piatco

7/23/2019 piatco

1/67

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

EN BANC

G.R. No. 166429 December 19, 2005

REPUBLIC O T!E P!ILIPPINES, Re"re#e$%e& b' E(ec)%*+e Secre%r' E&)r&o R. Erm*%, %-eDEPRTMENT O TRNSPORTTION ND COMMUNICTIONS /DOTC, $& %-e MNILINTERNTIONL IRPORT UT!ORIT /MI,Petitioners,vs.!ON. !ENRIC . GINGOON, I$ -*# c"c*%' # Pre#*&*$3 )&3e o %-e Re3*o$ Tr* Co)r%, Br$c-117, P#' C*%' $& P!ILIPPINE INTERNTIONL IR TERMINLS CO., INC.,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TING, J.8

The Nino A!uino Intern"tion"l Airport P"ssen#er Ter$in"l III %NAIA &' ("s conceived, desi#ned "nd constructed toserve "s the countr)s sho( (indo( to the (orld. Re#rett"bl, it h"s sp"(ned controversies. Re#rett"bl too, despitethe "pp"rent co$pletion of the ter$in"l co$ple* (" b"c+ it h"s not et been oper"ted. This h"s c"usedi$$e"sur"ble econo$ic d"$"#e to the countr, not to $ention its deplor"ble discredit in the intern"tion"l co$$unit

In the first c"se th"t re"ched this Court,Agan v. PIATCO,the contr"cts (hich the -overn$ent h"d (ith thecontr"ctor (ere voided for bein# contr"r to l"( "nd public polic. The second c"se no( before the Court involves the$"tter of ust co$pens"tion due the contr"ctor for the ter$in"l co$ple* it built. /e decide the c"se on the b"sis of

f"irness, the s"$e nor$ th"t perv"des both the Court)s 0112 Resolution in the first c"se "nd the l"test e*propri"tionl"(.

The present controvers h"s its roots (ith the pro$ul#"tion of the Court)s decision inAgan v. PIATCO,0pro$ul#"ted i011& %011& Decision'. This decision nullified the 3Concession A#ree$ent for the Build4Oper"te4"nd4Tr"nsfer

Arr"n#e$ent of the Nino A!uino Intern"tion"l Airport P"ssen#er Ter$in"l III3 entered into bet(een the Philippine-overn$ent %-overn$ent' "nd the Philippine Intern"tion"l Air Ter$in"ls Co., Inc. %PIATCO', "s (ell "s the"$end$ents "nd supple$ents thereto. The "#ree$ent h"d "uthori5ed PIATCO to build " ne( intern"tion"l "irportter$in"l %NAIA &', "s (ell "s " fr"nchise to oper"te "nd $"int"in the s"id ter$in"l durin# the concession period of 06e"rs. The contr"cts (ere nullified, "$on# others, th"t P"irc"r#o Consortiu$, predecessor of PIATCO, did notpossess the re!uisite fin"nci"l c"p"cit (hen it ("s "("rded the NAIA & contr"ct "nd th"t the "#ree$ent ("scontr"r to public polic.&

At the ti$e of the pro$ul#"tion of the 011& Decision, the NAIA & f"cilities h"d "lre"d been built b PIATCO "nd (erene"rin# co$pletion.27o(ever, theponencia("s silent "s to the le#"l st"tus of the NAIA & f"cilities follo(in# thenullific"tion of the contr"cts, "s (ell "s (h"tever ri#hts of PIATCO for rei$burse$ent for its e*penses in theconstruction of the f"cilities. Still, in his Sep"r"te Opinion, 8ustice P"n#"nib"n, oined b 8ustice C"lleo, decl"red "sfollo(s9

S-o)& 3o+er$me$% "' % or re#o$be e("e$#e# *$c)rre& *$ %-e co$#%r)c%*o$ o %-e Term*$ I$&ee& *#-o)&, o%-er:*#e *% :* be )$;)#%' e$r*c-*$3 *%#e % %-e e("e$#e o P*%co $&, *$ "r%*c)r, *%# )$&er#,

7/23/2019 piatco

2/67

co$%rc%or# $& *$+e#%or# < bo%- oc $& ore*3$. After "ll, there is no !uestion th"t the St"te needs "nd (ill$"+e use of Ter$in"l III, it bein# p"rt "nd p"rcel of the critic"l infr"structure "nd tr"nsport"tion4rel"ted pro#r"$s of#overn$ent.6

PIATCO "nd sever"l respondents4intervenors filed their respective $otions for the reconsider"tion of the 011&

Decision. These $otions (ere denied b the Court in its Resolution d"ted 0 8"nu"r 0112 %0112Resolution'.:7o(ever, the Court this ti$e s!u"rel "ddressed the issue of the ri#hts of PIATCO to refund,co$pens"tion or rei$burse$ent for its e*penses in the construction of the NAIA & f"cilities. The holdin# of the Courton this cruci"l point follo(s9

T-*# Co)r%, -o:e+er, *# $o% )$m*$&) o %-e re*%' %-% %-e #%r)c%)re# com"r*#*$3 %-e NI IPT III c**%' remo#% com"e%e $& %-% )$ -+e bee$ #"e$% b' PITCO *$ %-e*r co$#%r)c%*o$.or %-e 3o+er$me$% %o %=eo+er %-e #*& c**%', *% -# %o com"e$#%e re#"o$&e$% PITCO # b)*&er o %-e #*& #%r)c%)re#. T-ecom"e$#%*o$ m)#% be ;)#% $& *$ ccor&$ce :*%- : $& e>)*%' or %-e 3o+er$me$% c$ $o% )$;)#%' e$r*c-*%#e % %-e e("e$#e o PITCO $& *%# *$+e#%or#.;

After the pro$ul#"tion of the rulin#s inAgan, the NAIA & f"cilities h"ve re$"ined in the possession of PIATCO,despite the "vo(ed intent of the -overn$ent to put the "irport ter$in"l into i$$edi"te oper"tion. The -overn$ent"nd PIATCO conducted sever"l rounds of ne#oti"tion re#"rdin# the NAIA & f"cilities."nd B"n+ of the Philippines, representin# the NAIA & ter$in"l)s "ssessed v"lue for t"*"tion purposes.2

The c"se6("s r"ffled to Br"nch ; of the P"s" Cit RTC, presided b respondent ud#e 7on. 7enric+ ?. -in#oon%7on. -in#oon'. On the s"$e d" th"t the Complaint("s filed, the RTC issued "n Order:directin# the issu"nce of (rit of possession to the -overn$ent, "uthori5in# it to 3t"+e or enter upon the possession3 of the NAIA & f"cilities.Citin# the c"se of City of Manila v. Serrano,;the RTC noted th"t it h"d the $inisteri"l dut to issue the (rit ofpossession upon the filin# of " co$pl"int for e*propri"tion sufficient in for$ "nd subst"nce, "nd upon deposit $"de bthe #overn$ent of the "$ount e!uiv"lent to the "ssessed v"lue of the propert subect to e*propri"tion. The RTCfound these re!uisites present, p"rticul"rl notin# th"t 3@the c"se record sho(s th"t @the -overn$ent h"s depositedthe "ssessed v"lue of the @NAIA & f"cilities in the >"nd B"n+ of the Philippines, "n "uthori5ed deposit"r, "s sho(nb the certific"tion "tt"ched to their co$pl"int.3 Also on the s"$e d", the RTC issued " Writ of

Possession.Accordin# to PIATCO, the -overn$ent ("s "ble to t"+e possession over the NAIA & f"cilitiesi$$edi"tel "fter the Writ of Possession("s issued.)*%'? $&/** %-% %-e 3o+er$me$% *# brre& rom %=*$3 o+er NI @ )$%* #)c- ;)#% com"e$#%*o$ *# "*&. The p"rtiesc"nnot be "llo(ed to ev"de the directives l"id do(n b this Court throu#h "n $ode of udici"l "ction, such "s theco$pl"int for e$inent do$"in.

It c"nnot be denied thou#h th"t the Court in the 0112 Resolution prescribed $"nd"tor #uidelines (hich the-overn$ent $ust observe before it could "c!uire the NAIA & f"cilities. Thus, the "ctions of respondent ud#e underrevie(, "s (ell "s the "r#u$ents of the p"rties $ust, to $erit "ffir$"tion, p"ss the threshold test of (hether suchpropositions "re in "ccord (ith the 0112 Resolution.

The -overn$ent does not contest the effic"c of this pronounce$ent in the 0112 Resolution,02thus its "pplic"tion

to the c"se "t b"r is not " $"tter of controvers. Of course, !uestions such "s (h"t is the st"nd"rd of 3ustco$pens"tion3 "nd (hich p"rticul"r l"(s "nd e!uit"ble principles "re "pplic"ble, re$"in in dispute "nd sh"ll beresolved forth(ith.

The -overn$ent h"s chosen to resort to e*propri"tion, " re$ed "v"il"ble under the l"(, (hich h"s the "dded

benefit of "n inte#r"ted process for the deter$in"tion of ust co$pens"tion "nd the p"$ent thereof to PIATCO. /e"ppreci"te th"t the c"se "t b"r is " hi#hl unusu"l c"se, (hereb the -overn$ent see+s to e*propri"te " buildin#co$ple* constructed on l"nd (hich the St"te "lre"d o(ns.06There is "n inherent illo#ic in the resort to e$inentdo$"in on propert "lre"d o(ned b the St"te. At first blush, since the St"te "lre"d o(ns the propert on (hichNAIA & st"nds, the proper re$ed should be "+in to "n "ction for eect$ent.

7o(ever, the re"son for the resort b the -overn$ent to e*propri"tion proceedin#s is underst"nd"ble in this c"se.The 0112 Resolution, in re!uirin# the p"$ent of ust co$pens"tion prior to the t"+eover b the -overn$ent of

7/23/2019 piatco

5/67

NAIA &, effectivel precluded it fro$ "c!uirin# possession or o(nership of the NAIA & throu#h the unil"ter"l e*erciseof its ri#hts "s the o(ner of the #round on (hich the f"cilities stood. Thus, "s thin#s stood "fter the 0112 Resolution,the ri#ht of the -overn$ent to t"+e over the NAIA & ter$in"l ("s preconditioned b l"(ful order on the p"$ent of

ust co$pens"tion to PIATCO "s builder of the structures.

