Appellants' Brief

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
DANILO BARTOLATA, herein Represented

in this Action By his Representative/Attorneyin-fact, REBECCA R. PILOT and/or
DIONISIO P.PILOT,
Plaintiff-Appellants,
- versus -
CA-G.R. No. CV-100523

RTC BR. NO. 166, Pasig City
RTC Case No. 70969
RE: Sum of Money
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS
and TOLL REGULATIRY BOARD,
Respondents-Appellees.
x---------------------------------------------------x
APPELLANTS BRIEF
COMES NOW Plaintiff-Appellant, through the Undersigned Counsel, unto

this Honorable Court of Appeals most respectfully submits the following Plaintiff
Appellants Brief and states that:
TIMELINESS OF PLAINTIFF APPELLANTS BRIEF
On 04 June 2013, the letter dated 23 May 2013 from the Honorable Court of
Appeals was received through Registered Mail, wherein Plaintiff Appellants were
given forty five (45) days within which to file this Appellants Brief.
And to be able to assist the Honorable Appellate Court in saving their precious
time in judiciously resolving the issues involved, Plaintiff Appellant state the following
facts:
Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

Plaintiff Appellants Brief
Page 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action for collection for Sum of Money filed by Plaintiff Appellant
against Defendant Appellees therein praying in the Complaint dated 11 September
2006, for the collection of sum of money arising from the acquisition of the latter of Two
Hundred Twenty-three square-meters (223 sq. m.) parcel of land owned by the former for
the total amount of Twelve Million Two Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Pesos, (Php.
12,265,000.00).
The Defendant acquired the said parcel of land from the Plaintiff for the
Construction of the Metro Manila Skyway Project. That on 14 August 1997 Defendant
had paid Plaintiff, as partial payment, the amount of One Million Four Hundred Eighty
Thousand Pesos (Php. 1,480,000.00), thereby leaving an outstanding balance and/or
obligation in the amount of Ten Million Seven Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Pesos,
(Php. 10, 785,000.00). And after a more than a decade and a half, such remaining
balance/obligation is still unpaid.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
-IPlaintiff Appellant is the owner of the lot identified as Lot 5 Blk. 1 Phase 1,
AFP Officers Village (AFPOVAI) Taguig, Metro Manila, consisting of 400 sq. m.
(Complaint, 11 September 2006, par. 3).
Defendant Appellees Republic of the Philippines, then through Defendant
Department of Public Works and Highways, (DPWH for brevity), and the Defendant Toll
Regulatory Board, (TRB for brevity), the latter now an attached agency of the Defendant
Department of Transportation and Communication, (DOTC for brevity), have embarked
on the construction of the Metro Manila Skyway Project. And to carry out the
aforementioned construction, Defendants acquired Two Hundred Twenty Three (223) sq.
m. of the parcel of land owned by Plaintiff - Appellant. (Ibid., par. 4)

Page 3
-IIBy reason thereof, the Municipal Committee (Taguig, Metro Manila), created
under Executive Order No. 329, as amended by Executive Order No. 368 and 369 under
Resolution No. 97.1 dated 11 September 1997 fixed the fair market value of the Plaintiff Appellants property at Php. 55,000.00 per square meter or a total value of Php.
12,265,000.00 for the affected area of Two Hundred Twenty Three (223) sq. m. (Ibid.,
par. 5).
Thereafter the Two Hundred Twenty Three (223) sq. m. of the Plaintiff
-Appellants lot/parcel of land has been acquired or appropriated and have been selected
by Defendant -Appellees to form part, as it now formed part, of the Metro Manila
Skyway Project/Metro Manila Skyway as, in fact, has been and continuously in use by
Defendant - Appellees. (Ibid., par. 6)
-IIIAnd because the said affected parcel of land owned by Plaintiff - Appellant has
been appropriated by Defendant Appellees for the Metro Manila Sky Way Project, on
14 August 1997, the amount of One Million Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos, (Php.
1,480,000.00) has been paid by the Defendant - Appellees to the Plaintiff - Appellant, as
partial payment.
Thus leaving an outstanding balance/obligation in the amount of Ten Million
Seven Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Pesos (Php. 10,785,000.00) out of the total Twelve
Million Two Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (Php. 12,265,000.00) in accordance to
the amount fixed by the Defendant - Appellees themselves, through their Resolution No.
97.1 dated 11 September 1997 fixing the fair market value of the affected lots at Fifty
Five Thousand Pesos, (Php. 55,000.00) per square meter.
-III-

Page 4
Since 14 August 1997, or decade and a half therefrom, Plaintiff - Appellant had
consistently on numerous occasions demanded upon Defendant - Appellees to pay their
remaining balance/obligation in the total sum of Ten Million Seven Hundred Eighty Five
Thousand Pesos, (Php. 10,785,000.00), but the latter with evident bad faith religiously
failed and refused to pay the same to the great damage and prejudice of Plaintiff Appellant.
By reason of the bad faith on the part of the Defendant - Appellee in dealing with
Plaintiff - Appellant, the latter was compelled to seek judicial recourse in enforcing his
right, hence this action.
-IVAt the Pre-Trial Conference held on 13 February 2012, Plaintiff Appellant and
Defendant Appellees opted not to present testimonial evidence and instead agreed to
formally offer their documentary evidence and thereafter, submit their respective
Memoranda. The said Pre-trial Conference was also terminated on the said date.
-VAfter the Memorandum for the Plaintiff Appellant was filed and a rigodon of
Motion to for Extension of Time to File Memorandum for the Defendant Appellees
were filed and subsequently denied, the Memorandum for Defendant Appellees was
filed and then noted by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the case was submitted for Decision.
-VIOn 28 November 2012, the Trial Court rendered a Decision, the dispositive
portion of which is herein cited as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby
rendered dismissing plaintiffs complaint for lack of merit and
insufficiency of evidence.
Defendants counterclaims are likewise denied and dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.

Page 5
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Pasig City, November 28, 2012.
(Sgd.)
ROWENA DE JUAN QUINAGORAN
Presiding Judge
-VIIAfter a timely Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Plaintiff Appellant was
filed the same was denied by the Trial Court, Hence this Present Appeal.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPELLANT

Evidence of the Plaintiff were marked and formally offered as follows:
Exhibit
1) A
Nature/Document
-Special Power of Attorney dated 04 March 1997.
A-1
-Signature of Plaintiff Danilo Bartolata.
Purpose
-Offered to show and prove that Rebecca R. Pilot and

/or Dioniso P. Pilot have been duly authorized/
empowered by Plaintiff Danilo Bartolata as
his
Representative/ Attorney-In-Fact.
2) B
-Tax Declaration of Lot 5, Block 1, Phase 1.
B-1
-Dorsal Portion/ Back Portion thereof.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the subject Lot/ Property in

the instant case, Lot 5, Block 1, Phase 1, AFPOVAI,
Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila, as per the
Declaration of Real Property is Registered in
the
name of Plaintiff, has been declared

Page 6
for taxation
purposes in the name of
Plaintiff Danilo Bartolata.

