Epza V Dulay
Epza V Dulay
EPZA VS. DULAY [148 SCRA 305; G.R. No. L-59603; 29 Apr 1987]
Facts: The four parcels of land which are the subject of this case is where the Mactan Export
Processing Zone Authority in Cebu (EPZA) is to be constructed. Private respondent San Antonio
Development Corporation (San Antonio, for brevity), in which these lands are registered under,
claimed that the lands were expropriated to the government without them reaching the agreement as
to the compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay then issued an order for the appointment of the
commissioners to determine the just compensation. It was later found out that the payment of the
government to San Antonio would be P15 per square meter, which was objected to by the latter
contending that under PD 1533, the basis of just compensation shall be fair and according to the fair
market value declared by the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, or by the assessor,
whichever is lower. Such objection and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration were denied and
hearing was set for the reception of the commissioners report. EPZA then filed this petition for
certiorari and mandamus enjoining the respondent from further hearing the case.
Issue: Whether or Not the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in PD
1533 is unconstitutional.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of just compensation in PD 1533 is
unconstitutional.
The method of ascertaining just compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to judicial
prerogatives. It tends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the Constitution is
reserved to it for financial determination. The valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding
principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation, but it may not substitute the courts
own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. The
determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature
may make the initial determination but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of
Rights that the private party may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute,
decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the courts
findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the justness of the decreed
compensation.
My version:
EPZA VS. DULAY [148 SCRA 305; G.R. No. L-59603; 29 Apr 1987]
On January 15, 1979, the President of the Philippines, issued Proclamation No. 1811,
reserving a parcel of land of the public domain in the City of Lapu-Lapu, Cebu for the
establishment of an export processing zone by petitioner Export Processing Zone
Authority (EPZA). The proclamation included, among others, four (4) parcels of land
owned and registered in the name of the private respondent. The petitioner offered to
purchase the parcels of land from the respondent in accordance with the valuation set
forth in Section 92, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 464, as amended. The parties failed to
reach an agreement regarding the sale of the property.
PD No 464: