Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! My name is Ricardo Cruz. My family has owned a piece of land in Batangas since my grandparents’ time, evidenced by an old TCT. Recently, while sorting through family documents, we realized that a significant portion of this land was used back in the early 1970s to build a provincial road, which is still being used today. We have no records of any sale, donation, or expropriation process initiated by the government at that time. My father, who passed away last year, sometimes mentioned this vaguely but never pursued it, perhaps thinking it was too late or too complicated.

We are now wondering if, after all these years (almost 50 years!), we still have any right to claim payment for the portion of land the government took. We consulted a local appraiser who estimated the current market value of that portion to be quite substantial, around PHP 3,000,000. However, someone told us that if we can claim, it might only be based on the land’s value back in the 1970s, which would be significantly lower, maybe just a few thousand pesos.

Is it true that our claim might have expired because so much time has passed? And if we can still claim, how would the compensation be calculated? Would it be based on today’s value or the value from the 1970s? It seems unfair if we only get the old value after the government used our land without permission for decades. We are confused about our rights and would appreciate any guidance you can provide. Thank you po.

Respectfully,
Ricardo Cruz

Dear Ricardo,

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your family’s situation. It’s understandable that you feel confused and concerned about the land taken for the road project decades ago. Dealing with historical property issues involving government actions can indeed be complex.

In situations like yours, where the government takes private property for public use without formal expropriation proceedings or payment, the landowner generally retains the right to seek just compensation. Importantly, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the landowner’s action to claim this compensation does not prescribe or get barred by the mere passage of time (laches). However, the determination of the amount of ‘just compensation’ typically follows the value of the property at the time of the actual taking (in your case, the 1970s), not its current market value. While this might seem disadvantageous, the law provides for the payment of legal interest from the time of taking until full payment, which can significantly increase the total amount due.

When Public Use Meets Private Property: Understanding Just Compensation

The situation you described involves the fundamental power of the State known as eminent domain – the government’s inherent right to take private property for public use. However, this power is not absolute. The Philippine Constitution mandates that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This safeguard ensures that individual property owners do not bear the sole burden of public improvements that benefit society as a whole.

When the government takes property, it typically initiates formal expropriation proceedings. This process ensures due process and determines the fair amount payable to the owner. However, sometimes, as possibly happened in your case, the government occupies and utilizes the property for public use without initiating these proceedings and without paying compensation. This is often referred to as an ‘inverse condemnation’ when the landowner is the one who has to file a case to demand payment.

A critical question arises: What constitutes ‘taking’ in the legal sense? The Supreme Court has clarified this:

There is taking when the expropriator enters private property not only for a momentary period but for a permanent duration, or for the purpose of devoting the property to public use in such a manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.

Based on your description, the construction and continuous use of the provincial road on your family’s land since the 1970s clearly falls under this definition of taking.

Now, regarding your concern about the delay – has your family lost the right to claim compensation after nearly 50 years? Philippine jurisprudence is quite clear on this point. The owner’s right to recover the value of the property taken by the government without due process is generally not defeated by prescription or laches (unreasonable delay).

Neither shall prescription bar respondents’ claim following the long-standing rule “that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner’s action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe.”

Since the return of the property is no longer feasible (as it’s now an integral part of a public highway), your remaining remedy is indeed the payment of just compensation. The pivotal issue then becomes: how is ‘just compensation’ determined when the taking happened decades ago?

The general rule consistently applied by the courts is that just compensation is based on the fair market value of the property at the time of the actual taking. Fair market value is understood as the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller under ordinary circumstances.

Just compensation is “the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, x x x fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.” This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for compensation.

Why this rule? The rationale is that the owner should be compensated for what they actually lost at the time they lost it. Subsequent increases in value, potentially due to the very public project the land was used for, or general economic conditions, are not typically included in the base valuation. The aim is to restore the owner to the financial position they would have been in had the taking not occurred at that specific time. While this might seem unfair when payment is delayed significantly, the concept of just compensation aims for fairness not only to the owner but also to the public, which ultimately bears the cost.

However, the story doesn’t end there. Because the government took the property without due process and without timely payment, the law recognizes that the owner suffered damages due to the delay and the deprivation of their property or its value. To compensate for this, the owner is entitled to legal interest on the determined just compensation (based on the value at the time of taking).

For said illegal taking, respondents are entitled to adequate compensation in the form of actual or compensatory damages which in this case should be the legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the value of the land at the time of taking… until full payment. This is based on the principle that interest runs as a matter of law and follows from the right of the landowner to be placed in as good position as money can accomplish, as of the date of taking.

Therefore, while the principal amount of compensation will likely be based on the 1970s value, the 6% annual interest calculated from the time of taking in the 1970s up to the point of full payment can accumulate into a substantial sum, potentially exceeding the current market value in some cases, depending on the base value and the length of the delay.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Gather Documentation: Collect all evidence of ownership (the TCT is crucial), old tax declarations around the time of taking (if available, as they might indicate historical value), and any communication or records related to the property and the road construction.
• Establish the Time of Taking: Try to pinpoint the exact year or period in the 1970s when the government actually occupied the land for the road. This date is critical for calculating both the base value and the interest.
• Determine Historical Value: Research or consult experts (like licensed appraisers familiar with historical valuations or government records like the Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal valuations, if available for that period) to estimate the fair market value of the land back in the specific year it was taken.
• Understand the Compensation Formula: Be prepared that the principal compensation will likely be based on the 1970s value. Your main financial recovery might come from the accumulated legal interest (6% per annum) calculated over ~50 years.
• Formal Demand: Consider sending a formal demand letter to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) or the relevant local government unit, asserting your claim for just compensation plus legal interest.
• Legal Counsel: Given the complexities of historical claims and dealing with government agencies, it is highly advisable to consult with a lawyer experienced in land disputes and expropriation cases to guide you through the process, whether it involves negotiation or filing a formal court action.
• Negotiation vs. Litigation: Explore the possibility of negotiating a settlement with the concerned government agency first. Litigation can be lengthy and costly, although sometimes necessary if negotiations fail.

Your family’s situation highlights a recurring issue where development sometimes proceeds without strict adherence to legal processes for property acquisition. While the path to claiming compensation might seem daunting, especially given the time elapsed, the law does provide a remedy. The key is understanding how compensation is calculated and persistently pursuing your rightful claim, particularly the significant interest accrued over the decades.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.