Manuel C. Bias and the Estate of Jose-Martinez Torres, hereafter appellants, appeal from an adverse judgment of the-District Court of Guam in a condemnation action brought by the United States, hereafter appellee, against lands owned: by appellants.

On April 11, 1949, the United States instituted proceedings to condemn certain lands in the Municipality of Barrígada on the Island of Guam, for use as-the site of a village being constructed by the United States as part of a project off rehabilitation of Guamanians dispossessed during World War II. Appellants-owned three parcels of land, containing 12,871 square meters, within the condemned area. The appellee offered compensation for this land in the amount off $2,155.00.

This sum allegedly represented the-value of similar agricultural lands at the-time of the taking. However, although-, appellant’s land had been primarily agricultural prior to 1946, by 1949 the United States had developed the surrounding-lands into a residential community, pursuant to its rehabilitation program. Appellants claimed, therefore, that they should be compensated at the going rate- for comparable residential lands, and the instant action ensued.

On April 8, 1957, a jury trial was commenced for the purpose of fixing just compensation. Appellant’s witness, Eduardo Calvo, a real estate broker in Bar-rigada, testified that the land was worth $1 per square meter. His testimony is as follows:

There is no evidence of record that the sales relied on by Calvo involved dissimilar lands or were for some other reason not representative of fair market value.

One Bitanga, a witness for appellee, testified that the land was worth $.01 to $.02 per square meter for agricultural purposes prior to 1945. The other government witness, Woelfl, citing nine sales of allegedly similar property in 1948 and 1949 as his basis, estimated that the value of the property ranged between $.0225 and $.06 per square meter, depending on whether or not it had highway frontage.

At the close of the evidence, the lower court granted appellee’s motion for directed verdict, stating to the jury:

Judgment for compensation in the amount of $4,870.00 was entered in accordance with the testimony of Woelfl.

We think the court’s opinion on its face shows that it abused its discretion in taking the case from the jury and is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co. v. Blake, 144 U.S. 476, 484 , 12 S.Ct. 731 , 36 L.Ed. 510 . Calvo’s testimony shows not only research but sales known to him, as a real estate agent in the area for $1.00 per square meter prior to April 11, 1949 and in the District Court the United States conceded “that the testimony of the value is based upon the value of the lots on April 11, 1949, as residential, so the government is not insisting that these lots be valued for agricultural purposes.” It was clear error not to submit the case to the jury.

Appellee further contends that Calvo’s testimony should be disregarded because he testified to the value of the lands as enhanced by the nearby residential construction of the United States.

The appellee erroneously bases this contention on the statement in its brief that:

On the contrary, at the hearing the Government, while admitting the change of the use of the land from agricultural to residential, admitted there was no evidence in the record that the property was held under a leasehold, nor under any general plan to acquire the land for governmental purpose. Hence, on the pres ent record, the land should have been valued as residential at its April 11, 1949 value within the rule of United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 , at page 376, 63 S.Ct. 276 , at page 281, 87 L.Ed. 336 , that:

The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.