The Constitution is explicit that taking of private property is not valid absent the payment of just compensation. In the time of the Build, Build, Build Program of the current administration, landowners must be armed of the knowledge of requiring payment of just compensation for the taking of their private property by the Government or entities performing expropriation functions.
While as a rule, the expropriating agency should pay just compensation for the taking of private property, not all taking is compensable.
Section 112 of the Commonwealth Act No. 141 (CA 141), otherwise known as Public Land Act, subjects lands covered by a title issued in accordance with said law to an easement of right-of-way not exceeding sixty (60) meters on width. Said easement is allotted to government, public, or quasi-public projects and structures, including the areas and sites for government projects for resident and/or project engineers and workers.
Said easement subsists even if the lot previously covered by a free patent under CA 141 has been subsequently registered under an original certificate of title and transfer certificate of title (Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Regulto, G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016; National Irrigation Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114348, September 20, 2000).
In several decisions of the Supreme Court, it was ruled that the Government is under no obligation to pay the landowner when it invokes its right of way under Section 112, CA 141 (Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Alforte, G.R. No. 217051, August 22, 2018; Bartolata v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 223334, June 7, 2017, Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Regulto). This is because it does not fall within the definition of compensable taking.
However, the landowner is entitled to compensation for the structures and improvements existing thereon. Moreover, the landowner is entitled to financial assistance, to be determined by the implementing agency or instrumentality and in consultation with the Commission on Audit and the Assessor’s Office, pursuant to Section 8 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10752, or the Right-of-Way Act, in relation to the second paragraph of Section 18 of EO No. 1035.
While as a rule the landowner is not entitled to just compensation for the affected portion within the sixty-meter easement, the Supreme Court has carved out an exception: when the integrity of the remaining lot is affected, compensation can be claimed as it is tantamount to “taking” under the law. In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Spouses Alforte, the petitioner, through the DPWH, required 127 square meters for its road project out of the 300-square meter property of the respondents. According to the Court, just compensation must be awarded to the respondents because the project required nearly half of the whole property and thus rendered the remaining portion of the land materially impaired. The Supreme Court ruled that the “taking” by the DPWH affected the integrity of the whole property and thus entitles the respondents the payment of just compensation.
In such instance, the landowner can claim just compensation since the property is no longer of beneficial use or the value of the remaining portion has been materially impaired.
Juris Supellectilem 