G.R. No. 193618 - HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO DELFIN AND SOLEDAD DELFIN, NAMELY EMELITA D. FABRIGAR AND LEONILO C. DELFIN, VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and by virtue of the existence of preponderance of evidence, the Court hereby enters a judgment in favor of spouses-plaintiffs Leopoldo Delfin and Soledad Delfin against defendant National Housing Authority, its agents or representative/s ordering to pay the former the following, to wit: 1) P400,000.00 representing the reasonable market value of a portion of the land taken by the defendant containing an area of 10,000 square meters at the rate of P40.00 per square meters plus legal interest per annum from the filing in Court of the complaint until fully paid; 2) P13,360.00 representing the value of the permanent improvements that were damaged and destroyed plus legal interest per annum from the time of the filing of this case until fully paid; 3) P10,000.00, representing attorney's fees; 4) The costs of this suit. [26] The Regional Trial Court stated that it had no reason to doubt the evidence presented by the Delfin Spouses: On this regards (sic), the Court finds no reason to doubt the veracity of the plaintiff['s evidence], there being none to controvert the same. If said. evidence did not ring true, the defendant should have and could have easily destroyed their probatory value. Such indifference can only mean that defendant had not (sic) equitable rights to protect or assert over the disputed property together with all the improvements existing thereon. This, the defendant did not do so and the Court finds no cogent reasons to disbelieve or reject the plaintiffs categorical declarations on the witness stand under a solemn oath, for the same are entitled to full faith and credence. Indeed, if the defendant National Housing Authority have been blinded with the consequence of their neglect and apathy, then defendant have no right to pass on to the spouses-plaintiffs of their negligence and expect the Court to come to their rescue. For it is now much too late in the day to assail the decision which has become final and executory. [27] The National Housing Authority filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but this was denied in the Regional trial Court's September 10, 2002 Resolution. [28] On the National Housing Authority's appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed February 26, 2010 Decision reversing the Regional Trial Court: [29] WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, appellees' complaint for compensation is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The property taken by appellant NHA and for which compensation is sought by appellees is hereby DECLARED land of the public domain. [30] The Court of Appeals ruled that the characterization of the property is no longer an issue because the National Housing Authority already conceded that the property is disposable public land by citing Proclamation No. 2151, which characterized the property as "a certain disposable parcel of public land." [31] However, the Delfin Spouses supposedly failed to establish their possession