Facts:
On 17 September 1993, the petitioner filed a complaint for eminent domain against the respondents. The petitioner alleged that it needed the parcels of land for a public purpose. i.e. public roads. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the purpose of which their property was to be expropriated was not for a public purpose but for the benefit of a single private entity. On 14 December 1994, both parties executed an Agreement wherein they declared that they have partially settled the case. According to the agreement, the trial court appointed three commissioners to determine the just compensation of the lots sought to be expropriated. Thereafter, the commissioners submitted their report. Based on this report, the trial court awarded Php 24,865,930.00 to respondents. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the commissioners' report was inaccurate.
Issue:
WoN the agreement between the parties is valid?
Ruling:
(Article 1159;1305, 1315)
Yes, the agreement is valid.
More than anything else, the parties, by a solemn document, freely and voluntarily agreed upon by them, agreed to be bound by the report of the commission and approved by the trial court. The agreement is a contract between the parties. It has the force of law between them and should be complied with in good faith.
Records show that the petitioner consented to conform with the valuation recommended by the commissioners. It cannot detract from its agreement now and assail correctness of the commissioner's assessment.
No comments:
Post a Comment