Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

110 Phil 262:

1. EMINENT DOMAIN; EXPROPRIATION; MARKET VALUE, DETERMINATION OF; ASSESSMENT VALUE FIXED BY ASSESSOR NOT BINDING UPON LANDOWNERS AND MAY NOT BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF MARKET VALUE. — Commonwealth Act 530, and our ruling in Manila Railroad Co. v. Alano, 36 Phil. 500, in considering assessment valuation as prima facie evidence of market values, proceed on the assumption that such values were based on the sworn statements of the owners; but where the assessment was fixed by the provincial assessor and not by the landowners themselves, the valuation cannot be deemed binding on said landowners and may not be considered prima facie evidence of the market value of the property sought to be expropriated.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXPERT OPINIONS; NOT BINDING UPON LANDOWNERS. — It would be unfair for the landowners to hold them bound by the opinion of the experts that they had no opportunity to confront or cross- examine for the purpose of showing that the opinion was premises on false or mistaken data or was otherwise illogical.

3. EXPERT OPINIONS; PROBATIVE VALUE DEPENDS UPON COGENCY OF REASON SUPPORTING IT. — It is elementary that the value of expert opinions depends upon the cogency of the reasons supporting the same (U.S. v. Rosel, 24 Phil., 594; People v. Palalon, 49 Phil., 177).

These are expropriation proceedings initiated by the Land Tenure Administration, pursuant to Republic Act 1400, against Dalmacio Urtula for condemnation of a big tract of land with an area of 213.0940 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30 of the Registry of Property of Camarines Sur, located in barrio Itulan and Quitang, municipality of Pasacao, Camarines Sur. Defendant did not contest plaintiff’s right to expropriate, whereupon three (3) commissioners were, in due course, appointed by the court below. After receiving the evidence of the parties and conducting an ocular inspection, the commissioners submitted their report appraising the value of the property of P1,000.00 per hectare, or a total of P213,094.00, including improvements. Approving the report over plaintiff’s objection, judgment was rendered by the court, ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the said amount of P213,094.00 for the land and its improvements.

The only question presented in this appeal is the reasonable market value of the property, plaintiff-appellant claiming that it should be appraised at P670 or, at the most, P750 per hectare; while defendant-appellee claims that its value should be, as found by the lower court, P1,000.00 per hectare.

It would appear that of the total area, 130.0940 hectares are planted to coconut trees; 65 hectares are riceland allegedly producing from 40-45 cavans per hectares; 15 hectares, upland riceland allegedly producing from 35-40 cavans per hectares; and 3 hectares are occupied by the tenants as a homesite (Report of Commissioners; Briefs for both parties). The Commissioners’ Report further lists 16,633 fruit-bearing coconut trees (Appendix "A"), and 2,105 coconut trees not yet fruit- bearing, all these planted in an area of 130.0940 hectares, 50 hectares of which are lowland. Also, the following appears as improvements:clubjuris

(1) Shed of strong materials, galvanized roofing (4 X 16 meters)

(2) 2 camarins (5 x 12 & 5 x 16 meters, respectively)

(3) steel fence

(4) poultry

(5) water pump

(6) residential or administration building (semi-concrete, galvanized roofing, 16 X 10 meters)

It is significant that the report of the expropriation commissioners was unanimous, bearing the unqualified approval of the commissioner representing the Land Tenure Administration. The latter, however, contends that their valuation is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and in this Court relies for support upon the assessed valuation, the report of the sale on May 18, 1956 of an allegedly similar parcel of land on May 18, 1956 of an allegedly similar parcel of land of 49.8272 hectares to one Jose Goc for P35,000.00 or roughly P702 per hectare (Exhibit C).

We do not find that this evidence establishes the valuation contended for by the Land Tenure Administration. In the first place, the assessed value of P117,690.00 appears to have been fixed by the provincial assessor and not by the landowners themselves, as may be seen from the back of the assessment sheet, Exhibit B. Consequently, the valuation cannot be deemed binding on the landowners, since they were not shown to have intervened in fixing it. Commonwealth Act 530, and our ruling in Manila Railroad Co. v. Alano, 36 Phil., 500, in considering assessment valuations as prima facie evidence of market values, proceed on the assumption that such value were based on the sworn statements of the owners. There is no evidence here that the assessment was based on the owner’s estimates so as to make it binding upon them.

As to the estimates of the Provincial Appraisal Committee, we note that none of the members thereof testified before the expropriation commissioners or the Court below. The record is bereft to any data to show how the Committee arrived at the values set in their appraisal (Exhibit D), and granting the Competency of the committee members to pass upon and determine market values, their bare opinion is not adequate to overthrow that of the expropriation commissioners. It is elementary that the value of expert opinion depends upon the cogency of the reasons supporting the same (U.S. v. Rosel, 24 Phil., 594; People v. Palalon, 49 Phil., 177). It would be unfair for the landowners to hold them bound by the opinion of experts that they had no opportunity to confront or cross-examine for the purpose of showing that the opinion of was premised on false or mistaken data or was otherwise illogical.

Finally, it was preponderantly shown at the hearings before the commissioners that the land sold to Jose Goc (Exh. C) (unlike the one here involved) was uncultivated in two-fifths (2/5) of its total area; so that the true value per hectare of the cultivated portion can not be determined by simply dividing the total area sold by the purchase price. It was testified that to fully cultivate the entire extent of the land would require an additional investment of P10,000.00 at least. Even disregarding the increase in price due to this portion’s coming into production, adding this cost of cultivation of the 2/5 to the price of P35,000.00 would result in a total cost of P45,000.00 for the 49 odd hectares, or over 900 pesos per hectare. This value is remarkably close to the value set by the commissioners in this case, taking into account the value of the improvements existing in the land under litigation.

In view of the deficiencies in the appellant’s evidence, we find no adequate reason for disturbing the unanimous valuation of the commissioners, as approved by the Court below after hearing the parties.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. No costs in this instance.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, Gutiérrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.