The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Spouses Llamas, affirming that the government must provide just compensation for road lots taken during road widening projects, even if these lots are subject to an easement of right of way. This decision reinforces the principle that private property rights are protected under the Constitution, requiring the government to fairly compensate landowners when taking property for public use. The ruling clarifies that road lots do not automatically become public property and that landowners retain the right to compensation until a formal transfer (donation or expropriation) occurs.

Road Lots and Rights: Can Government Compel Donation Without Compensation?

This case revolves around an expropriation action initiated by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for the widening of Dr. A. Santos Avenue (Sucat Road) in Parañaque. Spouses Francisco and Carmelita Llamas intervened in the case, claiming that portions of their land, specifically three lots covering 298 square meters, were affected by the project. The DPWH acknowledged that 41 square meters of one lot (covered by TCT No. 179165) were affected and did not object to a compensation of P12,000.00 per square meter. However, the DPWH refused to compensate the Llamas Spouses for the other two lots, arguing they were subdivision road lots already dedicated for public use.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ordered compensation only for the 41 square meters, denying compensation for the road lots, stating the Spouses Llamas no longer owned them. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, ordering the DPWH to compensate the Llamas Spouses for all 237 square meters, including the road lots, at P12,000.00 per square meter, plus 12% interest per annum from the time of taking. The DPWH then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the road lots were already withdrawn from the commerce of man and dedicated for public use, citing the case of White Plains Association, Inc. v. Legaspi.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the DPWH’s reliance on the White Plains case. The Court clarified that the initial ruling in White Plains, which seemed to compel subdivision owners to donate road lots, was later modified in a subsequent resolution. This later resolution removed the compulsion to donate, thereby reinforcing the principle that landowners cannot be forced to relinquish their property without just compensation. This distinction is critical because it underscores the importance of voluntary transfer or formal expropriation proceedings when the government seeks to acquire private land for public use.

The DPWH also argued that Presidential Decree No. 957, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1216, mandates subdivision developers to donate roads and open spaces to the city or municipality. The Court acknowledged that Section 31 of P.D. 957 does indeed contain such a provision. However, it pointed out the inherent contradiction in the law, as it speaks of both donation and compulsion simultaneously. A donation, by its very nature, is a voluntary act of liberality, as defined in Article 725 of the Civil Code:

Article 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.

The Court emphasized that a true donation must arise from the donor’s unrestrained volition and cannot be forced or compelled. The element of animus donandi, the intent to donate, is indispensable for a valid donation. Therefore, the compulsory donation provision in Section 31 of P.D. 957 cannot be sustained as valid.

Building on this principle, the Court reiterated that a positive act by the owner-developer is necessary before the city or municipality can acquire dominion over subdivision roads. Subdivision streets remain private property until donated to the government or expropriated with just compensation. This requirement for a positive act ensures that property owners retain control over their land until they voluntarily transfer it or are justly compensated for its taking. The landmark ruling in Republic v. Ortigas further affirms this position:

Delineated roads and streets, whether part of a subdivision or segregated for public use, remain private and will remain as such until conveyed to the government by donation or through expropriation proceedings. An owner may not be forced to donate his or her property even if it has been delineated as road lots because that would partake of an illegal taking. He or she may even choose to retain said properties.

In this case, the DPWH failed to demonstrate that the road lots covered by TCT No. 179165 were actually donated or otherwise transferred to the government. The Court found no evidence of a positive act by the Spouses Llamas enabling the City Government of Parañaque to acquire dominion over the disputed road lots. Therefore, the road lots retained their private character, albeit subject to an easement of right of way. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that just compensation must be paid to the Spouses Llamas for the government’s taking of the road lots for the road widening project.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the government is obligated to provide just compensation for road lots taken during a road widening project, even if these lots are subject to an easement of right of way. The Supreme Court affirmed that just compensation is required.
What is an easement of right of way?	An easement of right of way is a legal right allowing certain individuals or the public to pass through another person’s property. It does not transfer ownership but grants a specific right of use.
What is ‘just compensation’ in the context of expropriation?	Just compensation refers to the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from a private owner for public use. It aims to place the owner in as good a position financially as they would have been had the property not been taken.
Does Presidential Decree No. 957 mandate the donation of subdivision roads to the government?	While P.D. 957 contains a provision about donating subdivision roads, the Supreme Court clarified that a forced donation is invalid. The transfer must be voluntary or achieved through expropriation with just compensation.
What is the significance of animus donandi?	Animus donandi refers to the intent to donate, which is an essential element for a valid donation. Without this genuine intent to give freely, a transfer of property cannot be considered a true donation.
What did the Court mean by a ‘positive act’ of transfer?	A ‘positive act’ refers to a clear and voluntary action by the property owner to transfer ownership to the government, such as signing a deed of donation. This act is necessary for the government to acquire dominion over the property.
How does this case relate to the concept of ‘illegal taking’?	This case reinforces the principle that forcing a property owner to relinquish land without just compensation constitutes an ‘illegal taking.’ The government must respect private property rights and follow proper legal procedures.
What was the ruling of the Court of Appeals in this case?	The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court and ordered the DPWH to compensate the Llamas Spouses for all the affected land, including the road lots, at a rate of P12,000.00 per square meter plus interest.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the constitutional protection of private property rights and clarifies the requirements for validly acquiring land for public use. It establishes that the government cannot compel landowners to donate property and must provide just compensation when taking private land for projects like road widening. This ruling ensures fairness and protects individuals from uncompensated property seizures.

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 VS. SPOUSES FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, G.R. No. 194190, January 25, 2017