[ G.R. No. 10259. January 26, 1916 ] 33 Phil. 291
[ G.R. No. 10259. January 26, 1916 ]
THE CITY OF MANILA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALICE J. NEAL ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
TRENT, J.:
In this case the city of Manila is seeking to expropriate an entire parcel of land for use in connection with a certain public park. The commissioners, after viewing the premises and receiving the evidence, being unable to agree, submitted two reports. The majority report was confirmed by the court and judgment rendered accordingly. The owners appealed.
The land is situated near the corner of Real and Vito Cruz, with a frontage on the latter of 8.49 meters and a depth of 122.08 meters. In the majority report the value of the land was fixed as follows: For the part fronting on Vito Cruz Street and 40 meters deep, P2 per square meter, and for the remaining interior portion of the lot P1 per square meter. The other commissioner, dividing the land into the same two parcels, fixed their value at P2.50 and P1.50 per square meter, respectively. A part of the lot, protruding on the street, is some eighteen inches below the street grade, and the rear portion is still lower. The lot is irregular in shape and has no improvements except three trees.
All the commissioners relied largely upon the testimony of Sellner, who qualified as an expert on land values in that vicinity and who made his estimate, subject to the condition that the property be brought up to the street grade of Vito Cruz. Subject to this condition, Sellner placed the values at P2.50 and P1.50. The majority of the commissioners considered that bringing the property up to street grade would cost considerable money.
There was evidence of transfer of two other parcels located some 300 meters distant from the lot in question, both having frontage on both Vito Cruz and cross streets, at a little over P1 per square meter. It is urged that these lots were too far away from the condemned property to afford a safe comparison of the value. The property is on the outskirt of the city where values are not localized so readily as in densely populated and business districts. The admission of such evidence is largely a matter of discretion (Jones’ Commentaries on Evidence, vol. 1, sec. 168), and we cannot say that the comparisons in the present case were so lacking in similarity as to be of no assistance in fixing the value of the condemned property. This, we think, properly applies the rule laid down in the recent case of Manila Railroad Co. vs. Velasquez (32 Phil. Rep., 286). Upon the doctrine stated in that case also, as to the weight to be given to the report of the commissioners, we are of the opinion that there is no evidence to justify us in disturbing the award fixed by the majority report. It seems to us that the dissenting commissioner erred in hot taking into consideration the fact that the land would require considerable filling to bring it up to the street level, which was the unfulfilled proviso of Sellner’s estimate.
A party, who is dissatisfied with the award allowed by the court in its judgment and who appeals to this court, is entitled to have the evidence, taken before the commissioners, reviewed on the appeal, provided he has moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the judgment is not sustained by the weight of the evidence and has noted his exception to the order of the court overruling such motion. Where, however, as in City of Manila vs. Batlle (27 Phil. Rep., 34), both parties formally express their satisfaction with the award of the commissioners and thus submit the matter to the court, they are bound by the report in the absence of some cause such as fraud or error which would justify the court in setting it aside.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concur. Moreland, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.