Eslaban, Jr. vs. Vda. de Onorio

Land granted by virtue of a homestead patent and registered under the Torrens system ceases to be part of the public domain, and its taking for public use thereafter requires payment of just compensation, which must be determined as of the time of taking, not the filing of the complaint.

Respondent owned a 39,512-square-meter lot in South Cotabato, covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title derived from a homestead patent granted in 1960 and registered in 1976. On October 6, 1981, the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) constructed a main irrigation canal affecting a 24,660-square-meter portion of the property. A right-of-way agreement was executed in 1983, and NIA paid for damages to crops and improvements. Respondent executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees. NIA subsequently offered financial assistance, but respondent demanded full compensation for the land taken, which NIA refused.

• Ownership and Registration: Respondent is the owner of a 39,512-square-meter lot in Barangay M. Roxas, Sto. Niño, South Cotabato, covered by TCT No. T-22121. The property was originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-9800 issued pursuant to a homestead patent granted on February 18, 1960, and registered on May 13, 1976.
• Taking of the Property: On October 6, 1981, Santiago Eslaban, Jr., NIA Project Manager, approved the construction of a main irrigation canal on the lot, affecting a 24,660-square-meter portion. Respondent’s husband agreed to the construction provided the government pay for the area taken after Commission on Audit processing.
• Right-of-Way Agreement and Waiver: In 1983, a Right-of-Way agreement was executed. NIA paid P4,180.00 as right-of-way damages. Respondent executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees, waiving compensation for damages to crops and improvements.
• Subsequent Offer and Refusal: Petitioner offered P35,000.00 as financial assistance under Executive Order No. 1035, §18. Respondent demanded full compensation for the taking of the property, which petitioner refused.
• Stipulations: At the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that the area taken was 24,660 square meters, it was a portion of the land covered by TCT No. T-22121, and it had been taken by NIA for the construction of the irrigation canal.

• State Immunity: Petitioner argued that the government had not consented to be sued.
• Homestead Patent: Petitioner maintained that respondent was not entitled to compensation because she secured title over the property by virtue of a homestead patent under C.A. No. 141, implying the land remains subject to public encumbrances.
• Waiver of Rights: Petitioner contended that the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees executed by respondent exempts NIA from making any further payment for the property taken.

• Just Compensation: Respondent argued that she is entitled to just compensation for the 24,660-square-meter portion of her property taken by NIA for its main canal.
• Scope of the Waiver: Respondent countered that the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees pertained only to improvements and crops, not to the value of the land utilized by NIA.

• Forum Shopping: Whether the petition is dismissible for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Public Domain: Whether land granted by virtue of a homestead patent and subsequently registered under Presidential Decree 1529 ceases to be part of the public domain.
• Valuation Date: Whether the value of just compensation shall be determined from the time of the taking or from the time of the finality of the decision.
• Waiver: Whether the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees executed by respondent exempts petitioner from making payment.

