Rem2 Case Digests Rule 67

8/11/2019 Rem2 Case Digests Rule 67

1/10

RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 67: Expropriation || Castro | Boco

G.R. No. 142304 June 20, 2001

CITY OF MANILA, petitioner, vs.OSCAR, FELICITAS, JOSE, BENJAMIN, ESTELITA,LEONORA AND ADELAIDA, ALL !R"A#ED SERRANO, respon$ents.

FACTS:

%n Decem&er 2', '((), t*e Cit+ Council o #anila enacte$ t*e %r$inance "o. 7-)),aut*oriing t*e expropriation o certain properties in #anila /s 0irst District in 1on$o, covere$&+ 1C1 "os. 7-6(, '32', '322, an$ ')-27) o t*e Register o Dee$s o #anila, 4*ic*are to &e sol$ an$ $istri&ute$ to 5ualie$ occupants pursuant to t*e Lan$ !se Developmentrogram o t*e Cit+ o #anila.

%ne o t*e properties soug*t to &e expropriate$, $enominate$ as Lot '8C, consists o )9).'s5uare meters. t is covere$ &+ 1C1 "o. ')-272 4*ic* 4as $erive$ rom 1C1 "o. 7-6( issue$in t*e name o 0elia De ;uia.' Ater *er $eat*, t*e estate o 0elia De ;uia 4as settle$among *er *eirs &+ virtue o a compromise agreement. n '(-(, Al&erto De ;uia, one o t*e*eirs o 0elia De ;uia, $ie$, as a result o 4*ic* *is estate, consisting o *is s*are in t*eproperties let &+ *is mot*er, 4as partitione$ among *is *eirs. Lot '8C 4as assigne$ toE$gar$o De ;uia, one o t*e *eirs o Al&erto De ;uia. )%n April '3, '((9, E$gar$o De ;uia4as issue$ 1C1 "o. 2'33(), covering Lot '8C.9 %n o4ever, it *el$t*at in accor$ance 4it* t*e ruling in Filstream International Inc. v. Court of Appeals,') t*eot*er mo$es o ac5uisition o lan$s enumerate$ in (8' o t*e la4 must rst &e trie$ &+ t*ecit+ government &eore it can resort to expropriation. As petitioner aile$ to s*o4 t*at it *a$$one so, t*e Court o Appeals gave u$gment or respon$ents an$ enoine$ petitioner romexpropriating Lot '8C.

etitioners motion or reconsi$eration 4as also $enie$ &+ t*e CA, *ence, t*is petition.

ISSUE:

F*et*er t*e Court o Appeals erre$ in interpreting t*e R1C or$er 4*ic* aut*orie$ t*eissuance o 4rit o possession an$ petitioners entr+ into t*e su&ect propert+ as an or$er ocon$emnation o sai$ propert+.

ELD:

Ges.

1*e CA erroneousl+ presume$ t*at Lot '8C *as &een or$ere$ con$emne$ in petitioners avor4*en t*e act is t*at t*e or$er o t*e trial court, $ate$ Decem&er '3, '((-, merel+ aut*orie$t*e issuance o a 4rit o possession an$ petitioner/s entr+ into t*e propert+ pursuant to Rule67, ec. 2. At t*at stage, it 4as premature to $etermine 4*et*er t*e re5uirements o RA. "o.727(, ec. ( 8 ' *ave &een complie$ 4it* since no evi$entiar+ *earing *a$ +et &eencon$ucte$ &+ t*e trial court.

