Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22061. January 31, 1968.]

DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (represented by the Land Tenure Administration), Defendant-Appellant.

Luciano M. Maggay, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Besa & Pablo, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EMINENT DOMAIN; EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS; FAILURE OF A FINAL JUDGMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE INDEMNITY FROM THE TIME PROPERTY IS TAKEN; RES JUDICATA. — Where a final judgment in an expropriation proceeding failed to provide for the payment of interest on the indemnity from the time the expropriator takes possession of the property, res judicata bars a subsequent independent action for the recovery of the same. Section 3 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court (Sec. 4, Rule 69 of the old Rules) directs the defendant in an expropriation case to "present in a single motion to dismiss or for other appropriate relief, all of his objections and defenses." . . and if not so presented the same "are waived." The appealed judgment by allowing the collection of interest, in effect amends the final judgment in the expropriation case, a procedure abhorrent to orderly judicial proceedings.

2. ID.; ID.; TAXES FROM THE TIME OF DISPOSSESSION SHOULD BE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT. — From the time that the Republic took possession of the property, it is just and fair that the realty taxes for the years 1959 and onward should be borne by the entity exercising the right of eminent domain, since the owner, while retaining the naked title, was already deprived of the benefits from the land.

3. ID.; ID.; RULE AS TO COSTS OF SUITS; CASE AT BAR. — The rule that costs in cases of eminent domain, except in the case of rival claimants litigating their claims, are charged against the plaintiff (Sec. 12, Rule 67, Rules of Court; Sec. 13, Rule 67 of the old Rules) does not apply to the present case as it is not one of eminent domain, but an ordinary civil action where the Republic of the Philippines is made a party. Section 1 of Rule 142 provides that no costs shall be allowed against the Republic unless otherwise provided by law. No provision of law to the contrary has been cited; hence, costs should be charged against plaintiff Urtula.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Direct appeals, by both the plaintiffs Dalmacio Urtula, Et. Al. and the defendant Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Tenure Administration, now Land Authority, from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, in its Civil Case No. 5306, ordering the defendant to pay interest upon a sum determined by final judgment as compensation for the property expropriated in a previous case of eminent domain between the same parties, Civil Case No. 3837 of the same court.

The facts, as stipulated by the parties, and as found by the court a quo are as follows:clubjuris

The Court of First Instance had rendered judgment on 16 November 1957 in its Civil Case No. 3837, for the expropriation of the Hacienda Quitang, owned by Dalmacio Urtula by the Republic of the Philippines, for the sum of P213,094.00, "and upon making the payment the plaintiff shall take full possession of the land." The Republic appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the amount fixed by the trial court was a just compensation for the property. While the appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, the Republic of the Philippines deposited on 29 July 1958, with the Philippine National Bank the sum of P117,690.00 as provisional value of the land, in accordance with an order of the trial court dated 3 January 1958, and this deposit was withdrawn by Dalmacio Urtula in August of 1958.

Thereafter, on 10 September 1958, the Court of Appeals granted the Republic’s petition to be placed in possession of the property; and under a writ of possession issued by the provincial sheriff of the province, the Land Tenure Administration took actual physical possession of the land in 11 October 1958.

Subsequently, the Court of Appeals found that the issue between the parties was purely one of law and thereby elevated the appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court rendered judgment thereon on 29 November 1960 in case No. L-16028, affirming the appealed judgment of the Court of First Instance, without modification.

The Supreme Court had affirmed, as aforesaid, the decision of the trial court fixing the amount of just compensation for P213,094.00; thus, at the time the decision became final, the balance still due was P95,404.00. Of this balance, the Republic paid Dalmacio Urtula the sum of P5,404.00 on 17 April 1961; but on the same day, Urtula deposited same amount with the Land tenure Administration in payment of taxes and penalties for prior years up to 1958 on the expropriated land and for the surveyor’s fee for segregating one hectare donated by condemnee Urtula for a school site. On liquidation at a later date, an excess in the amount of P423.38 was found, and the Republic refunded this excess to Urtula on 25 September 1961. On 3 May 1961, the Republic paid the remaining balance of P90,000.00.

The taxes due and unpaid, including penalties, on the land for the years 1959, 1960 and 70% of 1961 were computed at a total of P3,534.23 as of 28 February 1962. The interest of 6% on P95,404.00 from 11 October 1958, the date when the condemnor Republic took possession of the land to May 1961, when the final balance was paid to Urtula was also computed at a total of P14,633.52.

On 26 January 1961, the plaintiff demanded payment of the said interest (P14,633.52) but the defendant Republic refused, on the ground that no payment of interest had been ordered in the decision in Civil Case No. 3837, the expropriation proceedings, or in the affirmatory decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-16028.

