G.R. No. 171496 REPUBLIC v. ORTIGAS 717 SCRA 601

REPUBLIC v. ORTIGAS
G.R. No. 171496

717 SCRA 601

March 03, 2014

FACTS: Respondent Ortigas caused the segregation of its property and reserved one portion for road widening. It designated Lot 5-B-2-A-1 which was  actually used for road widening and it was not compensated for the use of its property.

Respondent filed with the RTC of Pasig a petition for authority to sell to the government the said lot and alleged that the DPWH requested the conveyance of the property for road widening purposes.

Petitioner filed an opposition, alleging that respondent Ortigas’ property can only be conveyed by way of donation to the government, citing Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration Decree.

ISSUE: Whether respondent Ortigas’ property should be conveyed to the Republic of the Philippines only by donation.

RULING: No. Respondent Ortigas may sell its property to the government. It must be compensated because its property was taken and utilized for public road purposes.

Petitioner’s reliance on the Property Registration Decree is erroneous. It contemplates roads and streets in a subdivided property, not public thoroughfares built on a private property that was taken from an owner for public purpose.

As a rule, when there is taking of private property for some public purpose, the owner of the property taken is entitled to be compensated.

There is taking when the following elements are present:

1. The government must enter the private property;

2. The entrance into the private property must be indefinite or permanent;

3. There is color of legal authority in the entry into the property;

4. The property is devoted to public use or purpose;

5. The use of property for public use removed from the owner all beneficial enjoyment of the property.

All of the above elements are present in this case. Petitioner construction of a road — a permanent structure — on respondent Ortigas’ property for the use of the general public is an obvious permanent entry on petitioner Republic of the Philippines’ part. Given that the road was constructed for general public use gives it public character, and coursing the entry through the DPWH gives it a color of legal authority. As a result, respondent may not anymore use the property for whatever legal purpose it may desire. In other words, respondent was effectively deprived of all the bundle of rights attached to ownership of property.

Hence, respondent Ortigas’ property should be conveyed to the Republic of the Philippines with just compensation.