Rule 67, ec. 2 provi$es:

!pon t*e ling o t*e complaint or at an+ time t*ereater an$ ater $ue notice to t*e$een$ant, t*e plaintiH s*all *ave t*e rig*t to ta?e or enter upon possession o t*ereal propert+ involve$ i *e $eposits 4it* t*e aut*orie$ government $epositor+ anamount e5uivalent to t*e assesse$ value o t*e propert+ or purposes o taxation to&e *el$ &+ suc* &an? su&ect to t*e or$ers o t*e court. uc* $eposit s*all &e inmone+, unless in lieu t*ereo t*e court aut*ories t*e $eposit o a certicate o$eposit o a government &an? o t*e Repu&lic o t*e *ilippines pa+a&le on $eman$to t*e aut*orie$ government $epositar+.

personal propert+ is involve$, its value s*all &e provisionall+ ascertaine$ an$ t*eamount to &e $eposite$ s*all &e xe$ &+ t*e court.

Ater suc* $eposit is ma$e t*e court s*all or$er t*e s*eriH or ot*er proper oIcer toort*4it* place t*e plaintiH in possession o t*e propert+ involve$ an$ promptl+su&mit a report t*ereo to t*e court 4it* service o copies to t*e parties.

1*us, a 4rit o execution ma+ &e issue$ &+ a court upon t*e ling &+ t*e government o acomplaint or expropriation suIcient in orm an$ su&stance an$ upon $eposit ma$e &+ t*egovernment o t*e amount e5uivalent to t*e assesse$ value o t*e propert+ su&ect toexpropriation. !pon compliance 4it* t*ese re5uirements, t*e issuance o t*e 4rit opossession &ecomes ministerial.22 n t*is case, t*ese re5uirements 4ere satise$ an$,t*ereore, it &ecame t*e ministerial $ut+ o t*e court to issue t*e 4rit o possession.

1*e Court o Appeals, *o4ever, rule$ t*at petitioner aile$ to compl+ 4it* t*e re5uirementslai$ $o4n in ( 8 ' o RA. "o. 727( an$ reiterate$ in Filstream ruling. 1*is is error. 1*e rulingin t*e Filstream 4as necessitate$ &ecause an or$er o con$emnation *a$ alrea$+ &een issue$&+ t*e trial court in t*at case. 1*us, t*e u$gment in t*at case *a$ alrea$+ &ecome nal. nt*is case, t*e trial court *as not gone &e+on$ t*e issuance o a 4rit o possession. >earing isstill to &e *el$ to $etermine 4*et*er or not petitioner in$ee$ complie$ 4it* t*e re5uirementsprovi$e$ in RA. "o. 727(. t is, t*ereore, premature at t*is stage o t*e procee$ings to n$t*at petitioner resorte$ expropriation 4it*out rst tr+ing t*e ot*er mo$es o ac5uisitionenumerate$ in ' o t*e la4.

F*et*er petitioner *as complie$ 4it* t*ese provisions re5uires t*e presentation o evi$ence,alt*oug* in its amen$e$ complaint petitioner $i$ allege t*at it *a$ complie$ 4it* t*ere5uirements.2)1*e $etermination o t*is 5uestion must a4ait t*at *earing on t*e complaintor expropriation, particularl+ t*e *earing or t*e con$emnation o t*e properties soug*t to &eexpropriate$. Expropriation procee$ings consist o t4o stages: rst, con$emnation o t*epropert+ ater it is $etermine$ t*at its ac5uisition 4ill &e or a pu&lic purpose or pu&lic usean$, secon$, t*e $etermination o ust compensation to &e pai$ or t*e ta?ing o t*e privatepropert+ to &e ma$e &+ t*e court 4it* t*e assistance o not more t*an t*ree commissioners.

1*is case is RE#A"DED to t*e trial court to urt*er procee$ings.


2/10


G.R. No. 10!"04 Au#u$% 12, 2004

NATIONAL &O'ER COR&ORATION, (e%)%)one*,+$.COURT OF A&&EALS n- ANTONINO &OBRE, *e$(on-en%$.