The deter$in"tion of ust co$pens"tion could ver (ell be "#reed upon b the p"rties (ithout udici"l intervention,"nd it "ppe"rs th"t steps to("rds th"t direction h"d been en#"#ed in. Still, ulti$"tel, the -overn$ent resorted to itsinherent po(er of e$inent do$"in throu#h e*propri"tion proceedin#s. Is e$inent do$"in "ppropri"te in the firstpl"ce, (ith due re#"rd not onl to the l"( on e*propri"tion but "lso to the Court)s 0112 Resolution inAganG

The ri#ht of e$inent do$"in e*tends to person"l "nd re"l propert, "nd the NAIA & structures, "dhered "s the "re tothe soil, "re considered "s re"l propert.0:The public purpose for the e*propri"tion is "lso beond dispute. It should"lso be noted th"t Section of Rule :; %on E*propri"tion' reco#ni5es the possibilit th"t the propert sou#ht to bee*propri"ted $" be titled in the n"$e of the

Republic of the Philippines, "lthou#h occupied b priv"te individu"ls, "nd in such c"se "n "ver$ent to th"t effectshould be $"de in the co$pl"int. The inst"nt e*propri"tion co$pl"int did "ver th"t the NAIA & co$ple* 3st"nds on "

p"rcel of l"nd o(ned b the B"ses Conversion Develop$ent Authorit, "nother "#enc of @the Republic of thePhilippines.30;

Ad$ittedl, e$inent do$"in is not the sole udici"l recourse b (hich the -overn$ent $" h"ve "c!uired the NAIA &f"cilities (hile s"tisfin# the re!uisites in the 0112 Resolution. E$inent do$"in thou#h $" be the $ost effective, "s(ell "s the speediest $e"ns b (hich such #o"ls $" be "cco$plished. Not onl does it en"ble i$$edi"tepossession "fter s"tisf"ction of the re!uisites under the l"(, it "lso h"s " built4in procedure throu#h (hich ustco$pens"tion $" be "scert"ined. Thus, there should be no !uestion "s to the propriet of e$inent do$"inproceedin#s in this c"se.

Still, in "pplin# the l"(s "nd rules on e*propri"tion in the c"se "t b"r, (e "re i$pelled to "ppl or construe theserules in "ccord"nce (ith the Court)s prescriptions in the 0112 Resolution to "chieve the end effect th"t the

-overn$ent $" v"lidl t"+e over the NAIA & f"cilities. Insof"r "s this c"se is concerned, the 0112 Resolution iseffective not onl "s " le#"l precedent, but "s the source of ri#hts "nd prescriptions th"t $ust be #u"r"nteed, if notenforced, in the resolution of this petition. Other(ise, the inte#rit "nd effic"c of the rulin#s of this Court (ill beseverel di$inished.

It is fro$ these pre$ises th"t (e resolve the first !uestion, (hether Rule :; of the Rules of Court or Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

6/67

e*propri"tion proceedin#s intended for n"tion"l #overn$ent infr"structure proects.

Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

7/67

As c"n be #le"ned fro$ the "bove4!uoted te*ts, Rule :; $erel re!uires the -overn$ent to deposit (ith "n"uthori5ed #overn$ent deposit"r the "ssessed v"lue of the propert for e*propri"tion for it to be entitled to " (rit ofpossession. On the other h"nd, Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

8/67

* * *

T7E C7AIRAN %REP. KER-ARA'. Accepted.

* * *

T7E C7AIRAN %SEN. CAHETANO'. Oo. Bec"use this is re"ll in f"vor of the l"ndo(ners, e.

T7E C7AIRAN %REP. KER-ARA'. Th"t)s (h (e need to re"ll secure the "v"il"bilit of funds.

* * *

T7E C7AIRAN %SEN. CAHETANO'. No, $o. I%# %-e #me. I% #'# -ere8 *'o$3 *r#% "r3r"-, &*b I'o$3Ao$ %3$3 m3bb'& m)$. I$ o%-er :or, 'o) =$o:, %-ere m)#% be "'me$% =3&.%TSN,Bic"$er"l Conference on the Dis"#reein# Provisions of 7ouse Bill 200 "nd Sen"te Bill 0;, Au#ust 0=, 0111, pp.2401'

* * *

T7E C7AIRAN %SEN. CAHETANO'. O=', o=', $o. U$$3)$, *% *# $o% &e"o#*%, $o. I%# "'me$%.F

REP. BATERINA. I%# "'me$%, -o, "'me$%.3 %Id., p. :&'&

It li+e(ise be"rs notin# th"t the "ppropri"te st"nd"rd of ust co$pens"tion is " subst"ntive $"tter. It is (ell (ithin theprovince of the le#isl"ture to fi* the st"nd"rd, (hich it did throu#h the en"ct$ent of Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

9/67

Sec. 0. /ational )overnment Pro3ects. L The ter$ 3n"tion"l #overn$ent proects3 sh"ll refer to "ll n"tion"l#overn$ent infr"structure, en#ineerin# (or+s "nd service contr"cts, includin# proects undert"+en b #overn$ent4o(ned "nd controlled corpor"tions, "ll proects covered b Republic Act No. :=6;, "s "$ended b Republic Act No.;;"(, "nd other rel"ted "nd necess"r "ctivities, such "ssite "c!uisition, suppl "ndor inst"ll"tion of e!uip$ent "nd $"teri"ls, i$ple$ent"tion, construction, co$pletion,

oper"tion, $"inten"nce, i$prove$ent, rep"ir "nd reh"bilit"tion, re#"rdless of the source of fundin#.

As "c+no(led#ed in the 011& Decision, the develop$ent of NAIA & ("s $"de pursu"nt to " build4oper"te4"nd4tr"nsfer "rr"n#e$ent pursu"nt to Republic Act No. :=6;, "s "$ended,&&(hich pert"ins to infr"structure ordevelop$ent proects nor$"ll fin"nced b the public sector but (hich "re no( (holl or p"rtl i$ple$ented b thepriv"te sector.&2nder the build4oper"te4"nd4tr"nsfer sche$e, it is the proect proponent (hich undert"+es theconstruction, includin# the fin"ncin#, of " #iven infr"structure f"cilit.&6In Tatad v. )arcia,&:the Court "c+no(led#edth"t the oper"tor of the EDSA >i#ht R"il Tr"nsit proect under " BOT sche$e ("s the o(ner of the f"cilities such "s3the r"il tr"c+s, rollin# stoc+s li+e the co"ches, r"il st"tions, ter$in"ls "nd the po(er pl"nt.3&;

There c"n be no doubt th"t PIATCO h"s o(nership ri#hts over the f"cilities (hich it h"d fin"nced "nd constructed.The 0112 Resolution s!u"rel reco#ni5ed th"t ri#ht (hen it $"nd"ted the p"$ent of ust co$pens"tion to PIATCO

prior to the t"+eover b the -overn$ent of NAIA &. The f"ct th"t the -overn$ent resorted to e$inent do$"inproceedin#s in the first pl"ce is " concession on its p"rt of PIATCO)s o(nership. Indeed, if no such ri#ht isreco#ni5ed, then there should be no i$pedi$ent for the -overn$ent to sei5e control of NAIA & throu#h ordin"reect$ent proceedin#s.

Since the ri#hts of PIATCO over the NAIA & f"cilities "re est"blished, the n"ture of these f"cilities should no( bedeter$ined. nder Section 26%' of the Civil Code, these f"cilities "re ineluct"bl i$$ov"ble or re"l propert, "s theconstitute buildin#s, ro"ds "nd constructions of "ll +inds "dhered to the soil.&"( Diction"rprovides th"t 3@the ter$ @site does not of itself necess"ril $e"n " pl"ce or tr"ct of l"nd fi*ed b definitebound"ries.321One (ould "ssu$e th"t the -overn$ent, to b"c+ up its contention, (ould be "ble to point to " cle"r4curule th"t " 3site3 or 3loc"tion3 e*clusivel refers to soil, #r"ss, pebbles "nd (eeds. There is none.

Indeed, (e c"nnot "ccept the -overn$ent)s proposition th"t the onl properties th"t $" be e*propri"ted under Rep.Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

10/67

Section ;, (hich provides for the v"lu"tion $ethod of the i$prove$ents "nd or structures in the inst"nces (herein itis necess"r for the -overn$ent to e*propri"te onl the i$prove$ents or structures, "s in this c"se.

The l"( cl"ssifies the NAIA & f"cilities "s re"l properties ust li+e the soil to (hich the "re "dhered. An sub4cl"ssific"tions of re"l propert "nd diver#ent tre"t$ent b"sed thereupon for purposes of e*propri"tion $ust be b"sed

on subst"nti"l distinctions, other(ise the e!u"l protection cl"use of the Constitution is viol"ted. There $" be perh"p" $olecul"r distinction bet(een soil "nd the inor#"nic i$prove$ents "dhered thereto, et there "re no purposivedistinctions th"t (ould ustif " v"ri"nt tre"t$ent for purposes of e*propri"tion. Both the l"nd itself "nd thei$prove$ents thereupon "re susceptible to priv"te o(nership independent of e"ch other, c"p"ble of pecuni"resti$"tion, "nd if t"+en fro$ the o(ner, considered "s " depriv"tion of propert. The o(ner of i$prove$ents sei5edthrou#h e*propri"tion suffers the s"$e de#ree of loss "s the o(ner of l"nd sei5ed throu#h si$il"r $e"ns. E!u"lprotection de$"nds th"t "ll persons or thin#s si$il"rl situ"ted should be tre"ted "li+e, both "s to ri#hts conferred "ndresponsibilities i$posed. ?or purposes of e*propri"tion, p"rcels of l"nd "re si$il"rl situ"ted "s the buildin#s ori$prove$ents constructed thereon, "nd " disp"r"te tre"t$ent bet(een those t(o cl"sses of re"l propert infrin#esthe e!u"l protection cl"use.

Even "s the provisions of Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

11/67

e!uiv"lent to the su$ of %' one hundred percent %11J' of the v"lue of the propert b"sed on the current relev"nt5on"l v"lu"tion of the @BIRF "nd %0' the v"lue of the i$prove$ents "ndor structures "s deter$ined under Section ;.

As st"ted "bove, the BIR 5on"l v"lu"tion c"nnot "ppl in this c"se, thus the "$ount subect to i$$edi"te p"$entshould be li$ited to 3the v"lue of the i$prove$ents "ndor structures "s deter$ined under Section ;,3 (ith Section ;referrin# to the 3i$ple$entin# rules "nd re#ul"tions for the e!uit"ble v"lu"tion of the i$prove$ents "ndor structures

on the l"nd.3 nder the present i$ple$entin# rules in pl"ce, the v"lu"tion of the i$prove$entsstructures "re to beb"sed usin# 3the repl"ce$ent cost $ethod.3207o(ever, the repl"ce$ent cost is onl one of the f"ctors to beconsidered in deter$inin# the ust co$pens"tion.

