G.R. No. 178431 - V.C. PONCE COMPANY, INC., VS. MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE AND SAMPAGUITA HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED . Public respondent judges Decision dated 10 March 2005 and Order dated 15 August 2005 in Civil Case No. 94-0009 for Expropriation are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED . [5] The assailed June 4, 2007 Resolution denied VCPs Motions for Extension of Time to file motion for reconsideration, and consequently, dismissed its Motion for Reconsideration for belated filing. [6] Factual Antecedents On October 5, 1987, respondent Municipality (now City) of Parañaque (municipality) filed a complaint [7] against petitioner VCP for the expropriation of its property, which is located in the municipalitys Barrio San Dionisio and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 116554. [8] The municipality intended to develop the property for its landless residents, in line with the Presidential Commission on Urban Poors classification of the site as an area of priority development. [9] Respondent Sampaguita Hills Homeowners Association, Inc. (SHHAI), consisting of the propertys actual occupants, who are also the intended beneficiaries of the action, intervened in the case. [10] On August 23, 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque, Branch 274, sustained the municipalitys right to expropriate the said property [11] and to a writ of possession. [12] The trial court also informed the parties in the same Order of the reckoning period for the determination of just compensation, thus: The defenses having thus been ruled [upon], the Court hereby declares that the plaintiff has the lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. [13] The parties did not file any objection to the above Order and proceeded to submit the names of their respective nominees for commissioner. On February 26, 2003, the trial court appointed three commissioners [14] to assist in ascertaining the just compensation. [15] The trial court defined the scope of the commissioners work as follows: (1) [T]o undertake the evaluation for purposes of determining just compensation on the property as described and delineated in paragraph 3 of the amended complaint, taking into consideration several factors for assessment with reckoning time of the filing of the complaint and the taking of the property and incidental periods reasonable and fair in determining just compensation; [16] On March 15, 2004, commissioners Bienvenido Reyes and Jose Marleo Del Rosario informed the trial court that VCP did not participate in the meetings despite notification [17] and that, due to time constraints, [18] the commissioners denied [19] VCPs request for an additional four months to submit its independent valuation of the property. [20] The commissioners also informed the court that Cenon Astudillo, VCPs choice for commissioner, did not contribute to the comm