[ G.R. NO. 169453. December 06, 2006 ] 539 Phil. 644
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 169453. December 06, 2006 ]
CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Capitol Steel Corporation (Capitol Steel) challenges the Court of Appeals Decision[1] of February 7, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 84067 as well as its Resolution[2] dated August 24, 2005 ordering the Presiding Judge of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental to issue a writ of possession in favor of Phividec Industrial Authority (PHIVIDEC). Petitioner, Capitol Steel, is a domestic corporation which owns 65 parcels of land[3] with a total land area of 337,733 square meters (the properties) located in the barrios of Sugbongcogon and Casinglot, Municipality of Tagoloan, Province of Misamis Oriental. Respondent, PHIVIDEC, is a government-owned and controlled corporation organized and existing under Presidential Decree No. 538,[4] as amended, which is vested with governmental and proprietary functions[5] including the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring rights of way or any property for the establishment or expansion of the Phividec Industrial Areas.[6] The properties of Capitol Steel were identified as the most ideal site for the Mindanao International Container Terminal Project (MICTP), a PHIVIDEC project which involves the phased production of an 800-meter berth and the acquisition of port equipment[7] to handle the volume of seaborne break-bulk and container traffic in Mindanao.[8] On August 24, 1999, PHIVIDEC filed an expropriation case before the RTC of Misamis Oriental,[9] docketed as Civil Case No. 99-477, and raffled to Branch 38 thereof. On September 1, 1999, Branch 38 of the Misamis Oriental RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of PHIVIDEC.[10] Due, however, to the unauthorized engagement by PHIVIDEC of the legal services of a private lawyer, the expropriation case was dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of a similar petition through a proper legal officer or counsel.[11] In the meantime, Capitol Steel requested the Technical Committee on Real Property Valuation (TCRPV) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), by letter of March 27, 2001, for a revaluation of its properties. The TCRPV thereafter issued Resolution No. 36-2001[12] (TCRPV Resolution) dated December 11, 2001 fixing the “reasonable and realistic zonal valuation” of the properties at P700 per square meter. This Court in “Phividec Industrial Authority v. Capitol Steel Corporation,"[13] annulled the entire proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-477, by Decision of October 23, 2003. By letter[14] of November 21, 2003, PHIVIDEC informed Capitol Steel that it would file anew an expropriation case and that it had deposited the amount of P116,563,500 in the name of Capitol Steel, P51,818,641 of which was deposited at the Landbank of the Philippines (Landbank) and P64,744,859 at the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). PHIVIDEC further informed Capitol Steel that the total amount deposited represents the zonal value of the properties, and may be withdrawn at any time. Subsequently, PHIVIDEC, represented by the Government Corporate Counsel, re-filed on November 24, 2003 an expropriation case, docketed as Civil Case No. 2003-346, and raffled to Branch 20 of RTC of Misamis Oriental. And on December 8, 2003, PHIVIDEC filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession[15] to which it attached a Certificate of Availability of Funds,[16] and Certifications from the Landbank[17] and the DBP[18] that it deposited the total amount of P116,563,500 required under Republic Act No. 8974 (R.A. 8974), “AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.” The total amount deposited represents one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the properties based on the schedule of zonal valuation for real properties under Department Order No. 40-97[19] (D.O. 40-97) fixing the zonal valuation of the properties at Sugbongcogon and Casinglot at P300 and P500 per square meter, respectively. Capitol Steel opposed the application of D.O. 40-97, claiming instead that under the TCRPV Resolution, the properties have been revalued at P700 per square meter.[20] By Order[21] of February 3, 2004, the trial court denied PHIVIDEC’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession, noting that the amount deposited was “seemingly inadequate”[22] and was made simply out of PHIVIDEC’s “interpretation of the prevailing zonal valuation and was not mutually agreed”[23] upon. In view of the conflicting zonal valuations, the trial court found it necessary to first make a “judicial interpretation” to determine the prevailing market value of the properties on the basis of the zonal valuation through a full-blown trial where the parties would be afforded the opportunity to present their respective evidence.[24] PHIVIDEC thus presented the Assistant Revenue District Officer of Revenue District 98 of the BIR in Cagayan de Oro City, Bernadette H. Honculada (Bernadette). Bernadette testified that barangays Sugbungcogon and Casinglot in Tagoloan are within the jurisdiction of Revenue District 98[25] and that under D.O. 40-97, the zonal valuations of the properties are P300 and P500 per square meter, respectively.[26] Bernadette further testified that her office continues to use the zonal valuations provided in D.O. No. 40-97 in computing internal revenue taxes.[27] For its part, Capitol Steel presented a representative of the Philippine Association of Realty Appraisers to the TCRPV, Victor T. Salinas (Salinas), who testified that TCRPV is authorized under Revenue Delegation of Authority Order No. 4-2001 to conduct reappraisals of the zonal valuation of properties on a “case to case level”[28] upon the request of any taxpayer.[29] Salinas further testified that he was sent together with a representative from the Bureau of Local Government Finance to inspect the properties, and to prepare a report and submit the same to the TCRPV for deliberation;[30] that after deliberation, the TCRPV issued a resolution fixing the zonal valuation of the properties at P700 per square meter, which was thereafter approved by the Chairman of the TCRPV, Nora Tamayo, who then transmitted the resolution to the parties concerned – the Revenue District Officer and the “taxpayer who requested for the adjustment” or Capitol Steel.