In "ddition to Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

12/67

decl"r"tions of the p"rties. At the s"$e ti$e, the e*pressed lin+"#e bet(een the BIR 5on"l v"lu"tion "nd the "$ountof ust co$pens"tion in this c"se, is revel"tor of erroneous thou#ht on the p"rt of the RTC.

/e h"ve "lre"d pointed out the irrelev"nce of the BIR 5on"l v"lu"tion "s "n "ppropri"te b"sis for v"lu"tion in thisc"se, PIATCO not bein# the o(ner of the l"nd on (hich the NAIA & f"cilities st"nd. The subect order is fl"(ed insof"

"s it f"ils to !u"lif th"t such st"nd"rd is in"ppropri"te.

It does "ppe"r th"t the "$ount of S:0.& illion ("s b"sed on the certific"tion issued b the >BP4B"cl"r"n th"t theRepublic of the Philippines $"int"ined " tot"l b"l"nce in th"t br"nch "$ountin# to such "$ount. Het the "ctu"lrepresent"tion of the :0.& illion is not cle"r. The >"nd B"n+ Certific"tion e*pressin# such "$ount does st"te th"t it("s issued upon re!uest of the "nil" Intern"tion"l Airport Authorit 3purportedl "s #u"r"nt deposit for thee*propri"tion co$pl"int.32"nd B"n+ subect to the @RTC)s orders,361should be dee$ed "scontrollin#. There is no cle"r evidence th"t the -overn$ent intended to offer S:0.& illion "s the initi"l p"$ent of

ust co$pens"tion, the (ordin# of the >"nd B"n+ Certific"tion not(ithst"ndin#, "nd credence should be #iven to theconsistent position of the -overn$ent on th"t "spect.

In "n event, for the RTC to be "ble to ustif the p"$ent of S:0.& illion to PIATCO "nd not P& Billion Pesos, he(ould h"ve to est"blish th"t the hi#her "$ount represents the v"lu"tion of the structuresi$prove$ents, "nd not theBIR 5on"l v"lu"tion on the l"nd (herein NAIA & is built. The Orderd"ted 6 8"nu"r 0116 f"ils to est"blish suchinte#r"l f"ct, "nd in the "bsence of contr"venin# proof, the proffered v"lue of P& Billion, "s presented b the-overn$ent, should prev"il.

Stri+in#l, the -overn$ent sub$its th"t "ssu$in# th"t Rep. Act No. BP4B"cl"r"n to i$$edi"tel rele"se the "$ount of S:0 illion to PIATCO, it shouldh"ve li+e(ise suspended the (rit of possession, n", (ithdr"(n it "lto#ether, until the -overn$ent sh"ll h"ve "ctu"ll

7/23/2019 piatco

13/67

p"id PIATCO. This is the inevit"ble conse!uence of the cle"r co$$"nd of Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

14/67

#overn$ent to t"+e over the s"id f"cilit, it h"s to co$pens"te respondent PIATCO "s builder of the s"id structures.3The obvious i$port of this holdin# is th"t unless PIATCO is p"id ust co$pens"tion, the -overn$ent is b"rred fro$3t"+in# over,3 " phr"se (hich in the strictest sense could enco$p"ss even " b"r of phsic"l possession of NAIA &,$uch less oper"tion of the f"cilities.

There "re critic"l re"sons for the Court to vie( the 0112 Resolutionless strin#entl, "nd thus "llo( the oper"tion bthe -overn$ent of NAIA & upon the effectivit of the /rit of Possession. ?or one, the n"tion"l presti#e is di$inishedever d" th"t p"sses (ith the NAIA & re$"inin# $othb"lled. ?or "nother, the continued non4use of the f"cilitiescontributes to its phsic"l deterior"tion, if it h"s not "lre"d. And still for "nother, the econo$ic benefits to the-overn$ent "nd the countr "t l"r#e "re beond dispute once the NAIA & is put in oper"tion.

Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

15/67

FT*%e %o "ro"er%' :-*c- *# %-e #)b;ec% o co$&em$%*o$ "rocee&*$3# &oe# $o% +e#% %-e co$&em$or )$%* %-e;)&3me$% *(*$3 ;)#% com"e$#%*o$ *# e$%ere& $& "*&,but the conde$nor)s title rel"tes b"c+ to the d"te on(hich the petition under the E$inent Do$"in Act, or the co$$issioner)s report under the >oc"l I$prove$ent Act, isfiled.

( ( ( %-o)3- %-e r*3-% %o ""ro"r*%e $& )#e $& %=e$ or c$ *# com"e%e % %-e %*me o e$%r', %*%e %o%-e "ro"er%' %=e$ rem*$# *$ %-e o:$er )$%* "'me$% *# c%)' m&e.%E$ph"sis supplied.'

In 5ennedy v. Indianapolis, the S Supre$e Court cited sever"l c"ses holdin# th"t title to propert does not p"ss tothe conde$nor until ust co$pens"tion h"d "ctu"ll been $"de. In f"ct, the decisions "ppe"r to be unifor$ to thiseffect. As e"rl "s

7/23/2019 piatco

16/67

the priv"te propert o(ner (hose propert h"d been

e*propri"ted. At the s"$e ti$e, 'ime$ph"si5es the fr"#ilit of the ri#hts of the -overn$ent "s possessor pendin# thfin"l p"$ent of ust co$pens"tion, (ithout di$inishin# the potenc of such ri#hts. Indeed, the public polic,enshrined fore$ost in the Constitution, $"nd"tes th"t the -overn$ent $ust p" for the priv"te propert it

e*propri"tes. Conse!uentl, the proper udici"l "ttitude is to #u"r"ntee co$pli"nce (ith this pri$ordi"l ri#ht to ustco$pens"tion.

inal 7etermination of 8ust

Compensation Wit!in % 7ays

The issu"nce of the (rit of possession does not (rite finis to the e*propri"tion proceedin#s. As e"rlier pointed out,e*propri"tion is not co$pleted until p"$ent to the propert o(ner of ust co$pens"tion. The proffered v"lue st"nds"s $erel " provision"l deter$in"tion of the "$ount of ust co$pens"tion, the p"$ent of (hich is sufficient totr"nsfer possession of the propert to the -overn$ent. 7o(ever, to effectu"te the tr"nsfer of o(nership, it isnecess"r for the -overn$ent to p" the propert o(ner the fin"l ust co$pens"tion.

In 'im, the Court (ent "s f"r "s to counten"nce, #iven the e*ception"l circu$st"nces of th"t c"se, the reversion of thv"lidl e*propri"ted propert to priv"te o(nership due to the f"ilure of the -overn$ent to p" ust co$pens"tion inth"t c"se.:2It ("s noted in th"t c"se th"t the -overn$ent deliber"tel refused to p" ust co$pens"tion. The Court(ent on to rule th"t 3in c"ses (here the #overn$ent f"iled to p" ust co$pens"tion (ithin five %6' e"rs fro$ thefin"lit of the ud#$ent in the e*propri"tion proceedin#s, the o(ners concerned sh"ll h"ve the ri#ht to recoverpossession of their propert.3:6

Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

17/67

(ithout "ffordin# the -overn$ent the opportunit to obect to the "ppoint$ent of these co$$issioners. /e c"ndispose of this "r#u$ent (ithout co$plic"tion.

It $ust be noted th"t Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

18/67

To prove bi"s "nd preudice on the p"rt of respondent ud#e, "e%*%*o$er# -r" o$ %-e e3e& &+er#e $&erro$eo)# r)*$3# o re#"o$&e$% ;)&3e o$ %-e*r +r*o)# mo%*o$#. B' %-em#e+e#, -o:e+er, %-e' &o $o%#)*c*e$%' "ro+e b*# $& "re;)&*ce %o &*#>)*' re#"o$&e$% ;)&3e. To be &*#>)*'*$3, %-e b*# $&"re;)&*ce m)#% be #-o:$ %o -+e #%emme& rom $ e(%r;)&*c* #o)rce $& re#)% *$ $ o"*$*o$ o$ %-e mer*%o$ #ome b#*# o%-er %-$ :-% %-e ;)&3e er$e& rom -*# "r%*c*"%*o$ *$ %-e c#e. Opinions for$ed in the

course of udici"l proceedin#s, "lthou#h erroneous, "s lon# "s the "re b"sed on the evidence presented "nd conducobserved b the ud#e, do not prove person"l bi"s or preudice on the p"rt of the ud#e.# 3e$er r)e, re"e%e&r)*$3# 3*$#% *%*3$%, $o m%%er -o: erro$eo)# $& +*3oro)#' $& co$#*#%e$%' e("re##e&, re $o% b#*# or &*#>)**c%*o$ o ;)&3e o$ 3ro)$ o b*# $& "re;)&*ce. E(%r*$#*c e+*&e$ce *# re>)*re& %oe#%b*#- b*#, b& *%-, m*ce or corr)"% ")r"o#e, *$ &&*%*o$ %o %-e ""be error :-*c- m' be *$erre&rom %-e &ec*#*o$ or or&er *%#e. %-o)3- %-e &ec*#*o$ m' #eem #o erro$eo)# # %o r*#e &o)b%#co$cer$*$3 ;)&3e# *$%e3r*%', b#e$% e(%r*$#*c e+*&e$ce, %-e &ec*#*o$ *%#e :o)& be *$#)*c*e$% %o e#%b*#- c#e 3*$#% %-e ;)&3e. T-e o$' e(ce"%*o$ %o %-e r)e *# :-e$ %-e error *# #o 3ro## $& "%e$% # %o"ro&)ce $ *$e)c%be *$ere$ce o b& *%- or m*ce.;6

The -overn$ent)s contentions "#"inst 7on. -in#oon "re severel undercut b the f"ct th"t the 0 Dece$ber0112 Order, (hich the 2 8"nu"r 0116 Ordersou#ht to rectif, ("s indeed severel fl"(ed "s it erroneousl "pplied

the provisions of Rule :; of the Rules of Court, inste"d of Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

19/67

predic"tes, it (ould be hi#hl "(r to de$"nd th"t "n order $odifin# the e"rlier issu"nce of " (rit of possession in"n e*propri"tion c"se be b"rred until the st"#in# of " he"rin#, (hen the issu"nce of the (rit of possession itself is notsubect to he"rin#. Perh"ps the conduct of " he"rin# under these circu$st"nces (ould be prudent. 7o(ever, he"rin#is not $"nd"tor, "nd the f"ilure to conduct one does not est"blish the $"nifest bi"s re!uired for the inhibition of the

ud#e.

The -overn$ent li+e(ise f"ults 7on. -in#oon for usin# the "$ount of S&61 illion "s the b"sis for the 11Jdeposit under Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

20/67

c"se.

