Republic vs. Frias

In expropriation proceedings, a party's right to procedural due process is not violated when it is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard through pleadings, and it acquiesces to the dispensation of the mandatory Board of Commissioners. The determination of just compensation, when based on competent evidence and affirmed by the appellate court, is a factual finding generally binding on the Supreme Court.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the DPWH, instituted expropriation proceedings for a 468 sq. m. parcel of land in Butuan City owned by Edesio T. Frias, Sr., for the Cotabato-Agusan River Basin Development Project. A Writ of Possession was issued in 2006 after the Republic deposited the assessed value. The parties attempted but failed to reach a compromise agreement over several years, with multiple postponements granted at the Republic's request due to lack of funds. In 2014, upon motion by Frias and without objection from the Republic's counsel, the trial court dispensed with the appointment of a Board of Commissioners and ordered the submission of position papers.

• Nature of the Action: The Republic filed an expropriation case to acquire Frias's land for a public infrastructure project.
• Procedural Posture & Delay: After the writ of possession was issued, the parties attempted to negotiate a compromise. The Republic requested numerous postponements over eight years (2006-2014) due to lack of funds, delaying the determination of just compensation.
• Dispensation of Commissioners: During a hearing on August 29, 2014, Frias's counsel moved to dispense with the appointment of a Board of Commissioners (BOC). The Republic's counsel interposed no objection. The trial court granted the motion to expedite proceedings and ordered position papers.
• Evidence Submitted: The Republic submitted the tax declaration (market value P90.00/sq. m.) and BIR zonal valuation (P263.14/sq. m.). Frias claimed P980.00/sq. m. based on alleged developments and submitted a Deed of Absolute Sale between the Republic and a third party (Cruzita Montejo-Taala) for a 300 sq. m. lot in the same area, used for a similar DPWH project.
• RTC Decision: The RTC set just compensation at P737.83/sq. m., relying on the comparable sale. It awarded P345,304.44 plus legal interest.
• Republic's Claim on Appeal: The Republic argued it was denied due process because the BOC was not convened and it was not given a chance to scrutinize the authenticity of the Deed of Absolute Sale, which it deemed hearsay.

• Due Process Violation: Petitioner argued that its right to due process was infringed when the RTC dispensed with the mandatory BOC and denied it the opportunity to scrutinize the authenticity and veracity of the Deed of Absolute Sale submitted by Frias.
• Improper Valuation: Petitioner maintained that the RTC erred in using the Deed of Absolute Sale as a basis for just compensation because it was unauthenticated and constituted hearsay evidence. It contended that just compensation should be based on the tax declaration and zonal valuation.

• Waiver of Due Process Right: Respondent countered that the Republic's counsel explicitly did not object to the motion to dispense with the BOC, thereby waiving any objection on that ground.
• Opportunity to Be Heard: Respondent argued that the Republic was given ample opportunity (nine months) to comment on or object to the position paper and attached documents, including the Deed of Sale, but failed to do so.
• Proper Basis for Valuation: Respondent contended that the Deed of Sale for a similarly situated property constituted competent evidence for determining fair market value, a factor under R.A. 8974.

• Due Process: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Republic's right to due process was not violated by the trial court's decision to dispense with the Board of Commissioners and its handling of evidence.
• Just Compensation: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the amount of just compensation determined by the trial court based on a comparable deed of sale.

• Due Process: The Republic's right to due process was not violated. Procedural due process requires notice and a real opportunity to be heard, which can be satisfied through pleadings. The Republic was given every opportunity to be heard but acquiesced to dispensing with the BOC and failed to object to the submitted evidence for nine months. Furthermore, any defect was cured by the Republic's filing of a motion for reconsideration and appeal.
• Just Compensation: The determination of just compensation was proper. The trial court's factual finding, affirmed by the CA, was based on a consideration of all relevant factors, including a comparable sale, and was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious. The Republic did not argue the amount was grossly exorbitant. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court.

• Due Process in Expropriation Proceedings — The essence of procedural due process is the opportunity to explain one's side, which may be through pleadings. A party cannot claim denial of due process if given a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The appointment of commissioners is mandatory, but the right to it may be waived.
• Judicial Function of Determining Just Compensation — The determination of just compensation is a judicial function requiring the reception and evaluation of reliable and actual data. Trial courts must be circumspect, considering the expenditure of public funds.
• Factual Findings of Lower Courts — Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts.

• "The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. Procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."
• "A party cannot invoke deprivation of due process if he or she was given the opportunity of a hearing, through either oral arguments or pleadings. The hearing does not have to be a trial-type proceeding in all situations."
• "The Republic's inaction for nine months cannot be brushed aside now for the simple fact that it has been afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard and yet it failed to exercise the same."
• "The determination of just compensation is a judicial function because what is sought to be determined is a full, just, and fair value due to the owner of a condemned property with an equally important consideration that the payment of the same entails the expenditure of public funds."

• Landbank of the Phils. v. Manzano, 824 Phil. 339 (2018) — Cited to support the ruling that a party is not deprived of due process when given every reasonable opportunity to ventilate its claims through pleadings.
• Republic v. Spouses Silvestre, G.R. No. 237324, February 6, 2019 — Cited for the principle that the appointment of commissioners in expropriation is a mandatory requirement that cannot be done away with capriciously.
• Zalamea v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 195433, January 15, 2020 — Cited for the doctrine that any defect in procedural due process is cured when the party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration.
• The Manila Banking Corp. v. Bases Conversion & Dev't. Authority, 824 Phil. 193 (2018) — Cited for the definition of just compensation as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken.

• Section 5, Republic Act No. 8974 (Government Procurement Reform Act) — Provides the standards for the assessment of the value of land subject to expropriation, including the current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity. The trial court applied this factor by considering the comparable Deed of Sale.

The decision was concurred in by: - Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (as Chairperson) - Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa - Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting - Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda - Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez

N/A — The decision was unanimous.