Appropriations Act for ATO-Department of Transportation and

Heirs of Mateo Pidacan and Romana Eigo, et al. v. ATO, et al., Communication Infrastructure Program. Under the circumstances, such
earmarking may be considered as the appropriation required by law in
order that petitioners may be paid just compensation long due them.
G.R. No. 162779, June 15, 2007

A property was converted into an airport by the Air Transport Office (ATO)

depriving the owners of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the same as

early as 1948 without an expropriation proceeding. It was contended that

there was taking hence, just compensation should be reckoned from

1948. Is the contention correct? Why?

 No. As a rule, the determination of just compensation in eminent domain

cases is reckoned from the time of taking. (Gabatin v. LBO, 444 SCRA

176 (2004)). In this case, however, application of the said rule would lead

to grave injustice. Note that the ATO had been using the property as

airport since 1948 without having instituted the proper expropriation

proceedings. To peg the value of the property at the time of taking in

1948, despite the exponential increase in its value considering the lapse

of over half a century, would be iniquitous. ATO cannot conveniently

invoke the right of eminent domain to take advantage of the ridiculously

low value of the property at the time of taking that it arbitrarily chooses to

the prejudice of the owners.

    Justice and fairness dictate that the appropriate reckoning point for the

valuation of the property is when the trial court made its order of

expropriation in 2001. (Heirs of Mateo Pidacan & Romana Eigo, et al. v.

ATO, et al., G.R. No. 162779, June 15, 2007)

State Immunity; Where the Director General of Air Transportation Office

had informed the landowners that the funding for the initial payment for
the acquisition of their property was already earmarked in the General
Appropriations Act, such earmarking may be considered as the
appropriation required by law in order that the landowners may be paid
just compensation long due them.—In view of this mandate, this Court has
finally spoken in our Decision on June 15, 2007, declaring the property to
be expropriated in favor of ATO and ordering the latter to pay petitioners
just compensation. This ruling had already become final and executory.
Our Decision is clear and unambiguous. Nothing is left to be done, save
for its execution. Moreover, it bears stressing that the Director General of
ATO informed petitioners that the funding for the initial payment for the
acquisition of the property was already earmarked in the 2007 General