In conclusion, the Court su$$"ri5es its rulin#s "s follo(s9

%' The 0112 Resolution inAgansets the b"se re!uire$ent th"t h"s to be observed before the -overn$ent $" t"+eover the NAIA &, th"t there $ust be p"$ent to PIATCO of ust co$pens"tion in "ccord"nce (ith l"( "nd e!uit. Anrulin# in the present e*propri"tion c"se $ust be confor$"ble to the dict"tes of the Court "s pronounced intheAganc"ses.

%0' Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

21/67

0' Petitioners, upon the effectivit of the /rit of Possession, "re "uthori5ed st"rt the i$ple$ent"tion of the NinoA!uino Intern"tion"l Airport P"sen#er Ter$in"l III proect b perfor$in# the "cts th"t "re essenti"l to the oper"tion ofthe s"id Intern"tion"l Airport P"ssen#er Ter$in"l proectF

&' RTC Br"nch ; is hereb directed, (ithin si*t %:1' d"s fro$ fin"lit of this Decision, to deter$ine the ust

co$pens"tion to be p"id to PIATCO b the -overn$ent.

The Orderd"ted ; 8"nu"r 0116 is A??IRED in "ll respects subect to the !u"lific"tion th"t the p"rties "re #iven ten%1' d"s fro$ fin"lit of this 7ecision to file, if the so choose, obections to the "ppoint$ent of the co$$issionersdecreed therein.

The Temporary Restraining Order d"ted 2 8"nu"r 0116 is hereb >I?TED.

No pronounce$ent "s to costs.

SO ORDERED.

DNTE O. TINGAssoci"te 8ustice

/E CONCR9

!ILRIO G. DHIDE, R.

Chief 8ustice

RENTO S. PUNO, RTEMIO H. PNGNIBN

Associ"te 8ustice Associ"te 8ustice

LEONRDO . UISUMBING, CONSUELO NRESSNTIGO

iQAssoci"te 8ustice Associ"te 8ustice

NGELIN SNDOHLGUTIERREJ, NTONIO T. CRPIO

Associ"te 8ustice Associ"te 8ustice

M. LICI USTRIMRTINEJ, RENTO C. CORON

Associ"te 8ustice Associ"te 8ustice

CONC!IT CRPIOMORLES, ROMEO . CLLEO, SR.

Associ"te 8ustice Associ"te 8ustice

DOLO S. JCUN, MINIT H. C!ICONJRIOAssoci"te 8ustice Associ"te 8ustice

7/23/2019 piatco

22/67

CNCIO C. GRCI

Associ"te 8ustice

C E R T I I C T I O N

Pursu"nt to Article KIII, Section & of the Constitution, it is hereb certified th"t the conclusions in the "bove Decision(ere re"ched in consult"tion before the c"se ("s "ssi#ned to the (riter of the opinion of the Court.

!ILRIO G. DHIDE, R.

Chief 8ustice

oo%$o%e#

261 Phil. ;22 %011&'. The otions for Reconsider"tion (ere denied in " Resolution d"ted 0 8"nu"r0112, see201 SCRA 6;6.

0I#id.

&3In su$, this Court rules th"t in vie( of the "bsence of the re!uisite fin"nci"l c"p"cit of the P"irc"r#oConsortiu$, predecessor of respondent PIATCO, the "("rd b the PBAC of the contr"ct for theconstruction, oper"tion "nd $"inten"nce of the NAIA IPT III is null "nd void. ?urther, considerin# th"tthe ==; Concession A#ree$ent cont"ins $"teri"l "nd subst"nti"l "$end$ents, (hich "$end$entsh"d the effect of convertin# the ==; Concession A#ree$ent into "n entirel different "#ree$ent fro$the contr"ct bidded upon, the ==; Concession A#ree$ent is si$il"rl null "nd void for bein# contr"rto public polic. The provisions under Sections 2.12%b' "nd %c' in rel"tion to Section .1: of the ==;Concession A#ree$ent "nd Section 2.12%c' in rel"tion to Section .1: of the ARCA, (hich constitute "direct #overn$ent #u"r"ntee e*pressl prohibited b, "$on# others, the BOT >"( "nd itsI$ple$entin# Rules "nd Re#ul"tions "re "lso null "nd void. The Supple$ents, bein# "ccessorcontr"cts to the ARCA, "re li+e(ise null "nd void.3 Id. "t

7/23/2019 piatco

23/67

Dep"rt$ent of Tr"nsport"tion "nd Co$$unc"tions, represented b its Secret"r >e"ndro endo5","nd the "nil" Intern"tion"l Airport Authorit, represented b its -ener"l "n"#er AlfonsoCusi. See rollo, pp.

7/23/2019 piatco

24/67

2%"' "nd ;, Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

25/67

2=Rollo, p. &=;.

61Co$pl"int d"ted 0 Dece$ber 0112. Seerollo, infra.

6Rollo, p. &=2.

60Id. "t &=&.

6&The "ssessed $"r+et v"lue under Rule :; of the Rules of Court, "nd 6J of the f"ir $"r+et v"lueunder the >oc"l -overn$ent Code.

62SeeSection 0, Rule :;, Rules of Court.

66See Section =, >oc"l -overn$ent Code.

6:I#id.

6;Cited "s 0== SCRA 62= %==

7/23/2019 piatco

26/67

structures. Het the en#"#e$ent of these "ppr"isers "t the election of the -overn$ent is cle"rldifferent fro$ the "ppoint$ent b the tri"l court of co$$issioners. The differences e*tend beond$erel the selectin# "uthorit. The en#"#e$ent of "ppr"isers under Section pri$"ril occurs beforethe filin# of the e*propri"tion co$pl"int, (hen the -overn$ent is obli#ed to deter$ine the currentrelev"nt 5on"l v"lu"tion of the l"nd to be e*propri"ted, the v"lu"tion of the structures "nd

i$prove$ents usin# the repl"ce$ent cost $ethod, or the proffered v"lue of the propert fore*propri"tion, "ll for the purpose of $"+in# the initi"l p"$ent necess"r for the (rit of possessionunder Section 2 of Rep. Act No.

7/23/2019 piatco

27/67

"(phil Proect 4 Arell"no >"( ?ound"tion

G.R. No. 166429 December 19, 2005

REPUBLIC O T!E P!ILIPPINES re"re#e$%e& b' E(ec)%*+e Secre%r' E&)r&o R. Erm*%, %-e DEPRTMENTO TRNSPORTTION ND COMMUNICTIONS /DOTC $& %-e MNIL INTERNTIONL IRPORTUT!ORIT /MIvs.!ON. !ENRIC . GINGOON *$ -*# c"c*%' # Pre#*&*$3 )&3e o %-e Re3*o$ Tr* Co)r% o P#' C*%',Br$c- 117, $& P!ILIPPINE INTERNTIONL IR TERMINLS CO., INC.

SEPARATE OPINION

PUNO, J.:

I oin the e*h"ustive Dissent of r. 8ustice Coron". In "ddition, I proffer the follo(in# thou#hts9

I

3$ c#e &*& $o% "rec)&e

r*3-% o S%%e %o e("ro"r*%e

The $"orit opinion too+ e*cruci"tin# p"ins to reconcile our Decision in 3$ "nd the inherent ri#ht of the St"te toe*propri"te priv"te propert. /ith due respect, the effort is str"ined "nd unnecess"r for there nothin# in 3$(hereit c"n be deduced th"t the ri#ht of the St"te to e*propri"te the subect propert h"s been i$p"ired or di$inished.In 3$, (e si$pl held9

* * *

This Court, ho(ever, is not un$indful of the re"lit th"t the structures co$prisin# the NAIA IPT III f"cilit "re "l$ostco$plete "nd th"t funds h"ve been spent b PIATCO in their construction. ?or the #overn$ent to t"+e over the s"idf"cilit, it h"s to co$pens"te respondent PIATCO "s builder of the s"id structures. The co$pens"tion $ust be ust"nd in "ccord"nce (ith l"( "nd e!uit for the #overn$ent c"nnot unustl enrich itself "t the e*pense of PIATCO "ndits investors.

3$ involved #oe' the issue of the v"lidit of T7E PIATCO contr"cts. After stri+in# do(n the contr"cts "s void, (eruled th"t the St"te $ust p" ust co$pens"tion to PIATCO before it could e*ercise the ri#ht to t"+e over considerin#the undeni"ble f"ct th"t the l"tter spent " consider"ble su$ of $one to build the structures co$prisin# the NAIA IPTIII. The Court, ho(ever, did not spell out " ri#id for$ul" for ust co$pens"tion to be p"id to PIATCO e*cept to s" th"it $ust be "ccordin# to l"( "nd e!uit. The Court)s l"n#u"#e ("s c"refull cr"fted to #ive the tri"l court sufficientfle*ibilit in deter$inin# ust co$pens"tion considerin# the e*ch"n#e of ch"r#es "nd counterch"r#es th"t the cost inbuildin# the s"id structures ("s unre"son"bl blo"ted. It ou#ht to be stressed "#"in th"t in 3$, (e did not rule th"tthe St"te c"nnot e*propri"te the s"id structures. Necess"ril, (e did not "lso set the procedure on ho( thee*propri"tion proceedin#s should be conducted if the St"te (ould opt to e*propri"te s"id structures. /e need not,

7/23/2019 piatco

28/67

therefore, str"in in "tte$ptin# to s!u"re our rulin# in 3$ (ith our rulin# in the c"se "t b"r. If "t "ll, 3$ (ill %er brelev"nt in fi*in# ust co$pens"tion but not in deter$inin# (hich procedure to follo( in the e*propri"tion of NAIA IPTIII.

II

R.. No. K974 c$$o%

me$& R)e 67

Article KIII, sec. 6 of the =

7/23/2019 piatco

29/67

IN T7E 7I-7 CORT O? 8STICE

EEN)S BENC7 DIKISION

TEC7NO>O-H AND CONSTRCTION CORT

R. 8STICE RASEH

BET/EEN9

TAENAA CORPORATION %P7I>IPPINE BRANC7'

?irst Cl"i$"nt

ASA7IOSAN CORPORATION

Second Cl"i$"nt

4vs.4

P7I>IPPINE INTERNATIONA> AIR TERINA>S CO., INC.

Defend"nt

ORDER DATED 0 DECEBER 0116

PON 8ud#$ent in def"ult of Defence h"vin# been entered on 0< Nove$ber 0116.

AND PON READIN- the Applic"tion Notice of the Cl"i$"nts d"ted 0< Nove$ber 0116 "nd the evidence referred toin P"rt C.

