AMORA, ERNESTO JR.

A 21-JD-009

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CELESTINO C. JUAN and ANA TANSECO JUAN, defendants-appellants.

G.R. No. L-24740 July 30, 1979

FACTS:

In September 28, 1964, Agricultural School, directing the plaintiff Republic of the
Philippines to pay the legal owners Celestino C. Juan and Ana Tanseco the sum of
P190,000.00 as just and reasonable compensation. Two (2) adjacent parcels of land in Barrio
Sapilang, Bacnotan, La Union, totaling 3,387,480 square meters or 338.7480 hectares, are
owned by defendants-appellants under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-420.

The Solicitor General submitted on April 8, 1963, a suit for expropriation of the aforesaid
parcels of land to be used as the site of the La Union Agricultural School, as authorized by
Republic Act 2692. Victor Luis, the prospective school's principal, recommended the
defendants' property as a school site before the expropriation proceedings began. Then he and
Mrs. Avelina L. Osias negotiated with the defendants to buy their property.

Appellants-spouses acquired the lots in 1956 (as claimed by appellants) or 1957 (as stated in
the trial court decision) from Felipe Nebrija and his children for only P50,000.00. The lots in
question were assessed at only P42,120.00. Appellant Celestino Juan valued his property at
P319,374.00 in a letter dated January 2, 1963.

ISSUE: Whether or not the compensation that was given was just and fair.

HELD:

Yes, appellant should be held accountable for his P190,000.00 admission. Given the
aforementioned circumstances, the amount of P190,000.00 is already fair and reasonable. It is
important to note that the most reliable pieces of evidence in the records on the just
compensation to be paid herein appellants are those already mentioned, namely appellants'
own evluation in 1963, the acquisition cost, and the tax assessment. This is due to the
Appraisal Committee's failure to reach an acceptable valuation, as well as the fact that the
individual reports of the Appraisal Committee's commissioners were not subjected to the
necessary hearing before the trial court. It is important to note that practically all of the
evidence listed above is in the form of admissions by the owber, which type of evidence is
preferable in the field of proving just compensation and valuation in eminent domain under
current jurisprudence.