THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, 

plaintiff-appellant, 
vs.
ROMANA VELASQUEZ, MELECIO ALLAREY and DEOGRACIAS MALIGALIG, defendants-
appellants.

Wala kaayo ni facts. Super simple pero leche ang pag arrive sa decision. One million ka US
Jurisprudence ang gicite kay 1915 pa ni na case na decide. Que Horror. Na stress akong
bungot. Trying my best to cover the pronouncements of SC.

FACTS:

Plaintiff-Appellant Manila Railroad Company instituted an action to expropriate twelve

parcels of land located in Lucena, Province of Tayabas for the purpose of constructing a railroad
construction site.

As we learned in Consti, naa may commissioners na i-appoint to study and ascertain the
full and fair market value of the property, right? In this case, the Commissioners fixed the value
of the 12 parcels of land at 81, 412 Php and awarded 600 Php to Simeon Perez for the removal
of an uncompleted camarin. CFI ordered plaintiffs to pay such amount to defendants which the
latter appealed.

Plaintiffs appealed before SC (ambot unsa nga rule ang nag allow ngano derecho SC
ang appeal pero wa sad ni gitackle sa case. So, fret not kay wa pa tay remedial subjects kaayo.
Jimahi lang na naabot ang appeal sa SC like ingna lang “This case reached the SC eventually.”)

ISSUES AND RULINGS:

A. Do the courts of law, in this case the CFI and SC, have a power over the
Commissioners’ Report? If they have, to what extent?

Undoubtedly, they have but the controversy lies in the extent of power. Relevant
would be Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedures which says:

Action of Court Upon Commissioners' Report. — Upon the filing of

such report in court, the court shall, upon hearing, (1) accept the same
and render judgment in accordance therewith; (2) or for cause shown, it
may recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of facts;
(3) or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; (4) or it
may accept the report in part and reject it in part, and may make such
final order and judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property
essential to the exercise of this rights under the law, and to the defendant
just compensation for the land so taken; and the judgment shall require
payment of the sum awarded as provided in the next section, before the
plaintiff can enter upon the ground and appropriate it to the public use.
 The provision clearly points to us the following facts:

1. The report of the commissioners’ value on the property is not final and it
needs court judgment in order to give effect to their estimated valuation.

2. The court shall choose any one of the 4 actions presented AND make such
final judgment and order.

Here, it’s pronounced that the court should not only be restricted to the 4 options
in the provision such that it is obvious that the court may, in its discretion correct
the commissioners' report in any manner deemed suitable to the occasion so that
final judgment may be rendered and thus end the litigation. Otherwise, it
becomes hard for the court to make a final judgment in case his way of dealing
the report is not within the 4 options.

Equally important is the pronouncement that should the commissioners find

conflicting testimonies or evidence as to the value of the property, they may
conduct their own ocular visit but only to have a more nuanced and better
understanding of property so that in turn, it can give relative weight to the
testimonies. However, in the process of coming up with a value, they have to be
limited by the evidences presented to them. In effect, these evidences will be
used by the courts of law in order to make final judgment and order.

B. What is the full and fair market value of the property subject to expropriation? What were
considered?

The full and fair market value of the property awarded by SC is 6,500 Php for the
16,094 sqm parcel of land.

The following were considered by SC:

1. Testimonies of the witnesses who may be individuals owning similar

properties proximate to the property subject to the expropriation.
2. Evidence of voluntary sales of other lands in the vicinity and similarly
situated.
3. All the uses to which it may be applied or for which it is adapted are to
be considered, and not merely the condition it is in at the time and the
use to which it is then applied by the owner.

In this case, the Supreme Court referred to this sale of a land proximate to the
subject land and similary situated.

We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that the price at which practically
half of the condemned land was, sold by Romana Velasquez to the
defendant, Filemon Perez, is a most liberal estimate of its value. We refer
to her sale of the parcel of 16,094 square meters for P6,500.
The market value of property is the price which it will bring when it is offered for sale
by one who desire, but is not obliged to sell it, and is bought by one who is under no
necessity of having it. In estimating its value all the capabilities of the property, and
all the uses to which it may be applied or for which it is adapted are to be considered,
and not merely the condition it is in at the time and the use to which it is then applied
by the owner. It is not a question of the value of the property to the owner.