REPUBLIC vs.

ANDAYA
GR. No. 160656, June 15, 2007

FACTS: Resondent Ismael Andaya is the registered owner of

two parcels of land in Bading, Butuan City. This property was
subject to a 60-meter wide perpetual easement for public
highways, irrigation ditcher, aqueducts, and other similar works
of the government public enterprise. Petitioner Republic of the
Philippines (Republic) negotiated with Andaya to enforce the
60-meter easement of right-of-way. The parties, however, failed
to reach an agreenent.

Petitioner Republic filed a case for an action for expropriation

and won the case. Per study by the appointed Board of
Commissioners, assigned to determine the just compensation
for the said execution, they found out that there was a
discrepancy in the description of the property. Thus, the
complaint was modified. The 60-meter wide easement
representing 4,443 square meters was reduced to the now 10-
meter wide easement representing 701 square meters. The
amount of just compensation is pegged in the amount of
P2,820,430.00. Respondent demanded the amount of
P11,373,405 just compensation on the fact that the basis should
have been the remaining area of 9,679 square meters.

The court rendered a decision which was appealed by both

parties. The Republilc contested the severance of damages and
attorney’s fees while Andaya demanded just compensation for
his entire property minus the easement. He alleged tha the
easement would prevent ingress and egress to his property and
turn it in to a catch basin for the floodwaters coming from the
Agusan River. As a result it would render his property unusable
and uninhabitable.

CA modified the trial court’s decision by imposing a 6% interest

on the consequential damages from the date of the writ of
possession or the actual taking and by deleting the attorney’s
fee.

ISSUE: Is the Republic liable for just compensation if in

enforcing the legal easement of right-of-way on a property, the
remaining area would be rendered unsuable and uninhabitable?

HELD: Yes the Republic is liable. “Taking” in the exercise of the

power of eminent domain, occurs not only when the
government actually deprives or dispossesses the property
owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there
is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of
his property. Using this standard, there was undoubtedly a
taking of the remaining area of Andaya’s property. True enough,
Andaya retains ownership of the said area but due to the
expropriation, the nature and the effect of the floodwalls would
deprive Andaya of the normal use of the remaining areas. It
would prevent ingress and egress to the property and turn it
into a catch basin for the floodwaters coming from the Agusan
River. For this reason Respondent is entitled to payment of just
compensation which must be neither more or less the monetary
equivalent of the land. Invoking the constitutional mandate no
person shall be deprived of his private property without due
process of law. Clearly, although the Republic will use only 701
square meters. It should not be liable for the 3,742 square
meters, which constitute the difference between this area of 701
square meters and the 4,43 square meters to which it is fully
entitled to use as easement, free of charge except for damages to
affected existing improvements, if any, under Section 112 of the
Public Land Act.

As a result, Republic is liable for just compensation of only the

remaining areas consisting of 5,937 square meters, with interest
thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
wrwit of possession or the actual taking until full payment is
made.
Wherefore the Decision of the CA is hereby affirmed with
Modification. Case remanded to the Regional Trial Court for the
determination of the final just compensation of the
compensable area consisiting of 5,937 square meters, as
mentioned above.