3) C
-Certified Copy of the Resolution No. 97-1 dated 11

September 1997.
C-1 to C-3
-Pages 2-4 thereof.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the subject Lot/ Property was
appraised by the Municipal Appraisal Committee
(Taguig) (Created under Executive Order
No. 329 as
amended by Executive Order Nos.
368 and 369) of
the
Metro
Development Authority, that the
Manila
Fair
Market Value of the affected properties amounted

to Php 55,000.00 per sq. m. and should be paid to
Plaintiff by the Defendants.
-Which appraisal was made pursuant to and in
accordance with the Letter dated 07 August 1997 of
the Toll Regulatory Board through Project Manager
Paulino G. Gueco of the Metro Manila Sky Way
Project addressed to Hon. Propero I. Oreta,
Chairman
of the Metro Manila Development
Authority, which
Letter was attached
to Resolution No. 97-1 (Exhibit

C-4
Purpose
C).
-Letter dated 28 October 1997.

-To show and prove that Robert C. Nacianceno,
General Manager, Chairman, Appraisal Committee,
Metropolitan Development Authority, sent a letter

Page 7
dated 28 October 1997 to Project Manager

Paulino G.
Gueco of the Metro Manila Sky Way
Project and
submitted Resolution No 97-
1 (Exhibit C).
4) D
-Letter dated 26 November 2007.
D-1
-Signature of Dionisio Pilot.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Representative/ Attorney-infact Dionisio P. Pilot requested for a Certification
from
Executive Director Manuel G. Imperial of
the Toll and
Regulatory Board, on the subject lot/
property for the
payment of Real Property
Tax.
5) E
Purpose

-To show and prove that Executive Director Manuel
G. Imperial of the Toll Regulatory Board wrote a
Memorandum to Hon. Hermogenes E. Ebdane Jr.,
Secretary, DPWH, requesting information to
the claim
for compensation by Plaintiff.
E-1 to E-3
-Attachments thereof.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Defendants have Accounts

payable to Plaintiff on the subject lot/ property, Lot
5,
Block 1, Phase 1, AFPOVAI.
6) F
Purpose
-Letter dated 09 January 2007.

-To show and prove that Counsel for Plaintiff, Atty.
David B. Agoncillo, requested for a meeting/

Page 8
conference
Transportation and
with
the
Department
Communication
settlement of the claim of
for
of
the
Plaintiff,
Represented by his Attorney-in-Fact Dionisio

Pilot and/ or Rebecca Pilot .
7) G
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff, as a member of the

AFP Officers Village Association Inc. (AFPOVAI),
sought the assistance of Hon. Eileen
Ermita-Buhain,
Representative, First District
of Batangas, for the
settlement
of
their
claims against Defendants.

8) H
-Letter dated 06 April 2005.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff, through Major

Virgilio R. Ramos, sought the assistance of Director
Ricalinda N Adriatico, Department of Budget and
Management, for the settlement of their
claims
against Defendants.
H-1 to H-2
-Attachments thereof.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff, through Major

Virgilio R. Ramos, sought the assistance of Hon.
Emilia Boncodin, Secretary, Department of
Budget
and Management, for the
settlement of their claims

Defendants.
9) I
-Letter dated 09 March 2005.
against

Page 9
Purpose
-To show and prove that Executive Director Manuel

G. Imperial, Toll Regulatory Board, in his letter dated
09 March 2005 to Major Virgilio R. Ramos,
admitted/
acknowledged
obligation to Plaintiff, as
Defendants
one of the owners of
the Lots/ properties affected by
the
Metro
Manila Skyway Project .

I-1
-Indorsement dated 23 February 2005.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff, as a member of the

AFP Officers Village Association Inc. (AFPOVAI),
sought the assistance of Hon. Eileen
Ermita-Buhain,
Representative, First District
of Batangas, for the
settlement
of
their
claims against Defendants.

I-2
-Letter dated 15 February 2005 by Maj. Virgilio
R.
Ramos to Hon Hermogenes Ebdane, Secretary of

the
Department of Public Works and Highways.

I-3
-Signature of Maj. Virgilio R. Ramos.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Maj. Virgilio R. Ramos, wrote

a Letter dated 15 February 2005 to Hon.
Hermoegenes Ebdane, Secretary of the
Department
Highways, for the settlement/
balance of Php. 10,785,000.00 on the
lot/property affected by the Metro Manila
Skyway Project.
of
Public
Works
and
payment of the
subject

Page 10
10)J
-Memorandum from the Office of the Office of the

President of the Philippines dated 18 October 2000..
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff, together with other

lot owners, sought the assistance of then President
Joseph E. Estrada, President of the Republic
of the
Philippines,
Secretary R. B.
through
Zamora,
Executive
for
settlement/ payment of their claims
the
for
payment on the subject lot/property affected by the

Metro Manila Skyway Project.
J-1
-Memorandum from the President of the Philippines

dated 24 October 2000.
Purpose
-To show and prove that then President Joseph E.

Estrada,
Philippines,
President
of
the
Republic
of
the
wrote Secretary of Department of
Public Works and
Highways to expedite the
claims of Plaintiff and other
lot owners affected by
the Metro Manila Skyway
Project .
J-2
-Memorandum dated 06 November 2000.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Executive Secretary Ronaldo

B. Zamora, of the Office of the President of the
Republic of the Philippines, transmitted the
Memorandum dated 24 October
2000, (Exhibit J) to
of the claims of Plaintiff and
owners affected by the Metro Manila Skyway
Project.
expedite full payment

other
lot

Page 11
11) K
-First Indorsement dated 07 March 2001.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Director III Oscar D. Abundo,

from the Office of the Secretary of DPWH, indorsed
the claim of the Plaintiff and other property owners
the
Secretary of DOTC, for the payment of Just

Compensation of their properties
affected by the
Metro Manila Skyway
Project.
12)L
-Letter dated 28 June 2001.
L-1
-Page 2 thereof.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Executive Director Jaime S.

