Republic v.

Vda De Castellvi
[G.R. No. L-20620. August 15, 1974.]

FACTS: By virtue of a lease agreement on a year-to-year basis, the Republic of the Philippines
occupied the land of Carmen de Castellvi from July 1947 to 1956. Before the expiration of the said
agreement, the Republic sought to renew the same but Castellvi refused.

The AFP refused to vacate the leased premises after the termination of the contract because it
would difficult for the army to vacate the premises in view of the permanent installations and
other facilities worth almost P500,000.00 that were erected and already established on the
property.

When the AFP refused, the respondent wrote a letter to the Chief of Staff informing the latter that
the heirs of the property had decided not to continue leasing the property in question because
they had decided to subdivide the land for sale to the general public. A follow up letter was sent.
However, the AFP did not heed to it.

Respondent then brought suit to eject the Philippine Air Force from the land. While this ejectment
case was pending, the Republic filed on June 1959 complaints for eminent domain against the
respondents over the 3 parcels of land.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION [Among other things]

 The fair market value of the above-mentioned lands, according to the Committee on
Appraisal for the Province of Pampanga, was not more than P2,000 per hectare.
 The taking of the land should be reckoned from the year 1947, Republic entered into a lease
agreement with the respondent. Hence, just compensation should be given based on the fair
market value of the said lands in the said year.
 According to the lease agreement, the Republic has been granted the right and privilege to
buy the property should the lessor wish to terminate the lease and the permanent
improvements amounting to 500K during a period of 12 years on the land subject to
expropriation, were all indicative of an agreement pattern of permanency and stability of
occupancy by the PH Air Force in the interest of national security.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
 The land in question, being a residential land, had a fair market value of P15 per square
meter, so it had a total market value of PHP11,389,485
 Taking of the property under the power of eminent domain commenced with the filing of
this action as it requires two essential elements, to wit:
1. Entrance and occupation by the condemnor upon the private property for more than a
momentary or limited period
2. Devoting it to a public use in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all
beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Regional Trial Court: The Court ordered the Republic to take immediate possession of the lands
upon deposit of that amount with the Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga.

ISSUE: Whether the taking of the property of the respondent took place in the year 1947 when
the lease agreement was entered into OR 1957, when the instant petition was filed.
RULING: The Court ruled that the contention of the petitioner is untenable and that the taking of
the property took place in 1957, when the instant petition was filed.

The Court ratiocinated that for taking of property for purposes of eminent domain, the following
circumstances should be present, to wit: (1) the expropriator must enter the private property; (2)
the entrance into the private property must be for more than a momentary period; (3) the entry
into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority; (4) the property must be
devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected and; (5) the
utilization of the property for the public must be in such a way to oust the owner and deprive him
of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
In the case at bar:
1. The expropriator must enter the private property. – PRESENT.
In the case at bar, the Republic, through the AFP, and by virtue of the lease agreement took
possession of the property of the defendant.

2. The entrance into the private property must be for more than a momentary period –
ABSENT.
The Court defined “momentary period” as to mean a limited period not indefinite or
permanent. In the case at bar, the entry on the property, under the lease, is temporary, and
considered as transitory. In addition, the fact that the Republic construed some installations of
a permanent in nature does not alter the fact that the entry into the land was transitory or
intended to last a year, although renewable from year to year by consent of the owner of the
land.

NOTE: The counter argument of the petitioner that the lessee intends to occupy the land
permanently, as inferred from the construction of permanent improvements has no basis. This
intention cannot prevail over the clear and express terms of the lease contract. Intent is to be
deduced from the language of the terms of the contract, when unambiguous.

3. The entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority –
PRESENT.
In the case at bar, the Republic enters the property as lessee.

4. The property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or

injuriously affected – PRESENT.
In the case at bar, the property was used by the air force of the AFP.

5. The utilization of the property for the public must be in such a way to oust the owner and
deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property – ABSENT.
In the case at bar, the entry of the Republic and its utilization of it did not oust the respondent
nor deprive her as owner, and was continuously recognized as owner by the Republic, as
shown by the renewal of the lease contract whereby the Republic undertook to return the
property to the respondent when the lease was terminated. He was not also deprived of all the
beneficial enjoyment of the property, because the Republic was bound to pay, and had been
paying.

Based on the foregoing, the taking of the respondent’s property cannot be considered to have taken
place in 1947 when the Republic commenced to occupy the property as lessee. Therefore, the just
compensation to be paid for the said property should not be determined on the basis of the value fo
the property as of that year.