A2024 | [CONSTI2] | [ATTY.
CRUZ]
REPUBLIC v. JOSE GAMIR
G.R. No. 218732 Nov 12, 2018 Reyes, J.
Key Words: Eminent Domain,
Created By: Bastian Chua
Expropriation
Topic: Just Compensation
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
Republic of the Philippines Jose Gamir-Consuelo Diaz
DPWH Heirs Association, Inc.
RECIT READY SUMMARY
Respondent Corporation entered into a deed of Deed of Absolute Sale with
the DPWH. The DPWH would take its property for P275k. The corporation
with file with the RTC claiming that the RTC valued the land at its price all the
way back in 1957. Because of this, they want payment of interest from 1957
which was denied by the RTC. The CA would reverse this ruling claiming that
the corporation was entitled to just compensation. The SC would reverse this
ruling because, while the doctrine of just compensation would usually entail
private persons to interest, the corporation entered into a contract with the
DPWH. Since there was no stipulation on interest, the respondents were not
allowed to demand for such because terms of contracts are bunding to the
parties involved.
DOCTRINE
 Eminent Domain is one of the inherent powers of the state which
allows it to take private property for public use even without the
owner’s consent
 It is subject to the limitations in Section 1, Article III of the
Constitution which state no person shall be deprived of property
without due process of law
o Section 9 states that private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation
 Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator, based on the owner's loss
FACTS
 Respondent association is an incorporated corporation composed of
the heirs of Jose Gamir and Consuelo Diaz
o Owned a parcel of land with an area of 1836 square meters
 Aug 9, 2005, the DPWH executed a Deed of Absolute Sale where it
agreed that respondent would sell land for P275,099.24
o Would later be registered under DPWH’s name
o Parcels of land formed Sta. Ana Ave (a national road)
 Nov 15, 2006, respondent filed a complaint before the RTC saying
that the land was wrongly valued (the land’s price was based of its
price back in 1957)
o Respondents have been making demands for interest, but
the DPWH ignored them
o RTC dismissed petition for lack of merit
 Dec 12, 2013, the CA reversed the decision granting respondent’s
petition
o DPWH was required to pay interest to follow the rule of just
compensation
ISSUES – HELD – RATIO
W/N respondent is entitled to receive payment of interest
despite having no stipulation in the Deed of Absolute Sale (N)
The respondents are not owed any interests because there was
no stipulation of legal interest in the Deed of Absolute Sale
between them and the DPWH
While most situations of expropriations entitle private persons to
legal interest, Jose Gamir has no rights to such because they
freely entered into an agreement with the DPWH
Respondents was not compelled to sign the agreement meaning
they knowingly entered into said contract
Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of court state that when
a written contract is presented, all terms are considered as agreed
upon
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The December 12, 2013 Decision
and the· June 9, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
02251-MIN are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The March 4, 2010 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Davao City is REINSTATED.