Dumlao Jr. of the Toll Regulatory Board,wrote a
letter
to
Secretary
Chairman of
Simeon
TRB,
obligation to Plaintiff and other
A.
Datumanong,
admitting
their
property
owners affected by the Metro Manila Skyway

Project and, further, they wanted to settle the claims
but the TRB was not granted any ROW Budget for the
year 2000 and consequently for the year 2001 budget
was just a re-enactment of the 2000 budget. We
proposed to the Department of Budget and
Management a ROW appropriation for
2002, which
includes
AFPOVAI properties.
13)M
-Letter dated 03 May 2001.
the
balances
for
the

Page 12
Purpose
-To show and prove that Deputy Executive Secretary

Ernesto P. Martinez, from the Office of the
President
of the Philippines, inquired as to the
action taken by
the Secretary of the DPWH,
for the payment of the
Just
Compensation of their properties owned by the

Plaintiff and other members of the AFPOVAI affected
by the Metro Manila Skyway Project.
14)N
Purpose
-Letter dated 02 March 2004.

-To show and prove that Executive Director Jaime S.
Dumlao of the Toll Regulatory Board, wrote a letter
to
Atty. David B. Agoncillo, Counsel for the Plaintiff,

admitting their obligation and that TRB
had
constantly
requested
for
the
inclusion of the requisite
specific appropriation
for the satisfaction of the
balance from
the Right-of-way obligations in the
annual
General Appropriations Act, (GAA), for the

past years and is consistently exerting effort for the
inclusion of the said appropriation in the present
budget.
15)O
-Letter dated 23 May 2000 which is the Notice of

Assessment.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the Subject lot has been
declared for Taxation Purposes as per the Notice of

Page 13
Assessment, Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila,

in
the Name of the Plaintiff.
O-1
O-2
-Official Receipt No. 3549140-C dated 25 May 2000.

-Certification issued by the Municipality of Taguig
dated 25 May 2000.
O-3
-Receipt Payment
O-4
-Official Receipt No. 7312362 dated 26 March 1998
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff has paying, and thus
paid, the corresponding Real Property Taxes over
the
subject lot to the Municipality of Taguig,
Metro Manila.
16)P
P-1
-Page 2 thereof.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Officer-in-Charge Ramon V.

Dumaual, TRB, wrote a letter to Chief Executive
Officer Cezar T. Quiambao, CITRA METRO
AMNILA
TOLLWAYS CORPORATION, for the
release of
additional amount for the
payment of the Just
Compensation of the
lots affected by the Metro Manila

Project.
P-2
P-3
-Page 2 thereof.
Skyway

Page 14
Purpose
-To show and prove that Chief Executive Officer

Cezar T. Quiambao, CITRA METRO MANILA
TOLLWAYS CORPORATION, wrote a letter
dated 07
January 1998 to Officer-in-Charge
Ramon V.
Dumaual,
therein that they have
TRB,
advanced
amount of Php. 111,146,682.95 for
stating
the
the
total
ROW
acquisition cost and related expenses for
the
Just Compensation of the lots affected by the

Metro Manila Skyway Project.
17)Q
-Just Compensation Appraisal dated 23 April 1998

(provisionally marking).
Q-1 to Q-17
-succeeding pages and attachments.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Just Compensation

Appraisal was conducted.
18)R
Purpose
-Tax Declaration No. D-019-00950.

-To show and prove that the subject lot/property, Lot
5, Block I, Phase 1, AFPOVAI, Fort Bonifacio,
Taguig,
Metro
Manila,
Declaration of Real Property
as
per
the
is Registered in the
name of Plaintiff.
R-1
-Tax Declaration No. D-019-01451.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the subject lot/property, Lot

5, Block I, Phase 1, AFPOVAI, Fort Bonifacio,
Taguig,
Metro
Manila,
as
per
the

Page 15
Declaration of Real Property
is Registered in the
name of Plaintiff.
19)S
-Certification dated 11 July 1997
S-1
-Official Receipt No. 7059923, dated 10 July 1997.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the Plaintiff has paying, and
thus have paid, the corresponding Real Property
Taxes over the subject property and was
issued
clearance to that effect.
S-2
-Tax Receipt No. 9397884, dated 10 July 1997
S-3
-Tax Receipt No. 9397549, dated 11 July 1997.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the Plaintiff has paying, and
thus have paid, the corresponding Real Property
Taxes over the subject property and was
issued
20)T
clearance to that effect.

-Letter dated 24 April 1997
T-1
-Attachment thereof.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the Project Manager Paulino

G. Gueco, Metro Manila Skyway Project wrote a
letter
to Col. Rodolfo B. Villanueva of the
AFPOVAI,
requesting for the submission
of certain documents to
of Just Compensation on the
affected by the Metro Manila Skyway
Project.
T-2
-Letter, dated 08 September 1997.
facilitate the payment

lots/property

Page 16
Purpose

letter
to Hon. Prospero I. Oreta, Chairman of the
Metro
Manila Development Authority, for
the Facilitation of
the
appraisal
lots/property affected by the Metro
of
the
Manila
Skyway Project, which thereafter was

appraised at Php. 55,000.00 per square meter .
21)U
-Permit to Enter/ Utilize Lot, dated 08 September

1997.
U-1
-Attachment dated 08 September 1997.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the Plaintiff, through his

Attorney-in-Fact Dionisio Pilot, gave the Permit to
Enter/Utilize Lot through Defendant TRB to
enter/utilize the subject lot for the
construction of the
Metro
Manila
Skyway
Project.
22)V
Purpose
-Letter dated 10 April 1996

letter
to Plaintiff through his Attorney-in-Fact
Dionisio Pilot
for
documents.
23)W
-Appraisal Report.
W-1 to W-15 -Attachment thereof.
the
submission
of
certain

Page 17
Purpose
-To show and prove that appraisal was conducted in

the subject lots/property.
24)X
-Letter dated 27 October 1998
Purpose
-To show and prove that Chief Executive Officer

Cesar T. Quiambao wrote a Letter dated 27
October
1998, through Executive Director
Atty. Mariano E.
Benedicto, TRB, that
they are prepared to advance
on behalf of
the TRB up to Php. 55,526,094.00 to the

AFPOVAI, landowners in seven (7) equal Installments
beginning November 1998 up to May 1999 .
25)Y
Purpose
-Memorandum dated 03 April 2000.

-To show and prove that Plaintiff, together with other
lot owners, sought the assistance of then President
Joseph E. Estrada, President of the Republic
of the
Philippines,
Secretary Ronaldo B.
through
Executive
Zamora for the settlement of
their claims for payment
on
the
lot/property affected by the Metro
subject
Manila
Skyway Project..
26)Z
Purpose
-Resolution No 97-89.
-To show and prove that Defendant Toll Regulatory
Board, through Chairman Gregorio R. Vigilar,
admitted their obligation to Plaintiff, as in
fact,
Plaintiff the amount
Defendants paid and advanced to

of Php. 1,480,000.00.

