This landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the complexities of determining just compensation in eminent domain cases, especially when the property in question results from a contract later declared void. The Court ruled that while the replacement cost method is a key factor, equity and fairness must also guide the valuation. This means the final compensation should consider the property’s actual condition at the time of taking, not just its potential value, ensuring both the property owner and the public are treated justly. The decision provides crucial guidance for valuing properties acquired through government infrastructure projects, setting a precedent for future expropriation cases involving unique or specialized assets.

NAIA-IPT III: When a Voided Contract Raises Questions of Fair Price

The consolidated cases of Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Jesus M. Mupas and Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. [G.R. Nos. 209917, 209696, 209731, and 181892] center around the government’s expropriation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III (NAIA-IPT III). The core legal question involves determining the just compensation owed to Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for the NAIA-IPT III, considering that the underlying concession agreement was previously declared void. The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the application of the replacement cost method, the relevance of equity, and the inclusion or exclusion of various costs, ultimately aiming to strike a balance between compensating PIATCO fairly and safeguarding public funds.

The factual backdrop of the case is complex. In 1994, Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) submitted an unsolicited proposal for the construction and development of NAIA-IPT III under a build-operate-and-transfer arrangement. Paircargo Consortium, later organized as PIATCO, submitted a superior competitive proposal. A Concession Agreement was executed in 1997, later superseded by an Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) in 1998. However, this agreement was challenged and, in 2003, the Supreme Court nullified the PIATCO contracts in Agan v. PIATCO, citing irregularities in the bidding process and violations of banking laws. Despite the nullification, the Court acknowledged that structures had been built and funds spent, requiring the government to justly compensate PIATCO before taking over the facility.

Building on this principle, the government initiated expropriation proceedings in 2004, depositing P3,002,125,000.00 as the NAIA-IPT III’s assessed value. Subsequent legal battles ensued, particularly concerning the applicable valuation standards. In Republic v. Gingoyon, the Supreme Court clarified that RA 8974, governing expropriation for national government infrastructure projects, applied, but emphasized that the replacement cost method was just one factor in determining just compensation, with equity also playing a role. Following this, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) issued conflicting rulings on the amount of just compensation, leading to the present consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court. The key issues revolved around the proper application of the replacement cost method, the inclusion of attendant costs, and the relevance of depreciation and structural defects.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court affirmed that the power of eminent domain is inherent to the State and that just compensation must be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken. It distinguished between “fair market value” and “replacement cost,” recognizing that specialized properties like airport terminals often lack readily available market values, making the replacement cost method more appropriate. However, the Court stressed that the replacement cost is not the sole determinant; equity and fairness must also be considered. The Court explained that it will use (1) the replacement cost method and (2) the standards laid down in Section 5 of RA 8974 and Section 10 of RA 8974 IRR. Furthermore, it will likewise consider (3) equity in the appraisal of NAIA-IPT III based on the Agan and Gingoyon cases.

Building on this foundation, the Court addressed the contentious issue of depreciation. It ruled that the depreciated replacement cost method, rather than the new replacement cost method, is the more appropriate tool. The depreciation should be deducted. This conclusion is consistent with Section 10 of RA 8974 IRR which allows the court to consider the kinds and quantities of materials/equipments used, configuration and other physical features of the properties, among other things, in determining the replacement cost of a building.

This approach contrasts with simply awarding PIATCO the new replacement cost, which would disregard the fact that the expropriated terminal was not brand new. This conclusion aligns with the principle that the compensation must be just not only to the property owner but also to the taker. While adjustments for depreciation were deemed necessary, the Court rejected deductions for costs related to contract non-compliance, as the underlying contract was void and could not be ratified. The court cannot complain of contract noncompliance in an eminent domain case, whose cause of action is not based on a breach of contract, but on the peremptory power of the State to take private property for public use.