AND PON 7EARIN- the solicitors for the Cl"i$"nts "nd the solicitors for the Defend"nt "ppe"rin#.

IT IS ORDERED T7AT9

. 8ud#$ent be entered for the ?irst Cl"i$"nt in the su$ of 0,:

7/23/2019 piatco

30/67

DATED this 0 d" of Dece$ber 0116.

To be sure, the s"id Order is not et fin"l. Be th"t "s it $", the Court c"nnot turn " blind ee to this ne( (rin+le of thc"se "t b"r. It is of udici"l notice th"t despite 3$, the subect c"se h"s re"ched the intern"tion"l "rbitr"l tribun"ls(here the #overn$ent "nd the priv"te respondent h"ve filed ch"r#es "nd counterch"r#es. There is evident need to

"void the issues pesterin# the p"rties fro$ further $ultiplin# "nd for ne( proceedin#s to be st"rted in other courts,lest public interest suffer further irretriev"ble preudice. To("rds this end, it is respectfull sub$itted th"t the Courtshould e*ercise its po(er to co$pel the p"rties to interple"d pursu"nt to Rule :0 "nd invo+e the need for orderl"d$inistr"tion of ustice. The p"rties $" be #iven re"son"ble ti$e to "$end their ple"din#s in the tri"l court.

IN HIE !EREO, I oin the Opinion of r. 8ustice Coron" e*cept the p"rt c"llin# for the inhibition of therespondent ud#e. The issues resolved b the respondent ud#e "re not the run of the $ill v"riet. Indeed, theirnovelt "nd co$ple*it h"ve divided even the $e$bers of this Court. There $" h"ve been l"pses b the responden

ud#e but the do not bespe"+ of " bi"sed predisposition.

RENTO S. PUNO

Associ"te 8ustice

oo%$o%e#

&: Phil. ;: %==='.

The >"(phil Proect 4 Arell"no >"( ?ound"tion

G.R. No. 166429 December 19, 2005

REPUBLIC O T!E P!ILIPPINES, Re"re#e$%e& b' E(ec)%*+e Secre%r' E&)r&o R. Erm*%, %-e DEPRTMENTO TRNSPORTTION ND COMMUNICTIONS /DOTC, $& %-e MNIL INTERNTIONL IRPORTUT!ORIT /MI,Petitioners,vs.!ON. !ENRIC . GINGOON, I$ -*# c"c*%' # Pre#*&*$3 )&3e o %-e Re3*o$ Tr* Co)r%, Br$c- 117,P#' C*%', $& P!ILIPPINE INTERNTIONL IR TERMINLS CO., INC., Respondents.

SEPARATE OPINION

CRPIO, J.:

I concur in the result of the $"orit opinion.

Con#ress h"s no po(er to "$end or repe"l rules of procedure "dopted b the Supre$e Court.7o(ever, Con#ressc"n en"ct l"(s on subst"ntive $"tters (hich "re the subect of court procedures. Thus, Con#ress c"n prescribe theiniti"l or $ini$u$ "$ount for ust co$pens"tion in e*propri"tion c"ses, "nd re!uire i$$edi"te p"$ent of such initi"or $ini$u$ "$ount "s condition for the i$$edi"te t"+eover of the propert b the #overn$ent. The rules of

7/23/2019 piatco

31/67

procedure, li+e Rule :; of the Rules of Court, $ust "dust "uto$"tic"ll to such ne( l"(s on subst"ntive $"tters.

Section 2 of Republic Act No. "( ?ound"tion

G. R. No. 166429

REPUBLIC O T!E P!ILIPPINES re"re#e$%e& b' E(ec)%*+e Secre%r' E&)r&o R. Erm*%, %-e DEPRTMENTO TRNSPORTTION ND COMMUNICTIONS /DOTC $& %-e MNIL INTERNTIONL IRPORTUT!ORIT /MI,petitioners,vs.

!ON. !ENRIC . GINGOON *$ -*# c"c*%' # Pre#*&*$3 )&3e o %-e Re3*o$ Tr* Co)r% o P#' C*%',Br$c- 117, $& P!ILIPPINE INTERNTIONL IR TERMINLS CO., INC., respondents.

DISSENTIN- OPINION

CORON, J.8

The :10- Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent 3udiciary. A$on# others, it en!anced t!e rule

7/23/2019 piatco

32/67

ma;ing po(er of t!is Court. * * *

T!e rule ma;ing po(er of t!is Court (as e+panded. This Court for the first time("s #iven the po(er to pro$ul#"terules concernin# the protection "nd enforce$ent of constitution"l ri#hts. * * * But most importantly, the 1987Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading,

practice and procedure. In fine, the po(er to pro$ul#"terules of ple"din#, pr"ctice "nd procedure is no lon#ersh"red b this Court (ith Con#ress * * *. %e$ph"sis supplied'

L *c!egaray v. Secretary of 8ustice, &: Phil. ;: %==='

Sen"tor @iri"$ S"nti"#o. r. President, (ill the #entle$"n ield for cl"rific"tor interpell"tion considerin# th"t Isupport the billG

* * * * * * * * *

* * * I (ould no( li+e to proceed (ith the cl"rific"tor !uestions. I (ould li+e to #o throu#h the p"#es chronolo#ic"ll. (ill refer to Sec%*o$ 4on p"#e 0 of @Sen"te Bill No. 01&

7/23/2019 piatco

33/67

I sub$it it erroneousl "llo(ed the procedure set forth in "n unconstitution"l l"(.

The $"orit "llo(ed Con#ress to encro"ch upon the rule4$"+in# po(er(hich the Constitution h"s reservede*clusivel to this Court. And it $" h"ve cre"ted "nother (hite eleph"nt "s " result.

7ence, I respectfull dissent.

Before us is " petition for certiorari"nd prohibition (ith ur#ent pr"er for preli$in"r inunction "nd te$por"rrestr"inin# order filed b the Republic of the Philippines %Republic', the Dep"rt$ent of Tr"nsport"tion "ndCo$$unic"tions %DOTC' "nd the "nil" Intern"tion"l Airport Authorit %IAA'. The petition see+s to nullif "nd set"side the 8"nu"r 2, 0116, 8"nu"r ;, 0116 "nd 8"nu"r 1, 0116 orders of the public respondent, 7on. 7enric+ ?.-in#oon, presidin# ud#e of the Re#ion"l Tri"l Court of P"s" Cit, Br"nch ;, in RTC Civil C"se No. 1241

7/23/2019 piatco

34/67

intern"tion"l "irport. Petitioners "lle#edl e*erted efforts, unfortun"tel to no "v"il, to ne#oti"te (ith PIATCO "nd itsforei#n stoc+holder "nd lender, ?r"port A- ?r"n+furt Airport Services /orld(ide %?r"port', for the resolution of thest"le$"te. Petitioners cl"i$ed th"t their re!uest for " 3("l+4throu#h3 to "rrive "t " preli$in"r deter$in"tion of thes"fet "nd structur"l inte#rit of the ter$in"l "s (ell "s their "ppe"l for the sub$ission of construction pl"ns "ndrel"ted docu$ents (ere denied.

On the #round th"t, under the Constitution, %' priv"te propert c"n be t"+en for public use under cert"in conditions"nd %0' the St"te h"s the inherent po(er of e$inent do$"in, the Republic resorted to "n "ction for e*propri"tion onDece$ber 0, 0112.&

pon filin# the co$pl"int for e*propri"tion, petitioners $"de " c"sh deposit of P&,110,06,111 %NAIA IPT&)s "ssessev"lue for t"*"tion purposes' "t the B"cl"r"n Br"nch of the >"nd B"n+ of the Philippines %>BP4B"cl"r"n'. The "$ountrou#hl e!uiv"lent to S 6& $illion, ("s subect to the orders of the tri"l court. A (rit of possession ("s there"fterissued, en"blin# petitioner to #"in its first "ccess to the ter$in"l2"fter the pro$ul#"tion ofAgan. /ith the (rit,

petitioners entered "nd too+ possession of the NAIA IPT&.6

e"n(hile, the sheriff ("s not "ble to serve su$$ons "t the indic"ted "ddress of PIATCO since it "pp"rentl nolon#er held office there.:Petitioners cl"i$ th"t, "s of 8"nu"r &, 0116, the sheriff still h"d been un"ble to servesu$$ons on PIATCO.;

On $)r' 4, 2005, respondent ud#e issued the first "ss"iled order9

In vie( of the fore#oin#, this court hereb issues the follo(in# orders to supple$ent its Order d"ted 0 Dece$ber0112 "nd the (rit of possession issued on the s"$e d"te9

%"' The >"nd B"n+ of the Philippines, B"cl"r"n Br"nch, is hereb directed to i$$edi"tel, upon receipt of this Order,rele"se the "$ount of S:0,&2&,;6.;; th"t pl"intiffs specific"ll $"de "v"il"ble for the purpose of e*propri"tion, to"nd in f"vor of PIATCO. This "$ount sh"ll be deducted fro$ the "$ount of ust co$pens"tion due PIATCO th"t sh"ll

be deter$ined b this court pursu"nt to Section 2 of R.A. No. BP4B"cl"r"n h"d certified th"t the Republic h"d" tot"l deposit of "ppro*i$"tel S :0.&U=$illion (ith it. App"rentl, it ("s this (hole "$ount the tri"l court ("ntedrele"sed to PIATCO.

On the other h"nd, petitioner Republic obected to the order of the court bec"use, "s could be "lle#edl concludedfro$ the docu$ents it filed (ith the e*propri"tion co$pl"int, since there (ere no co$p"r"ble v"lues for thee*propri"ted propert, 3re"son"ble b"sis3 should deter$ine (h"t the provision"l v"lue01of NAIA IPT& ou#ht to be.sin# 3re"son"ble b"sis3 "s " #uide, the Republic "rrived "t " provision"l v"lue of P&,110,06,111 or "bout S 6&

7/23/2019 piatco

35/67

$illion (hich "ctu"ll represented the "ssessed v"lue of the propert for t"*"tion purposes.0The "$ount 8ud#e-in#oon ("nted to be rele"sed i$$edi"tel to PIATCO ("s "bout S = $illion $ore or S :&.0U $illion. 7ence,the Republic)s obection on the #round of e*cessiveness.

