DESPITE having proof that a government road project encroached into his property and occupied a total of 2,450 square meters for decades, a Cavite resident was unable to secure an order for payment from the Commission on Audit due to lack of jurisdiction.
Lot owner Eulogio Topacio Jr. had sought the award of P75 million as compensation from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
In its decision released last week, the COA Commission Proper noted that the DPWH confirmed that the Salawag-Paliparan Road in Dasmariñas, Cavite traversed Topacio’s property and that the claim for compensation was not disputed.
However, both the COA and the DPWH pointed out the insufficiency of documents to show who should pay Topacio’s claim, where to base the correct amount due, and what year should be the reference for the computation.
Both the DPWH-Region 4A and the Cavite First District Engineering Office in Trece Martires City listed down the problems with the claim: the year when the road was created is unknown, the year when the government took possession of the affected portion of the claimant’s land, the classification of the road when it was first constructed, and the fair value of the property in the area at the material time.
Auditors and DPWH officials said that if the road was classified as provincial, then the compensation must be shouldered by the provincial government of Cavite, and if national, by the DPWH.
In his claim, Topacio said the portion of his property was taken on September 22, 1999 but the Provincial Engineer’s Office noted that the Salawag-Paliparan Road was already existing and was placed under its jurisdiction when the office was created in 1968.
The COA Region 4 noted that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by RA 7691, it is the regional trial courts that exercise exclusive jurisdiction where a subject of a civil action has no clear basis for value appraisal.
The COA recommended that Topacio submit his claim to a court with the proper jurisdiction.
“The determination of just compensation is a judicial prerogative. The jurisdiction on this money claim is with the trial courts and not with this Commission,” the COA said.
