Unappealed Judgment Bars Consequential Damages in Expropriation Case

The Supreme Court recently clarified an important procedural rule in expropriation cases: a landowner who does not appeal a trial court's denial of consequential damages cannot later obtain them from an appellate court. In Republic v. Heirs of Isabel D. Lacsina (G.R. No. 246356, October 11, 2021), the Court deleted the Court of Appeals' award of consequential damages to two property owners because they never appealed the trial court's denial of that relief.

Background of the Case

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and Highways, filed an expropriation complaint in 2009 to acquire three parcels of land in Taguig City for the Taguig Diversion Road project. The properties belonged to the Heirs of Isabel D. Lacsina, Cabever Realty Corporation, and St. Ignatius of Loyola School.

The landowners did not contest the government's right to expropriate. However, they objected to the provisional valuation of their properties. The case proceeded to a board of commissioners, which recommended just compensation at P10,000 per square meter and consequential damages at P5,000 per square meter for the unaffected portions of the properties owned by Cabever and the school.

The Trial Court's Ruling

The Regional Trial Court fixed just compensation at P15,000 per square meter for all three properties. However, it denied consequential damages for the unaffected portions of Cabever's and the school's properties, finding that consequential benefits exceeded the damages.

Only the Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals. The landowners did not appeal. The Republic's sole assignment of error concerned the proper amount of just compensation, arguing it should be P10,000 per square meter.

The Court of Appeals' Modification

The Court of Appeals reduced just compensation to P10,000 per square meter but also awarded consequential damages of P5,000 per square meter to both Cabever and the school for their unaffected portions. The appellate court also imposed legal interest on the awards.

The Republic moved for partial reconsideration, arguing that the landowners never appealed the denial of consequential damages. When the Court of Appeals denied the motion, the Republic elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the Republic's petition and deleted the consequential damages award. The Court applied the well-settled rule that a decision becomes final as against a party who does not appeal it. An appellee who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below.

The Court cited its ruling in Hiponia-Mayuga v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.: a party's failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period renders the judgment final and immutable, and an appellee who has not appealed cannot obtain affirmative relief beyond what the trial court granted.

The Court also addressed Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court, which allows appellate courts to consider errors not assigned if they are closely related to an assigned error. However, citing PNB v. Spouses Rabat, the Court emphasized that these exceptions are for the benefit of the appellant, not the appellee.

Here, Cabever and the school did not appeal the denial of consequential damages. Their briefs before the Court of Appeals actually prayed for affirmance of the trial court's decision, except for the payment of interest. The Republic's appeal raised only the issue of just compensation. The award of consequential damages was a separate matter from the determination of just compensation.

Practical Takeaways

• Appeal promptly. A party who disagrees with any portion of a trial court's decision in an expropriation case must file its own appeal. Failure to do so makes that portion final and unalterable.
• Know the limits of being an appellee. An appellee who did not appeal cannot seek affirmative relief from the appellate court beyond what the trial court already granted.
• Assign all errors. An appellant should raise all relevant errors in its brief. The exceptions under Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court generally benefit only the appellant, not the appellee.
• Document the date of taking. In expropriation cases, the date of actual taking affects the computation of just compensation and the accrual of legal interest. Landowners should substantiate claims about when the government entered their property.
• Understand interest rules. Following Nacar v. Gallery Frames, legal interest on just compensation runs at 12% per annum until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum thereafter until fully paid, unless the parties prove a different date of taking.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.