

16,047.61 per hectare, which is the price level for 1982, based on the appraisal report submitted by the
commission.

IV. DISPOSITIVE PORTION

 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION to the extent that just compensation for the contested property be paid to respondent in the amount
of P16,047.61 per hectare, with interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of taking until
full payment is made. Costs against petitioner.

V. DOCTRINE
 The Power of Eminent Domain – it is a rule that when a private property is needed for conversion for some public
use, the first thing that the government should do is to offer to buy the said land. If the owner is willing to sell the
property and the parties can agree on the price and the other conditions of the sale, a voluntary transaction can then
be concluded and the transfer effected without the necessity of a judicial action. Otherwise, the government will use
its power of eminent domain, subject to the payment of just compensation, to acquire private property in order to
devote it to public use.

Ponente: Mendoza, J.

Digest Maker: LJ Tiam