• Forum Shopping: The petition was dismissible on this ground alone. The certification against forum shopping was signed by the NIA Administrator, not the principal party or a person duly authorized by board resolution. Rule 7, §5 requires the plaintiff or principal party to execute the certification because they know best whether a prior action involving the same issues exists; a certification signed by counsel alone is defective.
• Public Domain: Land granted by homestead patent and registered under the Torrens system ceases to be part of the public domain. The title is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title for private lands. The encumbrance exception under P.D. No. 1529, §44 for government irrigation canals applies only where the boundaries of such canals have not been pre-determined and the easement is pre-existing at the time of registration. Because the irrigation canal was constructed in 1981, several years after the property's registration in 1976, prior expropriation proceedings and payment of just compensation were required before the taking.
• Valuation Date: Just compensation must be determined as of the time of taking, not the time of the filing of the complaint or finality of the decision. The owner of private property should be compensated only for what is actually lost at the time of the taking; valuation at a later date could unjustly enrich the owner or undercompensate them based on subsequent economic fluctuations. The CA erred in fixing the valuation at the time of the filing of the complaint.
• Waiver: The affidavit of waiver did not exempt NIA from paying for the land. NIA's subsequent disbursement of P4,180.00 for damages to improvements/crops and the Office of the Solicitor General's recommendation of P35,000.00 in financial assistance indicated that the waiver pertained only to improvements and crops, not the land itself.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping — The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the plaintiff or principal party, not by counsel. The principal party knows best whether a prior action involving the same issues has been filed. A certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes valid ground for dismissal. For corporations, the certification must be signed by a person duly authorized by board resolution.
• Alienation of Public Lands — When public lands are alienated, granted, or conveyed to applicants, and the deed of grant or conveyance is registered with the Register of Deeds with the corresponding certificate of title issued, such lands become registered lands under the Torrens System. The certificate of title is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title issued to private lands in ordinary or cadastral registration proceedings.
• Just Compensation as of the Time of Taking — Where an expropriating agency takes possession of property prior to the filing of an expropriation suit, just compensation is determined as of the time of taking, not the time of the filing of the action. The owner is compensated only for the actual value of the property at the time it was taken, ensuring compensation is just to both the individual and the public.

• "Whenever public lands are alienated, granted or conveyed to applicants thereof, and the deed grant or instrument of conveyance [sales patent] registered with the Register of Deeds and the corresponding certificate and owner’s duplicate of title issued, such lands are deemed registered lands under the Torrens System and the certificate of title thus issued is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title issued to private lands in ordinary or cadastral registration proceedings."
• "just compensation means not only the correct amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered 'just' for then the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss."
• "The owner of private property should be compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is taken. This is the only way that compensation to be paid can be truly just, i.e., 'just' not only to the individual whose property is taken, 'but to the public, which is to pay for it' . . . ."

• Far Eastern Shipping Co. v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 30 (1998) — Followed. Cited for the rule that a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes valid cause for dismissal.
• Heirs of Deogracias Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 295 (1985) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that public lands alienated and registered become registered lands under the Torrens System, with titles as indefeasible as those of private lands.
• Heirs of Malfore v. Director of Forestry, 109 Phil. 586 (1960) — Followed. Cited for the rule that where an easement is not pre-existing and is imposed only after land registration, proper expropriation proceedings and just compensation are required.
• Commissioner of Public Highways v. Burgos, 96 SCRA 831 (1980) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the price of the land at the time of taking, not its value after the passage of time, represents the true value to be paid as just compensation.
• Republic v. Lara, 96 Phil. 170 (1954) — Followed. Cited for the rationale that property owners should be compensated only for what they actually lose at the time of the taking, preventing unjust enrichment or undercompensation due to economic changes.

• Rule 7, §5, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to execute the certification against forum shopping. Failure to comply is a cause for dismissal without prejudice. Applied to dismiss the petition because the NIA Administrator signed the certification without board authorization, rendering it defective.
• Rule 45, §§4 and 5, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Extends the requirement of certification against forum shopping to petitions for review on certiorari. Failure to comply is sufficient ground for dismissal.
• P.D. No. 1529, §44 (formerly Land Registration Act, §39) — Provides that registered land is free from encumbrances except those noted on the certificate, including pre-existing public highways or government irrigation canals whose boundaries have not been pre-determined. Interpreted to mean that easements must be pre-existing at the time of registration to be enforceable without compensation; post-registration takings require expropriation.
• Rule 67, §4, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Amended) — Provides that just compensation in expropriation cases is to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. Applied to fix the valuation at the time of taking in 1981, rather than the filing of the complaint in 1990.
• C.A. No. 141 (Public Land Act) — Governs homestead patents. Referenced in the petitioner's argument that land secured under this act remains subject to government encumbrances, an argument rejected by the Court upon finding the land had been registered under the Torrens system.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena, De Leon, Jr.