[31] Salinas furthermore testified that the valuation was arrived at after comparing the “values of same features of some of the lands in the area and also the neighboring cities like Cagayan de Oro City” and that TCRPV “ma[d]e use of the report[s] of the two independent appraisers” and also “the valuation [of] the Assessor’s Office."[32] By Order[33] of April 15, 2004, the RTC denied PHIVIDEC’s motion for reconsideration[34] of its February 3, 2004 Order denying its Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession, it sustaining the TCRPV’s fair market valuation of the properties at P700 per square meter, and accordingly ordering PHIVIDEC to “immediately deposit the total amount” to call for the issuance of the writ.
It is the finding of this Court that indubitably the Technical Committee on Real Property Valuation (TCRPV), is the body tasked to fix the valuation of the property sought to be appropriated and, hence, there is no sustainable evidence to merit the reconsideration of the Court’s order dated February 4, 2004, the motion thereof is hereby denied and taking into account the preponderance of evidence proffered by defendant in arriving at the prevailing zonal valuation based in the evidence adduced, this Court hereby sustains the fair market value of defendant’s property at Seven hundred (P700.00) Pesos per square meter, thereby plaintiff is ordered to immediately deposit the total amount in defendant’s name for this Court to issue the writ of possession as mandated by Republic Act 8974.[35]
Claiming that the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Orders dated February 3, 2004 and April 24, 2004, PHIVIDEC filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.[36] The appellate court, by Decision[37] of February 7, 2005, holding that the zonal valuation established under D.O. 40-97 should be the basis in computing the provisional value of the properties, and that the valuation made by the TCRPV was neither binding nor effective for failure to comply with the guidelines relative to the establishment of zonal values of real properties under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 56-89,[38] as amended by Revenue Memorandum Order No. 56-94,[39] granted PHIVIDEC’s petition and accordingly directed the RTC to issue a writ of possession in favor of PHIVIDEC. Capitol Steel filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court’s February 7, 2005 decision, claiming that Revenue Memorandum Order No. 56-89, as amended by Revenue Memorandum Order No. 56-94, applies only when all the properties in a province or a city are revalued, not when the properties of a single taxpayer[40] are revalued. Acting on Capitol Steel’s motion for reconsideration,[41] the appellate court conducted a hearing following which it ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda and position papers. In the meantime, the RTC, by Order[42] of June 6, 2005, granted the supplemental motion for execution of Capitol Steel and allowed it to withdraw from the Landbank and the DBP the total amount of P116,563,500. The appellate court eventually denied Capitol Steel’s motion for reconsideration of its Decision of February 7, 2005, by Resolution[43] of August 24, 2005. Capitol Steel (petitioner) now comes before this Court on a petition for review, positing the following arguments:
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI [BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS] SHOULD BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT BECAUSE IT IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE FOR SUPPRESSION OF NECESSARY AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THE ORDERS OF FEBRUARY 3, 2004 AND APRIL 15, 2004 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL CORRECTLY USED THE ZONAL VALUATION OF THE PROPERTIES SOUGHT TO BE EXPROPRIATED MADE IN 2001 AS BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF POSSESSION.[44] (Underscoring supplied)
Respondent’s failure to attach to its petition before the appellate court these documents, to wit: the Urgent Motion for the Issuance of the Writ of Possession, the Opposition thereto, the Reply, the Rejoinder, the transcript of the testimony of Salinas and the documents-exhibits of petitioner did not suffice to merit the dismissal of the petition. As the appellate court found, respondent’s omission did not detract from the substantial completeness of its petition. Neither, held the appellate court, did it deprive its authority to hear and decide the petition. Additionally, petitioner failed to show that it was prejudiced in any way by respondent’s failure to append the said documents. Petitioner contends that the trial court’s determination of the provisional value of the properties, having been arrived at after a hearing and evaluation of the parties’ evidence, cannot, being factual, be assailed in a petition for certiorari before the appellate court.[45] Petitioner’s contention fails. While the correctness of the RTC’s determination of the zonal valuation was assailed by respondent before the appellate court, the same was merely appurtenant to the principal issue of whether the RTC has the authority, for purposes of denying or granting a writ of possession, to vary the zonal valuation of the properties as established by the BIR[46] under D.O. 40-97. On the main issue raised – whether the appellate court erred in ordering the RTC to issue a writ of possession in favor of respondent: Significantly, after a writ of possession was issued in favor of respondent on September 1, 1999 in the first expropriation case-Civil Case No. 99-477, respondent commenced the construction of infrastructure buildings and container port terminals. Possession of the properties has since remained with respondent, with the MICTP now complete and fully operational.[47] When the second expropriation case was re-filed, R.A. 8974, which provides for substantive requirements before a writ of possession is issued, was already in force and in effect.
