Answer_expropriation.docx

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court 7th Judicial Region Branch 24 Cebu City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented

by

Department

of

Public Works & Highways (DPWH), Plaintiff, -versus-

Civil Case No. 1008 For: Expropriation (Ban-Tal

Corridor

Project) MARIA JOSEFINA G. TATAD, Defendant, x------------------x ANSWER Defendant, MARIA JOSEFINA G. TATAD, by and through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, affirms that a Complaint was received from Defendant on February 11, 2019, and through counsel respectfully avers that:

1.

Defendant, DENIES paragraph 1 for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof;

2.

Defendant, ADMITS paragraph 2.

3.

Defendant, DENIES paragraph 3 for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof;

4.

Defendant, DENIES paragraph 4 for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof

5.

Defendant,

ADMITS

paragraph

5

and

further

elaborates that the property is classified as Residential

Regular,

located

in

213

Cicca

Street, Barangay Talamban. 6.

Defendant, DENIES paragraph 6 with regard the accuracy of the Zonal Value presented by the Agency for such is not the same as that which is reported by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), which values the Defendant’s property at Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Pesos (Php

22,500)

per

square

meters,

as

it

is

included in the El Dorado II Street to the vicinity

of

Road

to

Canduman.

This

is

reflected in the Certified True Copy of the BIR’s Zonal Values from Beatriz S. Pelino, Assistant

Division

Chief

of

the

Asset

Valuation Board, attached as Annex A; and as reflected

in

the

BIR

website

which

is

accessible to the public and attached to this document as Annex B. Province : CEBU City/Municipality : CEBU CITY Zone/Barangay

: TALAMBAN

STREET NAME / SUBDIVISION/CONDOMINIUM

STREETS

VICINITY

D.O. No. Effectivity Dates

64-18 21-Dec-18

CLASS

4th REVISION ZV/SQ.M.

ROAD TO CANDUMAN

A BORBAJO ST EL DORADO II

RR RR

17,500.00 22,500.00

Thus, the Zonal Value of the property should be at Six Million Four Hundred Thousand and Thirty Five Pesos (Php 6,435,000.00) for the 286 sq m. 7.

Defendant, DENIES paragraph 7, THE PROPERTY IS NOT INDISPENSABLE to the project as there is a present main highway for access from Banilad to

Talamban.

Also,

presently,

there

are

various roads from Banilad-Talamban. In truth, Plaintiff has not presented any proof of the public use which they claim for the project. No feasibility studies have been presented as to the need to create the project on such a route as to traverse the property of defendant when there are other connecting roads from Banilad

to

Talamban.

There

are

only

the

baseless claims of Plaintiff. 8.

Defendant, DENIES paragraph 8 for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof;

9.

Defendant, DENIES paragraph 9 for the failure of Plaintiff to follow Section 5 of REPUBLIC ACT

No.

inclusion

10752, of

which

the

provides

replacement

for

the

cost

of

structures and improvements on the property in the total sum offered to Defendant. 10. Defendant, DENIES paragraph 10 as inconsistent parts of REPUBLIC ACT 8974 has been expressly

repealed

by

REPUBLIC

ACT

No.

10752

under

Section 16 thereof. 11. Defendant,

DENIES

that

the

Plaintiff

has

complied with the procedure contemplated under existing and effective laws for Negotiated Sales which will allow them a valid deposit in court to grant them a Writ of Possession.

DEFENSES 12. The

Plaintiff

does

not

have

authority

to

expropriate the property of Defendant: a. For lack of compliance to Section 5 and Section 6 of REPUBLIC ACT No. 10752. b. While it is admitted that the Government exercises the inherent powers of Eminent Domain; c. The existing and effective laws provide for proper procedure. d. Section 5 of RA 10752 provides for the Rules on Negotiated Sale i. The implementing agency may offer to acquire, through negotiate sale, the right-of-way national

site

or

government

location

for

a

infrastructure

project, under the following rules. The implementing agency shall offer to the property

owner

concerned,

as

compensation price, the sum of: 1. The current market value of the land, 2. The replacement cost of structures and improvements therein; and

3. The current market value of crops and trees therein. e. Plaintiff

hereof,

replacement

failed

cost

of

to

include

structures

the and

improvements located on the property during the

negotiations,

hence,

no

valid

negotiation was initiated by Plaintiff, and consequently,

no

color

of

authority

was

vested to Plaintiff to file this present complaint. 13. It is further submitted that the contradicting evidence

on

Zonal

Valuation

should

be

determined in favor of Defendant. a. In REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q. FERNANDEZ (G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015)provides: “Since there was a discrepancy as to the two certifications, reference must be made to the zonal values posted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue on their website, which are accessible to the general public.” 14. It

is

further

presently,

submitted

various

that

connecting

there roads

is from

Banilad-Talamban, thus, there is no need for Plaintiff

to

expropriate

Defendant’s

property.

CONCLUSION The defendant respectfully submits to the wisdom of

the

Honorable

Court

its

contention

that

the

Plaintiff does not have authority to expropriate the

property of Defendant for lack of proper procedure of the Negotiation Sale. It is further submitted that the Zonal Value should be at Six Million Four Hundred Thousand and Thirty Five Pesos (Php 6,435,000.00). Moreover, that the presence of a main highway and various connecting roads of the Banilad-Talamban route, there is no need to appropriate Defendant’s property. Such lack of authority is a fatal defect which should cause the dismissal of the complaint.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM The defendant incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations and further allege, that:

(a) Plaintiffs’ unfounded and reckless suit has compelled Defendant to engage counsel for a professional fee of ₱100,000.00. Moreover, in consequence of this unjust suit, defendant incurred, and will incur suit-related expenses at no less than ₱300,000.00; all of which defendant seeks recompense from plaintiffs by way of damages.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises seriously considered, it is prayed that the instant complaint be dismissed and

the Plaintiff be ordered to pay the defendant such damages. Defendant likewise pray for such other equitable and just relief under these premises. Cebu City, 11th day of February, 2019.

Atty. Carmela Guibone, CPA PTR No. 2234360, 01/05/17, Cebu City IBP Life Member Roll No. 06969, Cebu City Roll of Attorneys No. 58869 MCLE

Compliance

No.

II

555834;

03/15/2018

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION I,

MARIA

JOSEFINA

G.

TATAD,

of

legal

age,

Filipino citizen, single, and residing at 213 Cicca Street, Barangay Talamban, Cebu City, after being duly sworn to, hereby depose and say: That I am the defendant in the above-entitled Complaint;

That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Answer; That I have read the foregoing Answer and the allegations contained therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and belief; That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; That to the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; That if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. MARIA JOSEFINA G. TATAD Affiant

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu

) S.S.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 11th day of February, 2019 at Cebu City, affiant exhibiting to me his Passport No. EB2503221, issued on May 20, 2018 and valid until May 19, 2028. Atty. Rick Asero XV Notary Public PTR Doc. No.

105;

Page No. 55; Book No. 20; Series of 2019.

No.

834360789

01/05/18,

Cebu

City IBP Life Member Roll No. 06267, Cebu City Roll of Attorneys No. 58366 MCLE

Compliance

03/15/2018

Copy Furnished: ATTY. LOUELLA N. TURA Associate Solicitor Legaspi Village, Makati City

No.

II

917834;