Page 18
27)AA
Purpose
-To show and prove that as per the letter dated 28

October 1997 by General Manager Robert C.
Nepomuceno,
Committee,
Chairman,
Appraisal
MMDA, addressed to project
Manager Paulino G.
Gueco, subject lots
have been appraised at Php.
55,000.00 per
square meter.
28)BB
Purpose
-Subdivision Plan.
-To show and prove that a subdivision plan has been
prepared for the subject lot.
29)CC
Purpose
-Disbursement Voucher for PHp. 480,000.00

-To show and prove that Defendants paid and
advanced to Plaintiff in the amount of
.Php. 480,000.00.
30) DD
-Metrobank Deposit Slip for Php. 1,000,000.00., dated

21 January 1998
DD-1
-Disbursement Voucher for Php. 1,000,000.00.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Defendants paid and

advanced to Plaintiff the amount of
Php. 1,000,000.00.
DD-2
-Disbursement Voucher for Php. 480,000.00.
Purpose
- To show and prove that Defendants paid and

advanced to Plaintiff in the amount of

Page 19
.Php. 480,000.00.
31)EE
-Technical Description.
EE-1
-Receipt of Payment No. 1758234.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the subject lot/property has a

technical description.
32) FF
Purpose
-Letter dated 10 April 1992.

-To show and prove that Alicia V. Dayrit Chief of the
Land Utilization Management Bureau, requested
Plaintiff
for
documents
submission
for
certain
regarding the subject lot.
FF-1
Purpose
-To show and prove that Hector S. Fabros, Chief of

the Legal Division of the Land Management
Bureau,
requested Plaintiff for submission
for certain
documents
regarding
the
subject lot.
33)GG
-List of Public Land Application Turned-Over dated 16

May 1995.
GG-1
-Official Receipt No. 1758243.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the subject lot/property is

included in the list of Public Lands Application
Turned-Over.
34)HH
HH-1
-Order of Award dated 14 December 1987.


Page 20
HH-2
-Official Reciept No. 8575695.
Purpose
-To show and prove that the subject lot/property has

been awarded to Plaintiff.
35)II
-Barangay Clearance dated 22 March 1994.
II-1 and II-2 -Attachments thereof.

Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff is a bon a fide

resident and owner of the lot and structure over Lot
5,
Block 1, Phase 1, AFPOVAI, Barangay Western

Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila.
36)JJ
JJ-1
JJ-2
JJ-3
JJ-4
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff had paying, and in

fact has paid his dues to the AFP OfficersVillage
Association Inc., (AFPOVAI).
37)KK
-Tax Declaration Receipt No. 6356813 dated 07

January 1988.
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff has paid the Real
Property Taxes on the subject lot/property.
38)LL
-Deed of Absolute Sale dated 07 January 1988.
LL-1 to LL-4 -Succeeding pages thereof.

Page 21
LL-5
-Certification issued by the Office of Clerk of Court of

the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated 06
September 2010.
LL-6
-Certification issued by the Office of Clerk of Court of

the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated 05
September 2000
LL-7
-Official Receipt No. 0692479 dated 05 October 2010
Purpose
-To show and prove that the Defendants have paid

Nestor C. Castillo, a property/lot owner, affected by
the Metro Manila Skyway Project and therefore
Defendants have waived the application of
the
encumbrance under Commonwealth
Act No.141.
39)MM
-Presidential Decree No. 2001.
MM-1
-Succeeding pages thereof; and
MM-3
Purpose
-To show and prove that Plaintiff is qualified by the

subject lot/property under Presidential Decree No.
2004 and therefor the certain provision of
Commonwealth
according to
Act
No.
Defendants,
be applied on the subject lot
141,
cannot
property.
REFUTATION OF ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

-I-

Page 22
The Honorable Trial Court committed a grave reversible error in ruling that
Commonwealth Act No. 141 is applicable on the subject parcel of land.
-IIThe Honorable Trial Court committed a grave reversible error in ruling that Plaintiff
Appellant is not entitled to the payment of the balance of Just Compensation in the
amount of Php 10,785,000.00 with legal interest commencing 14 August 1997 until fully
paid;
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
-ITHE SUBJECT LOT/PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY DEFENDANT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT WITH
RESPECT TO INCUMBRANCES.
Plaintiff Appellant respectfully begs to disagree with the Decision dated 28

November 2012 and the Resolution denying the Motion for reconsideration of the
Honorable Trial Court when it Ruled that the parcel of land owned by Plaintiff
Appellant which was affected by the Metro Manila Skyway Project was subject to the
encumbrance as provided in the provisions of the Public Land Act.
The said provision of the Public Land Act, which provides:
Commonwealth Act No. 141
xxx
Section 112.
Said land shall further be subject to a right-
of-way not exceeding sixty (60) meters in width for public

highways,
railroads,
irrigation
ditches,
aqueducts,
telegraph and telephone lines and similar works as the

Page 23
Government or any public or quasi-public service or

enterprise, including mining or forest concessionaires, may
reasonably require for carrying on their business, with
damages for the improvements only.(Italics Supplied)
While it is not disputed, and in fact, Plaintiff - Appellant is in full accord with
such provision of the law, however, it is then more important to dissect the ancestry of the
subject lot/property owned by Plaintiff - Appellant.
On 29 September 1965, then President of the Republic of the Philippines,
President Diosdado Macapagal issued Proclamation No. 461, (Published in Vol. 61 (No.
49) O.G., pp. 8011-8015), entitled EXCLUDING FROM THE OPERATION OF
PROCLAMATION NO. 423 DATED JULY 12, 1957, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
MILITARY RESERVATION KNOWN AS THE FORT WILLIAM MCKINLEY (NOW
FORT ANDRES BONIFACIO) SITUATED IN THE MINUCIPALITIES OF PASIG,
TAGIG AND PARAAQUE, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, AND OPASAY CITY, A
CERTAIN PORTION OF LAND EMBRACED THEREIN, SITUATED IN THE
MUNICIPALITIES OF TAGIG AND PARAAQUE, PROVINCE OF RIZAL AND
PASAY CITY, ISLANG OF LUZON, AND DECLARING THE SAME AS AFP
OFFICERS VILLAGE TO BE DISPOSED OF UNDER REPUBLIC ACTS NOS. 274
AND 730.
In fact, two Presidential Proclamations were issued by President Diosdado
Macapagal to that effect. One of which is Proclamation No. 46, as discussed by the High
Court in the case of Republic v. Southside Homeowners Association Inc., (G.R. No.
156951, September 22, 2006), to wit:
On July 12, 1957, then President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation
No. 423 establishing a military reservation known as Fort William
McKinley later renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio Military Reservation
(FBMR). The proclamation "withdrew from sale or settlement and