SECTION 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. – Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines: (a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7 hereof; (b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said area; and (c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof. Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project. Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned. In the event that the owner of the property contests the implementing agency’s proffered value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the implementing agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by the court. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Under R.A. 8974, the requirements for authorizing immediate entry in expropriation proceedings involving real property are: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; (2) due notice to the defendant; (3) payment of an amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR including payment of the value of the improvements and/or structures if any, or if no such valuation is available and in cases of utmost urgency, the payment of the proffered value of the property to be seized; and (4) presentation to the court of a certificate of availability of funds from the proper officials. Upon compliance with the requirements, a petitioner in an expropriation case, in this case respondent, is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to forthwith issue the writ of possession. No hearing is required[48] and the court neither exercises its discretion or judgment in determining the amount of the provisional value of the properties to be expropriated as the legislature has fixed the amount under Section 4 of R.A. 8974. To clarify, the payment of the provisional value as a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of possession differs from the payment of just compensation for the expropriated property. While the provisional value is based on the current relevant zonal valuation, just compensation is based on the prevailing fair market value of the property. As the appellate court explained:
The first refers to the preliminary or provisional determination of the value of the property. It serves a double-purpose of pre-payment if the property is fully expropriated, and of an indemnity for damages if the proceedings are dismissed. It is not a final determination of just compensation and may not necessarily be equivalent to the prevailing fair market value of the property. Of course, it may be a factor to be considered in the determination of just compensation. Just compensation, on the other hand, is the final determination of the fair market value of the property. It has been described as “the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation.” Market values, has also been described in a variety of ways as the “price fixed by the buyer and seller in the open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal trade and competition; the price and value of the article established as shown by sale, public or private, in the ordinary way of business; the fair value of the property between one who desires to purchase and one who desires to sell; the current price; the general or ordinary price for which property may be sold in that locality.[49] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
There is no need for the determination with reasonable certainty of the final amount of just compensation before the writ of possession may be issued.[50] The trial court, however, failed to distinguish the “provisional value of the property” from “just compensation” when it ruled, viz:
The Court is of the sound observation that the propriety of the granting of the writ of possession will greatly depend on the just compensation mandated by Republic Act No. 8974, hence, it will follow that any deposit to be made therein, in compliance with said law, should be the prevailing fair market value on the basis of the zonal valuation within the locality and virtually agreed upon by both parties. This Court, therefore, opted to rule and so holds that considering the conflicting zonal valuation, a judicial interpretation must first be held to determine the prevailing market value on the basis of the zonal valuation approved by the government agency tasked to fix the same.[51] (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioner insists that the RTC was correct in ruling that the P700 per square meter valuation should be used in computing the provisional value of the property as the valuation under D.O. 40-97 has been “effectively superseded” by the TCRPV Resolution. Petitioner’s proposition fails. The “current relevant zonal valuation” under Section 4 of R.A. 8974 pertains to the values reflected in the schedule of zonal values embodied in a Department Order issued pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 56-89 issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[52] RMO 56-89 provides for the procedures for the establishment of the zonal values of real properties, viz:
(1) The submission or review by the Revenue District Offices Sub-Technical Committee of the schedule of recommended zonal values to the TCRPV; (2) The evaluation by TCRPV of the submitted schedule of recommended zonal values of real properties; (3) Except in cases of correction or adjustment, the TCRPV finalizes the schedule and submits the same to the Executive Committee on Real Property Valuation (ECRPV); (4) Upon approval of the schedule of zonal values by the ECRPV, the same is embodied in a Department Order for implementation and signed by the Secretary of Finance. Thereafter, the schedule takes effect (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette[53] or in any newspaper of general circulation.