FACTS:

etitioner "ational o4er Corporation @J"CJ is a pu&lic corporation create$ to generategeot*ermal, *+$roelectric, nuclear an$ ot*er po4er an$ to transmit electric po4ernation4i$e. "C is aut*orie$ &+ la4 to ac5uire propert+ an$ exercise t*e rig*t o eminent$omain.

rivate respon$ent Antonino o&re @Jo&reJ is t*e o4ner o a 6-,(6( s5uare8meter lan$@Jropert+J locate$ in Baranga+ Bano, #unicipalit+ o 1i4i, Al&a+. 1*e ropert+ is covere$ &+

1C1 "o. 967 an$ u&$ivision lan ''8(7(.

%n 9 August '(63, t*e Commission on Kolcanolog+ certie$ t*at t*ermal mineral 4ater an$steam 4ere present &eneat* t*e ropert+. 1*e Commission on Kolcanolog+ oun$ t*e t*ermalmineral 4ater an$ steam suita&le or $omestic use an$ potentiall+ or commercial or in$ustrialuse.

"C t*en &ecame involve$ 4it* o&re/s ropert+ in t*ree instances.

0irst 4as on '- 0e&ruar+ '(72 4*en o&re lease$ to "C or one +ear eleven lots rom t*eapprove$ su&$ivision plan.

econ$ 4as sometime in '(77, t*e rst time t*at "C le$ its expropriation case againsto&re to ac5uire an -,)''.6 s5uare8meter portion o t*e ropert+. %n 2) %cto&er '(7(, t*etrial court or$ere$ t*e expropriation o t*e lots upon "C/s pa+ment o 23 per s5uare meteror a total amount o 27,7(. "C &egan $rilling operations an$ construction o steam 4ells.F*ile t*is rst expropriation case 4as pen$ing, "C $umpe$ 4aste materials &e+on$ t*e site

agree$ upon &+ "C 4it* o&re. 1*e $umping o 4aste materials altere$ t*e topograp*+ osome portions o t*e ropert+. "C $i$ not act on o&re/s complaints an$ "C continue$ 4it*its $umping.

1*ir$ 4as on ' eptem&er '(7(, 4*en "C le$ its secon$ expropriation case against o&reto ac5uire an a$$itional 3,339 s5uare meters o t*e ropert+. 1*is is t*e su&ect o t*ispetition. "C nee$e$ t*e lot or t*e construction an$ maintenance o "aglag&ong Fell ite 082.

%n ' Decem&er '(-9, o&re le$ a motion to $ismiss t*e secon$ complaint or expropriation.o&re claime$ t*at "C $amage$ *is ropert+. o&re pra+e$ or ust compensation o all t*elots aHecte$ &+ "C/s actions an$ or t*e pa+ment o $amages.

%n 2( April '(-7, t*e trial court issue$ its Decision in avor o o&re.

n its 6(8page $ecision, t*e trial court recounte$ in great $etail t*e scale an$ scope o t*e$amage "C inicte$ on t*e ropert+ t*at o&re *a$ $evelope$ into a resort8su&$ivision.o&re/s ropert+ suHere$ Jpermanent inur+J &ecause o t*e noise, 4ater, air an$ lan$pollution generate$ &+ "C/s geot*ermal plants. 1*e construction an$ operation o t*e

geot*ermal plants $rasticall+ c*ange$ t*e topograp*+ o t*e ropert+ ma?ing it no longervia&le as a resort8su&$ivision. 1*e c*emicals emitte$ &+ t*e geot*ermal plants $amage$ t*enatural resources in t*e ropert+ an$ en$angere$ t*e lives o t*e resi$ents.

"C $i$ not onl+ ta?e t*e -,)''.6 s5uare8meter portion o t*e ropert+, &ut also t*eremaining area o t*e 6-,(6( s5uare8meter ropert+. "C *a$ ren$ere$ o&re/s entireropert+ useless as a resort8su&$ivision. 1*e ropert+ *as &ecome useul onl+ to "C. "Cmust t*ereore ta?e o&re/s entire ropert+ an$ pa+ or it.

