ISSUE:

Whether the RTCs May 23, 2011 decision in Civil Case No. 04-0876 is null and void for violation
of PIATCO, Takenaka and Asahikosans right to procedural due process.

The parties were afforded procedural

due process despite their non-receipt
of the BOC Final Report prior to
the promulgation of the RTCs
May 23, 2011 Decision.

Before ruling on the substantive issues posed, we first resolve the issue of whether the CA erred
in ruling that the RTCs May 23, 2011 decision is valid.

PIATCO, Takenaka and Asahikosan challenge the validity of the RTCs decision for alleged
violation of their right to due process. They point out that the RTC promulgated its decision in
Civil Case No. 04-0876 on May 23, 2011, immediately after the release of the BOCs Final Report
on March 31, 2011. They complain that since the RTCs clerk of court did not furnish the parties
copies of the Final Report, the trial court violated Sections 7 and 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court
as they failed to object to the Final Reports contents.

Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that the clerk of court shall serve copies of the
commissioners final report on all interested parties upon the filing of the report. Each party shall
have ten days within which to file their objections to the reports findings.170cralawrednad

Upon the expiration of the ten-day period or after all the parties have filed their objections and
after hearing, the trial court may: (a) accept the report and render judgment in accordance
therewith; (b) for cause shown, recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of
facts; (c) set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; (d) partially accept the report; and
(e) make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential
to the exercise of his right of expropriation; and to the defendant, the just compensation for the
property so taken.171cralawrednad

We rule that the parties failure to receive the Final Report did not render the May 23, 2011
Decision null and void.

The essence of procedural due process is the right to be heard.172 The procedural due process
requirements in an eminent domain case are satisfied if the parties are given the opportunity to
present their evidence before the commissioners whose findings (together with the pleadings,
evidence of the parties, and the entire record of the case) are reviewed and considered by the
expropriation court. It is the parties total failure to present evidence on just compensation that
renders the trial courts ruling void. The opportunity to present evidence during the trial remains
to be the vital requirement in the observance of due process.173cralawrednad
The record will show that the parties exhaustively discussed their positions in this case before the
BOC, the trial court, the appellate court, and this Court. They had ample opportunity to refute
and respond to each others positions with the aid of their own appraisers and experts. Each party,
in fact, submitted countervailing evidence on the valuation of the NAIA-IPT III. They also filed
numerous and voluminous pleadings and motions before the lower courts and before this Court.

The mere failure of the RTCs clerk of court to send the parties copies of the BOC Final Report is
not substantial enough under the attendant circumstances to affect and nullify the whole
proceedings. Litigation is not a game of technicalities. Strong public interests require that this
Court judiciously and decisively settle the amount of just compensation in the expropriation of
the NAIA-IPT III. We cannot further delay this more-than-a-decade case and let interests accrue
on just compensation by remanding the case once more to the trial court.