Petitioners contended th"t it ("s li+e(ise erroneous for the tri"l court to orderthe rele"se of the deposit motu

propio%th"t is, (ithout "n $otion therefor' since ust co$pens"tion ("s et undeter$ined "nd the deposit itself ("sbein# cl"i$ed b other p"rties.00Accordin# to petitioners, since the h"d not been #r"nted 3full "nd relev"nt "ccess tothe NAIA IPT&,3 it ("s i$possible for the$ to full "ssess its s"fet, structur"l inte#rit "nd re"l v"lue "fter ust oneperfunctor #uided tour of the f"cilit.0&As there ("s no opportunit to thorou#hl inspect the propert bein#e*propri"ted, the e*penditure of public funds could not be le#"ll ustified.027ence, it ("s error for the tri"l court toorder the rele"se of "n p"rt of the Republic)s deposits in >BP4B"cl"r"n to PIATCO.

Petitioners "lso !uestioned (h the court a

7/23/2019 piatco

36/67

SO ORDERED.&0

On $)r' 10, 2005, the tri"l court denied the ur#ent $otion for reconsider"tion of its 8"nu"r 2, 0116 order "ndpetitioners) ur#ent $otion for inhibition of respondent ud#e filed on 8"nu"r ;, 0116.&&

/7ERE?ORE, pl"intiffs@ otion for Reconsider"tion of the Order d"ted 8"nu"r 2, 0116, "nd r#ent otion forInhibition "re DENIED.

Accordin#l, e*cept for the superfluous p"rt of the Order prohibitin# the pl"intiffs fro$ "("rdin# concession or le"sin#"n p"rt of NAIA IPT& to other p"rties, the order sou#ht to be reconsidered st"nds9 %' The >"nd B"n+ of thePhilippines, B"cl"r"n Br"nch, $ust rele"se the su$ of S:0,&2&,;6.;; in f"vor of PIATCOF %0' The Pl"intiffs $ustsub$it " certific"te of "v"il"bilit of fundsF "nd %&' Pendin# e*propri"tion proceedin#s "nd full p"$ent of ustco$pens"tion to PIATCO, the pl"intiffs "re directed to $"int"in, preserve "nd s"fe#u"rd NAIA IPT&, or perfor$ such"cts or "ctivities in prep"r"tion for their direct oper"tion of NAIA IPT&.

SO ORDERED.

Re#"o$&e$% PITCO# Her#*o$ o E+e$%#

On October 6, ==2, petitioners received "n unsolicited offer fro$ Asi")s E$er#in# Dr"#ons Corpor"tion %AEDC' toconstruct, oper"te "nd $"int"in " st"te4of4the4"rt intern"tion"l p"ssen#er ter$in"l under Section 2%"' of RA :=6; %theB4O4T >"(',&2Section 2%"' bec"use the #overn$ent did not h"ve the funds nor the e*pertise to do the s"$e.&6Theproect ("s considered "n unsolicited propos"l bec"use it ("s not " #overn$ent priorit proect.&:P"irc"r#oConsortiu$, (hich eventu"ll incorpor"ted (ith other investors under the n"$e PIATCO, sub$itted "counterpropos"l9

to construct IPT4& "t " cost of not less th"n S &61 illion, oper"te such ter$in"l "t no cost to the -overn$ent, p"-overn$ent " tot"l of "t le"st P;.6 Billion in "nnu"l #u"r"nteed p"$ents over t(ent4five %06' e"rs "nd there"ftertr"nsfer title over IPT4& to the -overn$ent for P.11.&;

The #overn$ent, considerin# P"irc"r#o Consortiu$)s counterpropos"l $ore benefici"l, #"ve AEDC thirt d"s to$"tch itF this, AEDC f"iled to do.&

7/23/2019 piatco

37/67

b #overn$ent l"(ers2&"s null "nd void.22'

?urther$ore, (hile the #overn$ent defended the v"lidit of the PIATCO Contr"cts in the p"st, it suddenl $"de"volte face"nd oined the p"rties (ho sou#ht their nullific"tion.26On Septe$ber ;, 0110, v"rious petitions (ere filedbefore this Court to "nnul the PIATCO Contr"cts "nd prohibit the DOTC "nd IAA fro$ i$ple$entin# the$.Agan ("s

pro$ul#"ted on " 6, 011&. Althou#h this Court voided the PIATCO Contr"cts bec"use PIATCO ("s, "$on# otherre"sons, un!u"lified, this Court did not "ctu"ll find priv"te respondent to h"ve "cted fr"udulentl.2:

oreover, the Court re!uired the #overn$ent to p" PIATCO " f"ir "nd ust co$pens"tion for NAIA IPT& "s "prere!uisite for "n t"+eover of the ter$in"l.2;

Accordin# to PIATCO, since the nullific"tion of the PIATCO Contr"cts in 011&, petitioners h"ve not sho(n "n interesin the co$pletion, openin# "nd oper"tion of NAIA IPT&. Inste"d of directin# its resources "nd efforts to "ctu"ll t"+eover "nd oper"te NAIA IPT& "nd to co$pens"te PIATCO "s builder of the structures, the #overn$ent "lle#edlprep"red to develop the Diosd"do "c"p"#"l Intern"tion"l Airport in Cl"r+ ?ield, P"$p"n#".2e"ndro endo5"F

%b' Solicitor -ener"l Alfredo Benip"oF

%c' ?or$er E*ecutive Secret"r, no( ?orei#n Aff"irs

Secret"r Alberto Ro$uloF

%d' ?or$er IAA -ener"l "n"#er Ed#"rdo "nd"F

%e' IAA -ener"l "n"#er Alfonso CusiF

%f' ?or$er I$$i#r"tion Co$$issioner Andre" Do$in#oF

%#' Con#ress$en Alfonso $"li 8r., R"ul Kill"re"l,

8oseph S"nti"#o, Roberto C"es, Cor"5on

"l"n"on, 8osephine R"$ire5, Ch"rit >eviste,

8"cinto P"r"s, Prospero Pich", Prospero No#r"les,

/illie Kill"r"$", Perpetuo Hl"#"n, Edu"rdo Yi"lcit",

C"r$en C"ri, 8ose Solis, Consuelo D, Alet" Su"re5,

Rodolfo B"c"ni, Aurelio $"li, Au#usto Suco 8r.,

7/23/2019 piatco

38/67

-eneroso Tul"#"n "nd 7"rlin C"st Ab"onF

%h' Sen"tors R"$on Revill" 8r., Alfredo >i$, 8u"n Ponce

Enrile, Ed#"rdo An#"r", P"nfilo >"cson "nd Tessie

A!uino4Oret".2=

PIATCO is convinced th"t the #overn$ent)s intentions vis4Z4vis NAIA IPT& "re suspect. 3The did not ne#oti"te. Thedict"ted.361The #overn$ent, (ith police "ssist"nce, "lle#edl sei5ed control of NAIA IPT& l"te in the "fternoon ofDece$ber 0, 0112 on the b"sis of " (rit of possession issued b the tri"l court "fter no $ore th"n " unil"ter"l"ssess$ent of the v"lue of the f"cilit.6

T-e I##)e#

In fine, petitioners see+ the resolution of the follo(in# issues9

I.

/7ET7ER OR NOT RESPONDENT 8D-E COITTED -RAKE ABSE O? DISCRETION AND ACTED INEVCESS O? 8RISDICTION /7EN 7E 7E>D T7AT RA E :; O? T7E R>ES O? CORT, IS

APP>ICAB>E IN T7E EVPROPRIATION PROCEEDIN-S.

II.

/7ET7ER OR NOT RESPONDENT 8D-E COITTED -RAKE ABSE O? DISCRETION AND ACTED INEVCESS O? 7IS 8RISDICTION /7EN 7E MOT" PROPIOISSED T7E ORDER DIRECTIN- T7E DEPOSITARHBAN TO IEDIATE>H RE>EASE PETITIONERS) DEPOSIT IN T7E AONT O? S :0,&2&,;6.;; /7ENNAIA IPT&)S ASSESSED KA>E ?OR T7E PRPOSE O? T7E ISSANCE O? T7E /RIT AS A>>E-ED IN T7ECOP>AINT ?OR EVPROPRIATION IS ON>H P &,110,06,111 %APPROVIATE>H S 6& I>>ION'.

III.

/7ET7ER OR NOT RESPONDENT 8D-E COITTED -RAKE ABSE O? DISCRETION AND ACTED INEVCESS O? 7IS 8RISDICTION /7EN 7E PRO7IBITED PETITIONERS ?RO PER?ORIN- 3ACTS O?O/NERS7IP3 SC7 AS A/ARDIN- CONCESSIONS OR >EASIN- ANH PART O? NAIA IPT& TO OT7ERPARTIES.

IK.

/7ET7ER OR NOT RESPONDENT 8D-E -RAKE>H ERRED IN MOT" PROPIO ISSIN- T7E 8ANARH ;,0116 ORDER APPOINTIN- T7REE COISSIONERS TO DETERINE T7E TERINA>)S 8STCOPENSATION.

K.

/7ET7ER OR NOT RESPONDENT 8D-E -RAKE>H ABSED 7IS DISCRETION IN RE?SIN- TO IN7IBIT7ISE>? ?RO T7E EVPROPRIATION CASE.

7/23/2019 piatco

39/67

P"r"llel to the resolution of the fore#oin# issues, petitioners "lso sou#ht9 %' " TRO co$$"ndin# respondent ud#e toce"se "nd desist fro$ i$ple$entin# his orders d"ted 8"nu"r 2, 0116, 8"nu"r ;, 0116 "nd 8"nu"r 1, 0116 in RTCCivil C"se No. 124

7/23/2019 piatco

40/67

IPT& (ill be "bsolutel of no use to both petitioners "nd priv"te respondent PIATCO. The l"nd (ill ust lie idle "ndunproductive (hile " (hite eleph"nt "bectl sits on it. A repe"t of the $othb"lled B"t""n Nucle"r Po(er Pl"ntGCert"inl. On the other h"nd, (ill not e*propri"tin# NAIA IPT&, puttin# it to #ood use "nd p"in# off its o(ner%s'redound to the benefit of the entire countr "nd "ll p"rties concernedG

T!ird, there is no denin# th"t " proect li+e NAIA IPT& is lon# overdue, such th"t the presti#e of the entire countrbefore the intern"tion"l co$$unit is "t st"+e. Politics "nd n"rro( vested interests h"ve " peculi"r (" of e*tirp"tin#the $ost s"lut"r "nd benefici"l ventures in this countr. The undert"+in# "ppe"rs he"ded for the s"$e f"te unlessthis Court intervenes "nd e*ercises its udici"l discretion to settle the destructive i$p"sse. Sh"ll this Court ("tch insilence (hile the p"rties cl"( "t e"ch other before intern"tion"l "rbitr"tion bodiesG

The $"orit opinion effectivel disre#"rded this necessit.