This Court finds that the determination of P300 and P500 per square meter zonal values were, along with the zonal values of other real properties located in all municipalities under the jurisdiction of Revenue District Office No. 98 (Cagayan de Oro City), Revenue Region No. 16 (Cagayan de Oro City), the subject of a public hearing on February 5, 1996. On March 19, 1997, the zonal values were approved by both the TCRPV and the ECRPV and on even date, the Secretary of Finance, upon the recommendation of the BIR, issued D.O. 40-97 to implement the schedule of zonal values. D.O. 40-97 thereafter took effect on October 21, 1997, 15 days after its publication in The Philippine Journal. In contrast, the P700 per square meter zonal value provided for under TCRPV Resolution was not approved by the ECRPV, was not embodied in a Department Order, and did not undergo the required public hearing and publication required under RMO 56-89. As reflected in the TCRP Resolution, the revaluation was based on a letter-request dated March 27, 2001 of Berck Y. Cheng, Executive Assistant of Capitol Steel. While the resolution took into account the investigation, analysis and evaluation conducted by the two private appraisers hired by Capitol Steel, the Saromo Realty and Valueworld Appraisers, Inc.,[54] PHIVIDEC, as the implementing expropriating agency, was not notified[55] and afforded the opportunity to participate in the revaluation. The revaluation under the TCRPV Resolution having failed to comply with the requirements under RMO 12-89, the disregard by the RTC of the zonal valuation under D.O. 40-97 is impermissible. Petitioner’s argument that TCRPV Resolution effectively superseded D.O. 40-97 does not thus impress. The TCRPV was created under Ministry Order No. 20-86 for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in prescribing real property values for purposes of computing any internal revenue tax. Ministry Order No. 20-86 was later amended by Department Order 12-89 (D.O. 12-89) providing for the composition of the TCRPV, with the Assistant Commissioner of the Assessment Service of the BIR as Chairman.[56] Under D.O. 12-89, the task of TCRPV and the Sub-Technical Committees on Real Property Valuation (STCRPV) is limited to the study and preparation of the schedules of zonal values for the purpose of computing internal revenue taxes, viz:
Under the direct supervision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Committee shall study and prepare zonal schedules of fair market values on real properties to be used as basis for the computation of any internal revenue tax. All provincial, city and municipal assessors are hereby directed to render assistance to the Committee in the DETERMINATION OF THE REALISTIC VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS OF JURISDICTION.[57]
On October 24, 1989, RMO 56-89 was issued to “guide and facilitate the goal/activities of the Sub-Technical Committee on Real Property Valuation (STCRPV) pursuant to Department Order No. 12-89 dated February 27, 1989 relative to the establishment of zonal values of real properties situated within the jurisdiction of Revenue District Offices."[58] Verily, while the TCRPV and the STCRPV are vested with authority to study and prepare the schedule of zonal values, the valuation can only be implemented if it is later embodied in a Department Order and is rendered effective only upon its publication in the Official Gazette as provided under RMO 56-89. Petitioner nevertheless claims that TCRPV Resolution was issued pursuant to Revenue Delegation Authority No. 4-2001 (RDAO 4-2001), hence, it need not comply with RMO 56-89. The claim is bereft of merit. A revaluation pursuant to RDAO 4-2001 cannot be used to determine the provisional value of the properties in view of the specific and limited objectives by which said order was issued. Pertinent portions of RDAO 4-2001 are hereunder reproduced:
SUBJECT : Delegation of Authority to Approve and Sign Resolutions by the Technical Committee on Real Property Valuation Involving Case-to-Case Requests for Revaluation of Established Zonal Values of Real Properties TO : All Internal Revenue Officers and Employees and Others Concerned I. OBJECTIVES To update the delineation of authority and responsibility of the revenue official who shall approve and sign the resolutions by the Technical Committee on Real Property Valuation (TCRPV) involving case-to-case requests for revaluation of established zonal values of real properties pursuant to Section 7 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997; and To facilitate action on taxpayers’ requests for such revaluation in accordance with Section 6(E) of the Tax Code in order to expedite the issuance of appropriate clearances relative to the covered real property transactions. II. DELEGATED SIGNING AUTHORITY The authority to sign the aforementioned TCRPV resolutions is hereby delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Service.