Page 24
reserve[d] for military purposes, under the administration of the Chief of

Staff of the [AFP] the [certain] parcels of the public domain [indicated
in plan Psu-2031]" situated in the several towns and a city of what was
once the Province of Rizal. On its face, the proclamation covers three (3)
large parcels of land, to wit: Parcel No. 2 (portion), Parcel No. 3 (or 3-A)
and Parcel No. 4 (or 4-A). Parcel No. 3 with an area of 15,912,684 square
meters and Parcel No. 4 with an area of 7,660,128 square meters are
described in the proclamation as situated inside Fort McKinley, Rizal.
Specifically mentioned as excluded from Parcel No. 4 albeit within its
boundaries are the American Battle Monument Cemetery (606,985 sq.
m.), the Traffic Circle (7,093 sq. m.) and the Diplomatic and Consular
area (100,000 sq.m.).
Several presidential proclamations would later issue excluding certain
defined areas from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and declaring
them open for disposition. These are Proclamation No. 461and
Proclamation No. 462, both series of 1965, excluding portions of the
reservation and declaring them the AFP Officers Village and the AFP
EMs Village, respectively, to be disposed of under Republic Act (R.A.) 274
and R.A. 730 in relation to the Public Land Act (C.A. 141, as amended).
(Emphasis Supplied)
Republic Act No. 274, (took effect on June 15, 1948), which is entitled, AN
ACT AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS TO SUBDIVIDE THE LANDS
WITHIN MILITARY RESERVATIONS BELONGING TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES WHICH ARE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES,
AND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY SALE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
CONDITIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Page 25
While Republic Act No. 730, (took effect on June 18, 1952), entitled, AN
ACT TO PERMIT THE SALE WITHOUT PUBLIC AUCTION OF PUBLIC LANDS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TO
QUALIFIED APPLICANTS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
Furthermore, section 2 of Republic Act No. 730 provides:
Section 2.
Except in favor of the Government or any of its
branches, units, or institutions lands acquired under the provisions

of this Act shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation before
the patent is issued and for a term of ten years from the date of the
issuance of such patent, nor shall they become liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said
period.
xxx
Any contract or agreement made or executed in violation of this
section shall be void ab initio. (Underscoring Supplied)
It is clear therefor, that there is such an encumbrance over the said
lot/property owned by Plaintiff - Appellant prior 1985. However on 30 December 1985,
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Republic of the Philippines issued
Presidential Decree No. 2004 which entitled, AMENDING Section TWO OF
REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY RELATIVE TO
THE SALE WITHOUT PUBLIC AUCTION OF PUBLIC LANDS OF THE REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TO QUALIFIED
APPLICANTS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 2004 states in verbatim to wit:
Section 1. Section Two of Republic Act Numbered Seven Hundred
and
Thirty
is
hereby
amended
to
read
as
follows:

Page 26
"Sec. 2. Lands acquired under the provisions of this Act

shall not be subject to any restrictions against encumbrance or
alienation before and after the issuance of the patents
thereon." (Bold Supplied)
Thus it is correct, therefore, that Republic Act No. 274 and Republic Act No.
730 are the twin statutes for the subject lot/property owned by Plaintiff - Appellant for the
land to become a private property, which was then a part of a Military Reserve of the
Philippines, on the condition that land would be subjected to an encumbrance in favor of
the Government. Such encumbrance is coined under section 2 of Republic Act No. 730
and/or Section 112 of the Commonwealth Act No. 141.
The said restriction of encumbrance applies, not just over the subject
lot/property owned by Plaintiff - Appellant, but to the entire AFP Officers Village, in
accordance to Presidential Proclamation No. 461.
However, by reason of the express provision of the Presidential Decree No.
2004, amending section 2 of Republic Act No. 730 removing the restriction on the
encumbrance for the Government, and thereby stating that all lands acquired under the
provisions of Republic Act No. 730 is now free from any restriction against any
encumbrance. Therefore, after the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 2004, or after 30
December 1985, and even before the award over the subject lot/property was given to
Plaintiff, there is no such existing restriction of encumbrance anymore over the subject
lot/property owned by Plaintiff- Appellant.
According to the Decision of the Honorable Trial Court the intention of the
Presidential Decree No. 2004 is to cover only public lands of the Republic of the
Philippines for residential purposes sold without public auction and those not cover
those sold at public auction,(p.9 Decision, 28 November 2012), will not jive with the

Page 27
essence or reason of the amending law which the Trial Court brilliantly considered in
particular when it stated:
Why would the law cover only sale without public auction? The
Court realized that it covers only those sold without public auction
because they involve pieces of land not exceeding 1000 square meters and
if these smaller pieces of lands will be subject to 60-meter in width
encumbrance pursuant to section 112 of CA 141, then the purchaser may
not be able to enjoy effective utilization of these pieces of land.
Whereas those covered by public sale presumably more than
1,000 square meters in area or those purchases not possessing the
qualifications as enumerated to the encumbrance, the awardee can still
enjoy effective utilization of these pieces of land. ,(p.10 Decision, 28
November 2012) Emphasis Ours,
In as much as Plaintiff - Appellant humbly express his dissent to the Decision
of the Trial Court, refuge is taken therefrom in reasoning that lands acquired under
Republic Act No. 730, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2004 are only less than
1,000 square meters, including the subject land herein owned by Plaintiff Appellant
which is way smaller than the half of 1,000, which is only 400 square meters.
Now, due to the acquisition by Defendant Appellees of 223 square meters
from the subject parcel of land owned by Plaintiff Appellants, the said subject land
cannot be utilized anymore to its full satisfaction.
And pursuant to the Doctrine Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat
quam pereat laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in the ancient case of Javellana v.
Nunez, (G.R No. L-14881, February 5, 1920), in interpreting the amending law,

Page 28
Presidential Decree No. 2004, in promoting the principles of social justice, it says the
construction is to be made so that the subject may have an effect rather than none.
And since the Defendant Appellees acquired the parcel of land of the
Plaintiff - Appellant for government purpose, is it not but just for the latter to be paid as
just compensation for what has been lost as his personal property.
-IIPLAINTIFF IS RIGHTFULLY AND JUSTICIABLY ENTITLED TO THE

PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE OF PHP. 10,785,00.00 WITH LEGAL INTEREST
COMMENCING 14 AUGUST 1997 UNTIL FULLY PAID.
It is a foremost rule in Constitutional law that no private property shall be taken

from its owner for Public Use by any person without payment of just compensation. Such
Constitutional right is enshrined in Our Paramount Law of the Land in the following
wise:
1987 Philippine Constitution
xxx
Article III Bill of Rights
xxx
Section 9:
Private Property shall not be taken without

payment of Just Compensation.
(Emphasis Supplied)
In fact, payment of just compensation is not only an express Constitutional

Right, but a well embraced principle in equity that no person shall be unjustly enriched at
the expense of another.
By reason thereof, such principle is also accepted in Our system of Laws
pursuant to Article 2142 which provides:

Page 29
Article 2142. - Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to
the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched
or benefited at the expense of another. (Italics Supplied)
This Constitutional Mandate and Principle of Equity were held supreme by the
Honorable High Tribunal on the catena of decided cases:
In Republic v. Lim, (G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005), the High Court, speaking
through the mind of Justice Sandoval-Guttierrez, citing the case of Coscuella vs. Court of
Appeals, (164 SCRA 393),said:
One of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution is
that no
person shall be deprived of his private property without due process of

law; and in expropriation cases, an essential element of due process is
that there must be just compensation whenever private property is taken
for public use. (Italics Supplied)
And following the case of Manila Railroad Co. vs. Velasquez, (32 Phil. 286), the
Court ruled:
Just compensation is described as a full and fair equivalent of the
property taken from the private owner by the expropriator. This is
intended to indemnify the owner fully for the loss he has sustained
as a result of the expropriation. The measure of this compensation
is not the takers gain but the owners loss. The word just is used to
intensify the meaning of the word compensation, to convey the idea
that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken shall be
real, substantial, full, ample. (Italics Ours)
Further in the case of Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. et al., vs. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, (175 SCRA 343), it was held that:
Title to property which is the subject of condemnation
proceedings
does not vest the condemnor until the judgment
fixing just compensation is entered and paid (Italics Ours)

Page 30
Furthermore, as early as 1919, the Supreme Court held in the case of Visayan
Refining Co. v. Camus and Paredes, (40 Phil 550) that:
If the laws which we have exhibited or cited in the preceding
discussion are attentively examined it will be apparent that the
method of expropriation adopted in this jurisdiction is such as to
afford absolute reassurance that no piece of land can be finally
and irrevocably taken from an unwilling owner until compensation
is paid. (Italics Ours)
At par with the foregoing is the case of Heirs of Saguitan v. City of
Mandaluyong, (G.R. No. 135087, March 14, 2000), wherein the Supreme Tribunal held:
Thus, the right of eminent domain appertains to every
independent government without the necessity for constitutional
recognition. The provisions found in modern constitutions of
civilized countries relating to the taking of property for the public
use do not by implication grant the power to the government, but
limit a power which would otherwise be without limit. Thus, our
own Constitution provides that private property shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation. Furthermore, the
due process and equal protection clauses act as additional
safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of this governmental
power. (Emphasis Ours)
And also in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Salem Investments
Corporation, (G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000), the High Tribunal said:
It is only upon payment of just compensation that title over the
property passes to the government

Page 31
And lastly, the present case is somewhat similar with the recent case of
Republic v. Ismael Andaya, (G.R. No. 160656, June 15, 2007), the Honorable Supreme
Court, with Justice Quisumbing speaking, held:
It is undisputed that there is a legal easement of right-of-way in
favor of the Republic. Andayas transfer certificates of title
contained the reservation that the lands covered thereby are subject
to the provisions of the Land Registration Act and the Public Land
Act. Section 112 of the Public Land Act provides that lands
granted by patent shall be subject to a right-of-way not exceeding
60 meters in width for public highways, irrigation ditches,
aqueducts, and other similar works of the government or any
public enterprise, free of charge, except only for the value of the
improvements existing thereon that may be affected. In view of
this, the Court of Appeals declared that all the Republic needs to
do is to enforce such right without having to initiate expropriation
proceedings and without having to pay any just compensation.
Hence, the Republic may appropriate the 701 square meters
necessary for the construction of the floodwalls without paying for
it.
We are, however, unable to sustain the Republics argument
that it is not liable to pay consequential damages if in enforcing
the legal easement on Andayas property, the remaining area
would be rendered unusable and uninhabitable. Taking, in the
exercise of the power of eminent domain, occurs not only when
the government actually deprives or dispossesses the property
owner of his property or of its ordinary use, but also when there
is a practical destruction or material impairment of the value of
his property.

Page 32
xxx
For this reason, in our view, Andaya is entitled to payment of just
compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the
monetary equivalent of the land. (Emphasis Ours)
The total area of the lot/property owned by Plaintiff is 400 sqm. and by
reason of the Metro Manila Skyway Project of the Government, 223 sqm. of which was
utilized for the said purpose and was acquired by Defendant. Thus such affected area
must, and should, be paid the appropriate Just Compensation as the foregoing thus
dictate.
And pursuant to the acquisition of the subject lot/property for the government
project, the Municipal Appraisal Committee (Taguig Metro Manila) created under
Executive Order No. 329, as amended by Executive Order No. 368 and 369 under
Resolution No. 97-1 dated 11 September 1997 fixed the fair market value of the subject
lot/property owned by Plaintiff at Php 55,000.00 per square meter or a total of Php. 12,
265,000.00 for 223 sqm., the area affected by the Metro Manila Skyway Project.
Thus, Defendants act of making the partial/advance payment to Plaintiff the
amount of Php 1,480,000.00, for the Just Compensation of the affected lot/property by
the Skyway Project, resulted for the unpaid balance of Php. 10,785,000.00.
And now, unbelievably, Defendants claims that the partial/advance payment
made by them in the amount of Php. 1,480,000.00 is illegal.
This claim is totally unwarranted, by the reason that Defendants themselves
had effected payment therefor, and in fact, said payment was made for the Just
Compensation. It is very incredible for a reasonable mind to adhere such conclusion that
after being a party to a contractual obligation, one party asserts illegality just to abscond
liability thereto.