P)b*c U#e $& )#% Com"e$#%*o$

None of the p"rties "ctu"ll !uestioned the public purpose of the e*propri"tion [ not the petitioners of course, not therespondent ud#e, not even priv"te respondent PIATCO. In f"ct, petitioners e*erted speci"l effort to sho( th"t the

t"+in# ("s intended to encour"#e "nd pro$ote intern"tion"l "ir tr"ffic "s (ell "s to develop "n "irport (ith f"cilities,"cco$$od"tions "nd services $eetin# intern"tion"l st"nd"rds. As for PIATCO, the records do not sho( th"t it!uestioned the public purpose of the e*propri"tion "t "ll. The respondent ud#e, for his p"rt, reco#ni5ed th"t the NAIAIPT& ("s undoubtedl " structure for " (ell4defined public purpose, bein# of critic"l i$port"nce to the Philippineecono$ in ter$s of the c"rri"#e of #oods, services "nd people.:6Thus, there ("s never "n !uestion th"t thee*propri"tion of NAIA IPT& ("s for " public purpose.

The polic underlin# the constitution"l provision for e$inent do$"in is to $"+e the priv"te o(ner 3(hole3 "fter hispropert is t"+en.::Thus, priv"te propert c"nnot be t"+en in "n (" for public use (ithout "de!u"te co$pens"tion.

8ust co$pens"tion is the ust "nd co$plete e!uiv"lent of the loss (hich the o(ner of the thin# e*propri"ted h"s tosuffer b re"son of the e*propri"tion.:

7/23/2019 piatco

41/67

After such deposit is $"de the court sh"ll order the sheriff or other proper officer to forth(ith pl"ce the pl"intiff inpossession of the propert involved "nd pro$ptl sub$it " report thereof to the court (ith service of copies to the

p"rties.

SECTION &. 7efenses and o#3ections.L

* * * * * * * * *

If " defend"nt h"s "n obection to the filin# of or the "lle#"tions in the co$pl"int, or "n obection or defense to thet"+in# of his propert, he sh"ll serve his "ns(er (ithin the ti$e st"ted in the su$$ons. The "ns(er sh"ll specific"lldesi#n"te or identif the propert in (hich he cl"i$s to h"ve "n interest, st"te the n"ture "nd e*tent of the interestcl"i$ed, "nd "dduce "ll his obections "nd defenses to the t"+in# of his propert. * * *

* * * 7o(ever, "t the tri"l of the issue of ust co$pens"tion, (hether or not " defend"nt h"s previousl "ppe"red or"ns(ered, he $" present evidence "s to the "$ount of the co$pens"tion to be p"id for his propert, "nd he $"sh"re in the distribution of the "("rd.

SECTION 2. Order of e+propriation. L If the obections to "nd the defenses "#"inst the ri#ht of the pl"intiff toe*propri"te the propert "re overruled, or (hen no p"rt "ppe"rs to defend "s re!uired b this Rule, the court $"issue "n order of e*propri"tion decl"rin# th"t the pl"intiff h"s " l"(ful ri#ht to t"+e the propert sou#ht to bee*propri"ted, for the public use or purpose described in the co$pl"int, upon the p"$ent of ust co$pens"tion to bedeter$ined "s of the d"te of the t"+in# of the propert or the filin# of the co$pl"int, (hichever c"$e first.

* * * * * * * * *

SECTION 6.Ascertainment of compensation. L pon the rendition of the order of e*propri"tion, the court sh"ll"ppoint not $ore th"n three %&' co$petent "nd disinterested persons "s co$$issioners to "scert"in "nd report to thecourt the ust co$pens"tion for the propert sou#ht to be t"+en. The order of "ppoint$ent sh"ll desi#n"te the ti$e"nd pl"ce of the first session of the he"rin# to be held b the co$$issioners "nd specif the ti$e (ithin (hich their

report sh"ll be sub$itted to the court.

Copies of the order sh"ll be served on the p"rties. Obections to the "ppoint$ent of "n of the co$$issioners sh"ll bfiled (ith the court (ithin ten %1' d"s fro$ service, "nd sh"ll be resolved (ithin thirt %&1' d"s "fter "ll theco$$issioners sh"ll h"ve received copies of the obections. %e$ph"sis supplied'

On the other h"nd, RA

7/23/2019 piatco

42/67

* * * * * * * * *

%c' In c"se the co$pletion of " #overn$ent infr"structure proect is of ut$ost ur#enc "nd i$port"nce, "nd there is noe*istin# v"lu"tion of the "re" concerned, the i$ple$entin# "#enc sh"ll i$$edi"tel p" the o(ner of the propertits "roere& +)et"+in# into consider"tion the st"nd"rds prescribed in Section 6 hereof.

pon co$pli"nce (ith the #uidelines "bove$entioned, the court sh"ll i$$edi"tel issue to the i$ple$entin# "#enc"n order to t"+e possession of the propert "nd st"rt the i$ple$ent"tion of the proect.

Before the court c"n issue " /rit of Possession, the i$ple$entin# "#enc sh"ll present to the court " cer%**c%e o+*b**%' o )$fro$ the proper offici"l concerned.

In the event th"t the o(ner of the propert contests the i$ple$entin# "#encs proffered v"lue, the court sh"lldeter$ine the ust co$pens"tion to be p"id the o(ner (ithin si*t %:1' d"s fro$ the d"te of filin# of the e*propri"tionc"se. /hen the decision of the court beco$es fin"l "nd e*ecutor, the i$ple$entin# "#enc sh"ll p" the o(ner thedifference bet(een the "$ount "lre"d p"id "nd the ust co$pens"tion "s deter$ined b the court. %e$ph"sissupplied'

To i$ple$ent the "bove 3#uidelines3, the I$ple$entin# Rules "nd Re#ul"tions %IRR' of RA

7/23/2019 piatco

43/67

* * * * * * * * *

SECTION 1. aluation of Improvements and>or Structures. L Pursu"nt to Section ; of the Act, the I$ple$entin#A#enc sh"ll deter$ine the v"lu"tion of the i$prove$ents "ndor structures on the l"nd to be "c!uired usin# therepl"ce$ent cost $ethod. The repl"ce$ent cost of the i$prove$entsstructures is defined "s the "$ount necess"r

to repl"ce the i$prove$entsstructures, b"sed on the current $"r+et prices for $"teri"ls, e!uip$ent, l"bor,contr"ctors profit "nd overhe"d, "nd "ll other "ttend"nt costs "ssoci"ted (ith the "c!uisition "nd inst"ll"tion in pl"ceof the "ffected i$prove$entsstructures. In the v"lu"tion of the "ffected i$prove$entsstructures, the I$ple$entin#

A#enc sh"ll consider, "$on# other thin#s, the +inds "nd !u"ntities of $"teri"lse!uip$ent used, the loc"tion,confi#ur"tion "nd other phsic"l fe"tures of the properties, "nd prev"ilin# construction prices.

SECTION . *ngagement of Appraisers. L The I$ple$entin# A#enc $", if it dee$s necess"r, en#"#e theservices of #overn$ent fin"ncin# institutions "ndor priv"te "ppr"isers dul "ccredited b the s"id institutions toundert"+e the "ppr"is"l of the propert, i.e., the l"nd "ndor i$prove$entsstructures, "nd to deter$ine its f"ir $"r+etv"lue. The I$ple$entin# A#enc concerned sh"ll consider the reco$$end"tions of the s"id "ppr"isers in decidin# onthe purch"se price of or ust co$pens"tion for the propert.

SECTION 0. Writ of Possession. L Pursu"nt to Section 2 of the Act, upon co$pli"nce (ith the #uidelines st"ted inSection < of this IRR, the court sh"ll i$$edi"tel issue to the I$ple$entin# A#enc "n order to t"+e possession of thepropert "nd st"rt the i$ple$ent"tion of the proect.

Before the Court c"n issue " /rit of Possession, ho(ever, the I$ple$entin# A#enc sh"ll present to the CourtofCer%**c%eo +*b**%' o )$si#ned b "uthori5ed offici"ls to cover the p"$ent to be $"de to the properto(ner.

After the I$ple$entin# A#enc h"s co$plied (ith the fore#oin# re!uire$ents, the Court sh"ll i$$edi"tel issue the/rit of Possession to the co$pl"in"nt I$ple$entin# A#enc.

SECTION &. Payment of Compensation. L Should the propert o(ner concerned contest the proffered v"lue of the

I$ple$entin# A#enc, the Court sh"ll deter$ine the ust co$pens"tion to be p"id to the o(ner (ithin si*t %:1' d"sfro$ the d"te of the fillin# of the e*propri"tion c"se, considerin# the st"nd"rds set out in Sections

7/23/2019 piatco

44/67

the propert.

Petitioners $"int"in th"t the ver title of RA

7/23/2019 piatco

45/67

deter$in"tion "nd p"$ent of ust co$pens"tion pursu"nt to Rule :; "re in "ccord"nce (ith l"(. nder Rule :;,PIATCO (ill be #iven ?>> 8ST COPENSATION b the #overn$ent for the t"+in# of NAIA IPT&. Th"t is$"nd"tor. The Constitution itself ord"ins it.

nder Rule :;, there is no (" the #overn$ent c"n unustl enrich itself "t the e*pense of PIATCO. Section = of Rule

:; ensures this b re!uirin# the p"$ent of interest fro$ the ti$e #overn$ent t"+es possession of the propert.

oreover, I d"re s" the $"orit opinion "ctu"ll #ot c"u#ht up in " self4contr"diction. At first, it cl"i$ed th"t the 0112resolution inAganl"id do(n the follo(in# directives9 %' PIATCO $ust receive p"$ent of ust co$pens"tiondeter$ined in "ccord"nce (ith l"( "nd e!uit, "nd %0' the #overn$ent is b"rred fro$ t"+in# over NAIA IPT& untilsuc! 3ust compensationis p"id. It continued to "r#ue th"t the 0112 resolution re!uires the p"$ent of ustco$pens"tion before the t"+eover of NAIA IPT& f"cilities. Subse!uentl, ho(ever, it b"c+tr"c+ed "nd st"ted th"t 3the0112 resolution does not p"rticul"ri5e the e*tent such p"$ent $ust be effected before the t"+eover, but it "ctu"llre!uires "t le"st some degree of paymentto the priv"te o(ner before " (rit of possession $" issue.3 7o(ever,neither the proffered v"lue nor the 5on"l v"lu"tion under RA

7/23/2019 piatco

46/67

Respondent ud#e)s theor "bout Rule :;)s supposed repe"l b RA

7/23/2019 piatco

47/67

constitution"l intent to stren#then the independence of this Court.