x x x x
The specific and limited objective of RDAO 4-2001 is to facilitate action on taxpayers’ requests for revaluation in accordance with Section 6(E)[59] of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code “in order to expedite the issuance of appropriate clearances relative to the covered real property transactions.” For this purpose, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue delegated to the Assistant Commissioner of the Assessment Service the authority to approve and sign TCRPV resolutions issued pursuant to such requests. The “appropriate clearances” under RDAO 4-2001 refer to the Tax Clearance (TCL) or Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR), which are issued by the BIR after the taxpayer pays the proper capital gains and documentary stamp taxes.[60] Admittedly, the revaluation was not sought by petitioner for the purpose of computing any internal revenue taxes in order to secure the appropriate clearances from the BIR, but for the purpose of computing the provisional valuation of the properties sought to be expropriated.[61] Clearly, while the law grants to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the power to determine zonal values, including the authority to delegate to the Assistant Commissioner of the Assessment Service the authority to approve and sign TCRPV resolutions involving requests for revaluation of established zonal values of real properties, the same is for the purpose of computing internal revenue taxes. The revaluation under RDAO 4-2001 is, as correctly held by the appellate court, “a specific rather than a zonal valuation,” and is “not a revaluation of the schedule of zonal values [under D.O. 40-97] but merely the fine tuning of the value of a specific property of an individual taxpayer in order to reflect fair market values."[62]
It is the movant’s thesis that a concerned property owner may invoke Department order No. 12-89 and Revenue Delegation of Authority Order No. 4-2001 to challenge the current relevant zonal valuation of his property as the basis for preliminary or provisional payment in the proceedings below. x x x We cannot accept the contention that “revaluation”, as understood in Revenue Delegation of Authority Order No. 4-200[1] constitutes a revision of the schedule of zonal values. First, such a theory raises the possibility that all zonal valuations duly published will be rendered inutile for the intention of merely establishing a preliminary or provisional valuation for purposes of the expropriating agency’s entry into the property. Secondly, movant’s thesis will erase the distinction between preliminary payment based on zonal valuation and the final determination by the court of fair market value or just compensation. This We are not prepared to do especially since that distinction lies at the heart of Republic Act No, 8974. We are not prepared to hold that by means of Department Order No. 12-89 or Revenue Delegation of Authority Order No. 4-2001 the property owner can truncate the expropriation process under the Rules and impel the trial court to proceed directly into the issue of the final determination of just compensation. Recourse to these–urges the trial court prematurely to a full-blown trial on the determination of the fair market value which is contrary to the obvious intent of Republic Act No. 8974. Finally, this theory is rife with mischievous consequences and will place the state or the expropriating agency at the mercy of the property owner. It raises the specter of unwarranted delays in infrastructure and other important projects of the government. For the avowed purpose of Republic Act No. 8974 is precisely to provide the court in expropriation proceedings with a ready reference or standard upon which to base the preliminary or provisional payment to the property owner allowing the said court to proceed with dispatch to the final phase of the proceeding which is the final determination of just compensation.[63]
Moreover, there is nothing under Republic Act No. 8974 which can be read to allow an owner of the properties to be expropriated recourse to a “case to case” revaluation “when it disagrees with the zonal valuation by the BIR."[64] Resort to this procedure would undeniably cause delay in government infrastructure projects, and leave the determination of the provisional value of the expropriated properties to the property owner and the TCRPV, without the participation from the implementing expropriating agency. Such is contrary to R.A. 8974 which permits, in cases of utmost urgency and importance and when there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, an expedited means by which the government can immediately take possession of the property without having to await precise determination of the valuation, by paying the property owner the implementing government agency’s proffered value of the property.[65] Petitioner finally posits that considering that the properties contain several favorable features which no other lots in the vicinity possess, and that the zonal valuation relied upon by respondent was made way back in 1996, the P700 per square meter valuation made in 2001 is reasonable. Again, the provisional character of the payment means that it is not final, albeit sufficient under the law to entitle the government to the writ of possession over the expropriated property.[66] For purposes of a writ of possession, there is no need to look into the peculiar and favorable features of the properties to be expropriated, the court is being statutorily bound to rely only on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR. Petitioner, however, may in the determination of just compensation, properly present and introduce evidence bearing on the properties” fair market value.[67] Thus Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8974 provides:
SECTION 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. – In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards: (a) The classification and use for which the property is suited; (b) The developmental costs for improving the land; (c) The value declared by the owners; (d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity; (e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of improvements thereon; (f) The size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land; (g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and (h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
In fine, all the requirements set forth under Section 4 of R.A. 8974 have been satisfactorily complied with, there is no legal impediment to the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of respondent. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated February 7, 2005 and August 24, 2005 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.