Page 33
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the partial/advance payment made
by Defendants to Plaintiff was obtained illegal, Defendants should also faulted to such
act, as they themselves are in pari delicto, being the very same person who made such
payment and insinuated Plaintiff by fraudulent machinations of promises of being paid of
the appraised amount over the subject acquired lot/property lawfully belonging to
Plaintiff. Such they cannot heed the aid of this Honorable Court for alleged illegal acts
wherein they commenced in the first place.
Equity cannot just allow Defendants not to pay the balance of the Just
Compensation appraised by them to the Plaintiff especially when they are already
utilizing the use of the said lot/property in their own benefit, and as in fact already
collecting toll fees over the project since the opening thereof to the public. As if in case
that the balance for the Just Compensation for the subject lot/property would not be paid
to Plaintiff, the Just Compensation over the subject lot/property will remain, up to
present, unpaid. In jurisdictions similar to ours, where an entry to the expropriated
property precedes the payment of compensation, it has been held that if the compensation
is not paid in a reasonable time, the party may be treated as a trespasser ab initio
(Republic v. Lim, supra)
Further, it is noteworthy that the subject lot/property of Plaintiff is already
classified as one Private Property by virtue of an Order of Award dated 14 December
1987, awarding the same to Plaintiff.
Thus, in the event that the Defendants claim manifest to be true, that the
payment of the balance of the Just Compensation over the subject lot/property belonging
to Plaintiff should not be paid to the latter, it will result in the automatic unjust
enrichment on the part of Defendants at the Plaintiffs prejudice, and will synonymously
produce to the miscarriage of the mandate of the Constitutional Right of Plaintiff that no
private property shall be taken without payment of Just Compensation, which cannot be

Page 34
done as it will be an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a Citizen (Amigable v.

Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360).
While the inherent power of Eminent Domain of the state is undisputed, such
power is subject to the limitation of Just Compensation. And it is thus in accordance with
justice that payment of Just Compensation is an inherent requisite for the Power of
Eminent Domain to be given effect. This is because of the Constitutional Provision that:
1987 Philippine Constitution
xxx
Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Section 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican

State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them
(Emphasis Supplied)
Furthermore, it is also significant to address to the wisdom of this Honorable
Court that it is even the Defendants themselves who initiated, conducted and offered the
appraised value of the Just Compensation to be paid by them to the Plaintiff, through
their governmental agency in the body of Municipal Appraisal Committee. And making
the partial/advance payment to the Plaintiff in the amount appraised and accepted by
Plaintiff, thus a contract between Defendants and Plaintiff was conceived.
More than just the principal of the payment of Just Compensation is
concerned, Plaintiff is even and justly entitled to the interests thereto since the time that
the Defendants had taken possession over the subject lot/property. Because the time
Defendants took the property from the Plaintiff, the latter had already ceased to enjoy the
benefits over the subject lot/property even if the payment of the appraised Just
Compensation had not yet been paid by the Defendants.

Page 35
And in fact, Defendants had already been enjoying all the rights of an owner
thereto, specially the jus fruendi thereof, in the nature of the toll fees collected by them in
every single motor vehicle of whatever kind or nature that passes therein. And yet after
the lapse of almost a decade and a half, notwithstanding such benefits derived by the
Defendants over the lot/property, which once owned by Plaintiff, the latters hope of
being paid in full by the Defendants of the Just Compensation due to the former, vanished
like dust in the well of the abyss.
The Honorable Supreme Court awarded the payment of legal interests over the
principal of the Just Compensation due to the owners of a private property subject of an
appropriation of the government for public use in the recent case of National Power Corp.
vs. Heirs of Macabangkit, (G.R. No. 165828, August 14, 2011), speaking through Justice
Bersamin, the Court declares:
Conformably with the ruling in Manila International Airport
Authority v. Rodriguez, in which the award of interest was held to
render the grant of back rentals unwarranted, we delete the award
of back rentals and in its place prescribe interest of 12% interest
per annum from November 21, 1997, the date of the filing of the
complaint, until the full liability is paid by NPC. The imposition of
interest of 12% interest per annum follows a long line of
pertinent jurisprudence, whereby the Court has fixed the rate of
interest on just compensation at 12% per annum whenever the
expropriator
has
not
immediately
paid
just
compensation.(Emphasis Ours)
And also recent case of Export Processing Zone v. Jose Pulido, et. Al., (G.R.
No. 188995, August 24, 2011), wherein the Honorable High Court, stressed:
It is undeniable that just compensation was not promptly
made to the Estate of Salud Jimenez for the taking of Lot 1406-B

Page 36
by the petitionerThe move to compensate through the swap

arrangement under the Compromise Agreement was aborted or
amounted to nothing through no fault of the Estate of Salud
Jimenez.
xxx
In fact, the Estate of Salud Jimenez was compelled to seek
the rescission of the Compromise Agreement, a process that
prolonged even more the delay in the payment of just
compensation. . In view of this, the CAs fixing of legal interest at
only 6% per annum cannot be upheld and must be corrected, for
that rate would not ensure that compensation was just in the face of
the long delay in payment.
Already in G.R. No. 137285, the Court noted the long
delay in payment and was naturally prompted to strongly condemn
the cavalier attitude of government officials who adopt such a
despotic and irresponsible stance, quoting from Cosculluela v.
Court of Appeals, that:
It is high time that the petitioner be paid what was
due him eleven years ago. It is arbitrary and capricious for
a government agency to initiate expropriation proceedings,
seize a persons property, allow a judgment of the court to
become final and executory and then refuse to pay on the
ground that there are no appropriations for the property
earlier taken and profitably used. We condemn in the
strongest possible terms the cavalier attitude of government
officials who adopt such a despotic and irresponsible
stance.

Page 37
Accordingly, we hereby impose 12% interest per annum on

the unpaid gross value of P81,331,600.00 for Lot 1406-B (i.e.,
13,118 square meters x P6,200.00/square meter) from August 23,
1993, the date of the approval of the failed Compromise
Agreement, until the full amount of the just compensation is paid,
as a way of making the compensation just. This accords with a
long line of pertinent jurisprudence, whereby the Court has
imposed interest at 12% per annum in eminent domain whenever
the expropriator has not immediately delivered the just
compensation.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on
certiorari filed by Philippine Export Zone Authority, and
AFFIRM the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on
April 20, 2009, subject to the MODIFICATION that the legal
interest chargeable on the unpaid just compensation for Lot 1406B is 12% per annum reckoned from August 23, 1993 on the unpaid
gross value of P81,331,600.00 for Lot 1406-B.
(Underscoring Supplied)
If that would be the case, it is plain and simple that the amount of Php.
1,480,000.00, being the partial/advance payment made by Defendants to Plaintiff, which
the latter had acceded to, will result to the unpaid balance in the amount of Php.
10,785,000.00 for the determined Just Compensation in the amount of Php.
12,265,000.00. And as a proximate cause of which, it is but just and more than correct to
rule that the partial/advance payment made by Defendants cannot be refunded back to
them and moreover, order the Defendants to fulfill their obligation in paying the Just
Compensation lawfully due to the Plaintiff plus accrued legal interest thereto.