This decision reflects the government’s burden of proof to show that the NAIA-IPT III is indeed defective. It has been met by equally persuasive refutations by the experts of PIATCO, Takenaka and Asahikosan. Moreover, it was emphasized that the costs under “noncompliance with bid documents” is whether they are functional. We cannot allow deductions from nonprovision of a moving walkway; The only consequence of the failure to provide a moving walkway is the need to construct one, which would only increase the construction cost. This would, in turn, increase the cost of valuation as of December 21, 2004. For these same reasons, we cannot allow the deduction in the amount of $75,570,510.00 “additional areas to be built.” These are “areas where the minimum requirements stated in the Bid Documents have not been met and are necessary for the operation” of the NAIA-IPT III.

Moreover, in rejecting PIATCO’s claim for the fruits and income of the NAIA-IPT III, the high court reasoned that PIATCO would be doubly compensated. From the time of reinstatement of the writ of possession on September 11, 2006, the government is entitled to operate and maintain the NAIA-IPT III. In taking into consideration this aspect, PIATCO would be unduly enriched which is not in accordance with the principles of equity and fairness.

Takenaka and Asahikosan argued that they are the entities who actually built the NAIA-IPT III pursuant to the Onshore Construction and Offshore Procurement Contracts. In Agan, the Court declared that PIATCO is the builder of the NAIA-IPT III. The word “builder” is broad enough to include the contractor, PIATCO, and the subcontractors, Takenaka and Asahikosan, in the nullified NAIA-IPT III project. Further, In the Philippine jurisdiction, the person who is solely entitled to just compensation is the owner of the property at the time of the taking. If this will be successfully proven by one party then it is that party only who is entitled to receive the compensation.

As a final point, The court clarified that the test of who shall receive just compensation is not who built the terminal, but rather who its true owner is. The government refuses to make further payments to PIATCO and is instead inclined to create an escrow account in favor of the “entitled claimants” of just compensation. The Government fears that the NAIA-IPT III would still be burdened with liens and mortgages – as a result of PIATCO’s indebtedness to other entities – even after it pays PIATCO the full amount of just compensation. Therefore, after its ruling on who should be justly compensated and how they will be compensated, The government is now duly authorized to take the property for public use, and to effectively deprive PIATCO of the ordinary use of the NAIA-IPT III.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	Determining the correct amount of just compensation for the expropriation of NAIA-IPT III, considering the project stemmed from a contract later declared void.
What is the replacement cost method?	A valuation method used when fair market value is hard to determine, calculating the cost to replace improvements based on current market prices for materials, labor, and associated costs.
What is the main difference between fair market value and replacement cost?	Fair market value is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, while replacement cost is the cost to rebuild or replace the property.
Why did the court use the depreciated replacement cost method?	To account for the actual condition of the NAIA-IPT III at the time of taking, recognizing it wasn’t a brand-new facility and had experienced depreciation.
What are attendant costs, and were they included in the valuation?	Attendant costs are expenses related to acquiring and installing the property. The court found that the government’s base valuation already included many of these costs.
Why weren’t PIATCO’s claimed additional costs accepted by the court?	PIATCO mainly submitted photocopies of documents and those are not reliable in determining the additional costs. The court was not convinced of the amount of expenses they incurred.
Does PIATCO receive income generated from NAIA-IPT III during litigation?	No, the Court ruled against such income. Instead, they will be given compensation because the said interest should be equivalent to loss of opportunity for their part.
What happens to the rest of the construction done by Takenaka and Asahikosan?	A claim will be put into G.R. No. 202166
What is the effect of BSP Circular No. 799 on interest rates?	It reduced the legal interest rate on loans and forbearance of money from 12% to 6% per annum, affecting how interest was calculated in this case.

This Supreme Court decision offers critical insights into the complex process of determining just compensation in eminent domain cases, particularly when unique circumstances, such as a voided contract, are involved. The ruling underscores the importance of balancing the replacement cost method with equitable considerations to ensure a fair outcome for both the property owner and the public. This landmark case provides a framework for future valuations of specialized properties acquired for government infrastructure projects, ensuring a more transparent and equitable approach to eminent domain proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181892, September 08, 2015