DESPITE an admission by the Philippine Navy that it has been occupying a 4,000-square meter private lot for more than 40 years without paying rent, property owner Nicomedes Tupas failed to secure a favorable ruling for his compensation claim from the Commission on Audit.
In a three-page decision, the COA Commission Proper dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
The commission notified Tupas that the matter is best submitted to a local court, which it said is the proper authority to decide on matters involving just compensation.
Based on the petition, the Philippine Navy occupied the property in 1981 and used it as part of the command’s naval support facility for PN-Eastern Visayas.
On September 18, 2020, Tupas filed a petition for money claim, asking the COA to compel the Philippine Navy to pay him rent computed at P38,000 per month from October 1981 to March 1990 and P56,000 monthly from March 1990 to October 2018 or a total of P23.102 million subject to 12 percent yearly interest.
In the alternative, he asked that the Navy be required to purchase the property at P10,000 per square meter or a total of P40 million.
The Philippine Navy, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the petition falls outside the jurisdiction of COA since it involves an unliquidated claim or one where the value has yet to be determined.
It pointed out that the exact amount of rent due Tupas is unknown since there was no lease agreement to begin with.
Likewise, the claimant submitted no document against which the valid rental rate or the fair value of the property being offered for sale may be computed.
“The money claim of Mr. Tupas is a claim for just compensation for his property that was taken by PN. The claim is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is settled that determination of just compensation is judicial,” the COA said.
However, Tupas may still expect payment with a little bit more waiting.
The COA recommended that the Philippine Navy initiate the expropriation proceedings in a proper court since it had already made an admission to having deprived the lot owner of use of his property without just compensation in violation of his constitutional rights.