Page 38
Pursuant with the evidence submitted before this Honorable Court, the recent
prevailing and controlling doctrines of Our Jurisprudence laid by the Honorable Supreme
Court, the Laws, the well entrenched principles of equity and justice, and the
Constitutional Rights and Guaranties enshrined under the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, justice dictates therefore, reversible error that the Trial Court
has committed.

Page 39
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed for
of this Most Honorable Court of Appeals that Judgment be rendered in favor of Plaintiff Appellant and against Defendant - Appellees, as follows:
1. ORDERING that the Decision dated 28 November 2012 dismissing
the Complaint of Plaintiff Appellant and the Resolution denying the
Motion for Reconsideration be LIFTED, REVERESED and SET
ASIDE, and;
2. ORDER Defendant - Appellees, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff
Appellant the sum of Php. 10,785,000.00 plus legal interest
commencing 14 August 1997 until fully paid; and,
3. ORDER Defendant - Appellees, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff Appellant litigation expenses and Attorneys Fees of one percent (1%)
of the amount recovered; and,
4. Costs of this suit.
Plaintiff, further, prays for such other reliefs and remedies that this Most
Honorable Court of Appeals may see fit as just and equitable under the circumstances.
Manila, __ July 2013.
The Law Firm of:
DAVID B. AGONCILLO
Counsel for Plaintiff - Appellant
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 3507

1099, Manila
Office Address:1425-A Pampanga Street
Tondo, Manila,
Roll No. 25604
IBP No.840819

Page 40
02 September 2011 Manila 4

MCLE Cert. of Comp. No. 111-0005754
PTR VC-1227149, 03 January 2012
Email address: atty_agoncillo4542@yahoo.com
Mobile No. 0919-279-7071
With my Conformity:
DANILO BARTOLATA
Plaintiff
By:
________________________
__________________________
REBECCA R. PILOT
DIONISIO P. PILOT
Attorney-in-Fact
Attorney-in-Fact
-EXPLANATION(In accordance to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Copy of this foregoing Plaintiff Appellants Brief was served upon the
Solicitor General, Counsel for Defendant Appellees, through Registered Mail for lack
of personnel to effect personal service of the same.
DAVID B. AGONCILLO
Copy Furnished:
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Counsel for the Defendants
No. 134 Amorsolo Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
VERIFICATION

Page 41
DIONISIO and REBECCA PILOT, under oath, states:

1)
We are the Representative/Attorney-in-Fact of Plaintiff-Appellant in

the above entitled case.
2)
We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Appellants Brief by

our Legal Counsel.
3
)
have read the allegations therein contained and the allegations
are based on my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records and are
true and correct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed below this
day of July 2012 at Manila.
________________________
REBECCA R. PILOT
__________________________
DIONISIO P. PILOT
Affiant
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
day of July
2013 at Manila.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2013.

Page 42
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF MANILA
) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I,
, Filipino, of legal age and after being
sworn to in accordance with law, depose and states:
1)
On
July 2013, I served copies of the following pleading:

-APPELLANTS BRIEFIn the
case
entitled DANILO BARTOLATA, herein
Represented in this Action By his Representative/Attorney-infact, REBECCA R. PILOT and/or DIONISIO P.PILOT,
Plaintiff-Appellants,
- versus REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND
COMMUNICATIONS and TOLL REGULATIRY BOARD,
Respondents-Appellees.,
Docketed as CA G.R.. No. CV-100523, Court of Appeals, Manila,
as follows:
By registered mail upon:

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Counsel for Defendant-Appellees
No. 134 Amorsolo Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Under Registry Receipt No.
Dated ______ July 2012 by depositing/mailing copies of the same at the Manila
Central Post Office as evidenced by the Registry Receipts, respectively, hereto
attached and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender
after ten (10) days if undelivered.
Copy of this Affidavit of Service is attached to the Brief For PlaintiffAppellant.
Manila. ____ July 2012.
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
Manila.
day of July 2012 at

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No.
;
Page No.
;
Book No.
;
Series of 2013.

Appellants&#39; Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appellants&#39; Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DANILO BARTOLATA, herein Represented

CA-G.R. No. CV-100523

COMES NOW Plaintiff-Appellant, through the Undersigned Counsel, unto

TIMELINESS OF PLAINTIFF APPELLANTS BRIEF

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPELLANT

-Signature of Plaintiff Danilo Bartolata.

-Offered to show and prove that Rebecca R. Pilot and

-Tax Declaration of Lot 5, Block 1, Phase 1.

-Dorsal Portion/ Back Portion thereof.

-To show and prove that the subject Lot/ Property in

name of Plaintiff, has been declared

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

purposes in the name of

Plaintiff Danilo Bartolata.

-Certified Copy of the Resolution No. 97-1 dated 11

-Pages 2-4 thereof.

amended by Executive Order Nos.

368 and 369) of

Development Authority, that the

Market Value of the affected properties amounted

of the Metro Manila Development

Letter was attached

to Resolution No. 97-1 (Exhibit

-Letter dated 28 October 1997.

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

dated 28 October 1997 to Project Manager

Gueco of the Metro Manila Sky Way

submitted Resolution No 97-

-Letter dated 26 November 2007.

-Signature of Dionisio Pilot.

Executive Director Manuel G. Imperial of

the Toll and

Regulatory Board, on the subject lot/

property for the

payment of Real Property

-Letter dated 01 October 2007.

for compensation by Plaintiff.

-To show and prove that Defendants have Accounts

Block 1, Phase 1, AFPOVAI.

-Letter dated 09 January 2007.

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

settlement of the claim of

Represented by his Attorney-in-Fact Dionisio

-Letter dated 17 January 2006.

-To show and prove that Plaintiff, as a member of the

Representative, First District

of Batangas, for the

claims against Defendants.

-Letter dated 06 April 2005.

-To show and prove that Plaintiff, through Major

-To show and prove that Plaintiff, through Major

and Management, for the

settlement of their claims

-Letter dated 09 March 2005.

Bartolata v. Republic; CA. GR. No. CV-100523

-To show and prove that Executive Director Manuel

the Lots/ properties affected by

Manila Skyway Project .

Appellants' Brief

Appellants' Brief