The parties further stipulated as a fact that the plaintiff had agreed to pay his counsel 10% of the amount recoverable from the defendant, as attorney’s fees.

Upon the foregoing stipulated facts, the trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff Urtula and ordered the defendant Republic to pay P14,633.52 as interest on the balance of P95,404.00 from 11 October 1958 to 3 May 1961 and to pay the costs, but denied the plaintiff’s claims on the land taxes 1 and attorney’s fees.

Both parties were not satisfied with the decision; hence, both appealed to this Court.

Against the defendant Republic’s defense that the final judgment in the expropriation case, which did not provide for interest, operates to bar the present case, by res judicata, the theory of plaintiff Urtula is that there is no identity of causes of action in the said cases.

Thus, Urtula relates his predicaments as follows: that while the expropriation case was pending before the trial court, he could not claim interest because the Republic had not as yet taken possession of the land and the rule is that interest accrues from the time of such taking; but when the Republic took possession, the case was already on appeal and he could not ask relief because he was not an appellant nor could he raise the issue of interest for the first time on appeal, aside from his being impeded by the rule that proof with respect to the taking of possession had to be adduced before the trial court, not the appellate court.

Urtula’s dilemma lies in his mistaken concept of the nature of the interest that he failed to claim in the expropriation case and which he now claims in this separate case. Said interest is not contractual, nor based on delict or quasi-delict, but one that —

"runs as a matter of law and follows as a matter of course from the right of the landowner to be placed in as good a position as money can accomplish, of the date of the taking" (30 C.J.S. 230).

Understood as such, Urtula, as defendant in the expropriation case, could have raised the matter of interest before the trial court even if there had been no actual taking yet by the Republic and the said court could have included the payment of interest in its judgment but conditioned upon the actual taking, because the rate of interest upon the amount of just compensation (6%) is a known factor, and it can reasonably be expected that at some future time, the expropriator would take possession of the property, though the date be not fixed. In this way, multiple suits would be avoided. Moreover, nothing prevented appellee from calling the attention of the appellate courts (even by motion to reconsider before judgment became final) to the subsequent taking of possession by the condemnor, and asking for allowance of interest on the indemnity, since that followed the taking as a matter of course, and raised no issue requiring remand of the records to the Court of origin.

As the issue of interest could have been raised in the former case but was not raised, res judicata blocks the recovery of interest in the present case. (Tejedor v. Palet, 61 Phil. 494; Phil. Engineering Corp., Et. Al. v. Ceniza, etc., Et Al., L-17834, 29 Sept. 1962) It is settled that a former judgment constitutes a bar, as between the parties, not only as to matters expressly adjudged, but all matters that could have been adjudged at the time (Rule 39, sec. 49; Corda v. Maglinti, L-17476, Nov. 30, 1961; Rodriguez v. Tan, 48 Off. Gaz. 3330) It follows that interest upon the unrecoverable interest, which plaintiff also seeks, cannot, likewise, be granted.

It is not amiss to note that Section 3 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court (Sec. 4, Rule 69 of the old Rules), in fact, directs the defendant in an expropriation case to "present in a single motion to dismiss or for other appropriate relief, all of his objections and defenses . . ." and if not so presented "are waived" (Emphasis supplied) 2 As it is, the judgment allowing the collection of interest, now under appeal, in effect amends the final judgment in the expropriation case, a procedure abhorrent to orderly judicial proceedings.

The Republic took possession on 11 October 1958. From this date, therefore, the owner, while retaining the naked title, was deprived of the benefits from the land and it is just and fair that the realty taxes for the years 1959 and onward should be borne by the entity exercising the right of eminent domain, (City of Manila v. Roxas, 60 Phil. 215). Costs in cases of eminent domain, except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, are charged against the plaintiff (Sec. 12, Rule 67, Rules of Court; Sec. 13, Rule 67 of the old Rules) But the present case is not one of eminent domain but an ordinary civil action where the Republic of the Philippines is a party. Section 1 of Rule 142 provides that no costs shall be allowed against it, unless otherwise provided by law. No provision of law providing the contrary has been cited; hence, costs should be charged against plaintiff Urtula.

For the foregoing reasons, the appealed judgment is reversed and the case dismissed, with costs against the plaintiffs Dalmacio Urtula, Et. Al.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The defendant Republic was the one that prayed, in a counterclaim, for the payment of land taxes. (Rec. on App., pp. 21-23).

2. Such a provision was not provided on the old Code of Civil Procedure, Act 190.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.