There is no !uestion th"t the "ppropri"te st"nd"rd of ust co$pens"tion is " subst"ntive $"tter, not procedur"l.7o(ever, the $"nner of deter$inin# ust co$pens"tion %includin# ho( it sh"ll be p"id "nd under (h"t conditions "(rit of possession $" be issued' is " $"tter of procedure, not of subst"ntive l"(.

If " rule or st"tute cre"tes " ri#ht or t"+es "(" " vested ri#ht, it is subst"ntive. If it oper"tes "s " $e"ns ofi$ple$entin# "n e*istin# ri#ht, then it is procedur"l.

7/23/2019 piatco

48/67

for " purpose other th"n for " ri#ht4of4(", site or loc"tion for " n"tion"l #overn$ent proect.

nfortun"tel, the $"orit sided (ith respondent ud#e "nd co$pletel disre#"rded the f"ct th"t NAIA IPT&("st!enational government infrastructure pro3ect itself"nd ruled inste"d th"t it ("s the ri#ht4of4(", site or loc"tion o" n"tion"l #overn$ent proect. Th"t ("s (ron# "nd the re"sonin# ("s even $ore difficult to underst"nd.

True, under Section 0%d' of the IRR of RA

7/23/2019 piatco

49/67

?urther$ore, in"s$uch "s petitioners h"d been vi#orousl co$pl"inin# th"t the (ere never re"ll "ble to inspect "ndev"lu"te the structur"l inte#rit "nd re"l (orth of NAIA IPT&, respondent ud#e should h"ve "t le"st tried to deter$inethe re"son"bleness of petitioners) provision"l deposit "nd therefore, he ou#ht not to h"ve been in such " hurr toorder the rele"se of petitioners) funds to PIATCO (hich ("s not even "s+in# for it. In other (ords, "ll the fore#oin#("rnin# si#ns considered, he should h"ve been $ore circu$spect, deliber"te "nd c"reful in h"ndlin# the c"se.

On " $ore "c"de$ic note, ho(ever, "nd "s "lre"d !uoted previousl, one si#nific"nt difference bet(een RA

7/23/2019 piatco

50/67

the propert b the "#enc re!uestin# e*propri"tion is re!uired to be p"id for issu"nce of the (rit.

So even if it h"d been RA

7/23/2019 piatco

51/67

to v"lu"tion of i$prove$ents or structures under Section ;. Thus, the $"orit opinion undul enl"r#ed the concept oproffered v"lue (hen it e*tended the s"$e to i$prove$ents or structures.

Perorm$ce o c%# o O:$er#-*"

Petitioners contend th"t respondent ud#e co$$itted #r"ve "buse of discretion (hen he prohibited petitioners in his8"nu"r 2, 0116 order fro$ perfor$in# 3"cts of o(nership3. Althou#h si* d"s l"ter, in his 8"nu"r 1, 0116 o$nibusorder, respondent ud#e re$oved this prohibition, it ("s onl bec"use he thou#ht it to be " 3superfluit3 in"s$uch "spetitioners (ere not et the o(ners of the ter$in"l.11

Petitioners "lle#e th"t the order of respondent ud#e undul li$ited the$ to $ere phsic"l entr to the propert(ithout, ho(ever, "ffordin# the$ the $e"ns to "cco$plish the public purpose of the e*propri"tion. The "r#ue th"t "(rit of possession in "n e*propri"tion proceedin# c"rries (ith it the ri#ht to perfor$ "cts de 3ure(hich "re necess"rto "tt"in the purpose for (hich the e*propri"tion is intended. In decidin# to e*ercise the po(er of e$inent do$"in,petitioners intended to "c!uire not onl phsic"l possession but "lso o(nership of the propert ulti$"tel. B NAIAIPT&)s ver n"ture "s "n intern"tion"l "irport ter$in"l, "("rdin# concessions "nd le"sin# sp"ce to third p"rties "renecess"r "nd rel"ted "ctivities in its oper"tion.1Petitioners assert that upon the issuance of the writ of possession the)

ac9uired e9uita"le or "eneficial ownership of NAIA IPT. :hat PIATCO retained ! until full pa)ment of just compensation ! was thmere legal title to the terminal.10

PIATCO, on the other h"nd, "lle#es th"t petitioners, not bein# the o(ners of NAIA IPT&, c"nnot e*ercise ri#hts ofo(nership. It cites the doctrine th"t title to the propert does not tr"nsfer to the e*propri"tin# "uthorit until fullp"$ent of the ust co$pens"tion.1&

I "#ree (ith petitioners.

In e*propri"tion, priv"te propert is ta;enfor public use.12/h"t constitutes ta;ingis (ell4settled in our urisprudence.The o(ner is ousted fro$ his propert "nd deprived of his benefici"l eno$ent thereof.16The o(ner)s ri#ht topossess "nd e*ploit the propert %th"t is to s", his benefici"l o(nership of it' is 3destroed3.1:And it is onl "fter the

propert is t"+en th"t the court proceeds to deter$ine ust co$pens"tion,

1;

upon full p"$ent of (hich sh"ll title p"sson to the e*propri"tor.

Citin# the c"se ofAssociation of Small 'ando(ners in t!e P!ils., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,1

7/23/2019 piatco

52/67

proper. /e held there th"t it ("s not "nd th"t the e*propri"tion of re"l propert ("s not li$ited to $ere phsic"l entror occup"tion9

\ %I't is $"nifest th"t the petitioner, in pursuit of "n obective benefici"l to public interest, see+s to re"li5e the s"$ethrou#h its po(er of e$inent do$"in. In e*ercisin# this po(er, petitioner intended to "c!uire not

onlp!ysicalpossession but "lso the legalri#ht to possess "nd ulti$"tel to o(n the subect propert. 7ence, its $erphsic"l entr "nd occup"tion of the propert f"ll short of the t"+in# of title, (hich includes "ll the ri#hts th"t $" bee*ercised b "n o(ner over the subect propert.

*** *** ***

\ Ineludibl, s"id (rit %of possession' is both necess"r "nd pr"ctic"l, bec"use $ere phsic"l possession th"t is#"ined b enterin# the propert is not e!uiv"lent to e*propri"tin# it (ith the "i$ of "c!uirin# o(nership over, or eventhe ri#ht to possess, the e*propri"ted propert.0%e$ph"sis supplied'

The !uestion no( is (hether this ri#ht of benefici"l o(nership enoed b the e*propri"tor includes the ri#ht to le"seout the propert %or portions thereof' "nd to "("rd concessions (ithin NAIA IPT& to third p"rties. It does.

In *state of Salud 8imene9 v. P!ilippine *+port Processing Eone ?P*EA,&(e "llo(ed the le"se b the PEYA of thepropert under e*propri"tion to third p"rties even before p"$ent of ust co$pens"tion. PEYA)s ch"rter provided it3subst"nti"l lee(" in decidin# for (h"t public use the e*propri"ted propert (ould be utili5ed.32Thus, the Courtdecl"red th"t it (ould not !uestion the le"se bec"use it ("s in further"nce of the public purpose of thee*propri"tion.6

In this c"se, petitioners "i$ to "c!uire the NAIA IPT& "s the site of " (orld4cl"ss p"ssen#er ter$in"l "nd "irport, "ndto co$plete its construction "nd oper"te it for the benefit of the ?ilipino people.:This is the 3public use3 purpose ofthe e*propri"tion. On the other h"nd, the le"se "nd concession contr"cts "re the $e"ns b (hich the public purposeof the e*propri"tion c"n be "tt"ined. Since PIATCO never ch"llen#ed the 3public use3 purpose of the e*propri"tion,the re"son"ble i$plic"tions of such public use, includin# the "("rd of le"ses "nd concessions in the ter$in"l, "re

dee$ed "d$itted "s necess"r conse!uences of such e*propri"tion.

?urther$ore, in " contr"ct of le"se, onl the use and en3oymentof the thin# "re e*tended to the lessee.;Thus, oneneed not be the le#"l o(ner of the propert in order to #ive it in le"se.

7/23/2019 piatco

53/67

Petitioners) contentions "re unten"ble.

Section 6 of Rule :; provides9

Section 6.Ascertainment of Compensation.L pon the rendition of the order of e*propri"tion, the court sh"ll "ppointnot $ore th"n three %&' co$petent "nd disinterested persons "s co$$issioners to "scert"in "nd report to the courtthe ust co$pens"tion for the propert sou#ht to be t"+en. The order of "ppoint$ent sh"ll desi#n"te the ti$e "ndpl"ce of the first session of the he"rin# to be held b the co$$issioners "nd specif the ti$e (ithin (hich their reportsh"ll be sub$itted to the court.

Copies of the order sh"ll be served on the p"rties. Obections to the "ppoint$ent of "n of the co$$issioners sh"ll bfiled (ith the court (ithin ten %1' d"s fro$ service, "nd sh"ll be resolved (ithin thirt %&1' d"s "fter "ll theco$$issioners sh"ll h"ve received copies of the obections.

Contr"r to petitioners) position, Rule :; does not re!uire consult"tion (ith the p"rties before the court "ppoints theco$$issioners. Neither notice to the p"rties nor he"rin# is re!uired for the "ppoint$ent of co$$issioners b the

ud#e.

7o(ever, in Municipality ofTalisay v. Ramire9,0(e held th"t 3(hile it is true th"t, strictl spe"+in#, it is the court th"tsh"ll "ppoint the s"id co$$issioners, there is nothin# to prevent it fro$ see+in# the reco$$end"tions of the p"rtieson this $"tter * * * to ensure their f"ir represent"tion.3

This rulin# ("s $ore or less inte#r"ted into the revised rules of court "s the l"tter no( #ives the p"rties ten d"s fro$the service of the order "ppointin# the co$$issioners to file their obections to "n of the "ppointees. This, in effect,"llo(s the$ to protest the "ppoint$ent of the co$$issioners (hile providin# the$ the opportunit to reco$$end theo(n choices.

But the obection $ust co$e afterthe "ppoint$ent. This is "pp"rent fro$ the second p"r"#r"ph of Section 6, Rule :;

3@obections to the "ppoint$ent of "n of the co$$issioners sh"ll be filed in court (ithin ten %1' d"s fro$ service,"nd sh"ll be resolved (ithin thirt %&1' d"s %er"ll the co$$issioners sh"ll h"ve received copies of the obections.3%e$ph"sis supplied'

Conse!uentl, if petitioners "re un"ble to "ccept the co$petence of "n of the co$$issioners, their re$ed is to file"n obection (ith the tri"l court (ithin the st"ted period. Initi"tin# " certior"ri proceedin# on this issue is pre$"ture.

In "n c"se, even if the co$$issioners "re "ppointed b the court, the l"tter is not bound b their findin#s. 00Section