1*e trial court oun$ t*e ust compensation to &e 3 per s5uare meter or a totalo ),99-,93 or o&re/s 6-,(6( s5uare8meter ropert+.

%n ')


3/10


o t*e ta?ing. 1*e plaintiH/s rig*t in expropriation cases to $ismiss t*e complaint *as al4a+s&een su&ect to court approval an$ to certain con$itions. 1*e exceptional rig*t t*at ection ',Rule '7 o t*e '(69 Rules o Court conerre$ on t*e plaintiH must &e un$erstoo$ to *aveapplie$ onl+ to ot*er civil actions. 1*e '((7 Rules o Civil roce$ure a&rogate$ t*isexceptional rig*t.

1*e po4er o eminent $omain is su&ect to limitations. A lan$o4ner cannot &e $eprive$ o *isrig*t over *is lan$ until expropriation procee$ings are institute$ in court. 1*e court must t*ensee to it t*at t*e ta?ing is or pu&lic use, t*ere is pa+ment o ust compensation an$ t*ere is$ue process o la4.

t*e propriet+ o t*e ta?ing o private propert+ t*roug* eminent $omain is su&ect to u$icial

scrutin+, t*e $ismissal o t*e complaint must also pass u$icial in5uir+ &ecause private rig*tsma+ *ave suHere$ in t*e meantime. 1*e $ismissal, 4it*$ra4al or a&an$onment o t*eexpropriation case cannot &e ma$e ar&itraril+. it appears to t*e court t*at t*e expropriationis not or some pu&lic use, t*en it &ecomes t*e $ut+ o t*e court to $ismiss t*e action.>o4ever, 4*en t*e $een$ant claims t*at *is lan$ suHere$ $amage &ecause o t*eexpropriation, t*e $ismissal o t*e action s*oul$ not oreclose t*e $een$ant/s rig*t to *ave*is $amages ascertaine$ eit*er in t*e same case or in a separate action.

1*us, "C/s t*eor+ t*at t*e $ismissal o its complaint carrie$ 4it* it t*e $ismissal o o&re/sclaim or $amages is &aseless. 1*ere is not*ing in Rule 67 o t*e '(69 Rules o Court t*atprovi$e$ or t*e $ismissal o t*e $een$ant/s claim or $amages, upon t*e $ismissal o t*eexpropriation case. Case la4 *ol$s t*at in t*e event o $ismissal o t*e expropriation case, t*eclaim or $amages ma+ &e ma$e eit*er in a separate or in t*e same action, or all $amagesoccasione$ &+ t*e institution o t*e expropriation case. 1*e $ismissal o t*e complaint can &ema$e un$er certain con$itions, suc* as t*e reservation o t*e $een$ant/s rig*t to recover$amages eit*er in t*e same or in anot*er action. 1*e trial court in t*is case reserve$ o&re/srig*t to prove *is claim in t*e same case, a reservation t*at *as &ecome nal $ue to "C/so4n ault.

2. Ye$

%r$inaril+, t*e $ismissal o t*e expropriation case restores possession o t*e expropriate$ lan$to t*e lan$o4ner. >o4ever, 4*en possession o t*e lan$ cannot &e turne$ over to t*elan$o4ner &ecause it is neit*er convenient nor easi&le an+more to $o so, t*e onl+ reme$+availa&le to t*e aggrieve$ lan$o4ner is to $eman$ pa+ment o ust compensation.

n t*is case, 4e agree 4it* t*e trial an$ appellate courts t*at it is no longer possi&le an$practical to restore possession o t*e ropert+ to o&re. 1*e ropert+ is no longer *a&ita&le asa resort8su&$ivision. 1*e ropert+ is 4ort*less to o&re an$ is no4 useul onl+ to "C. o&re*as completel+ lost t*e ropert+ as i "C *a$ p*+sicall+ ta?en over t*e entire 6-,(6( s5uare8meter ropert+.

n t*is case, "C appropriate$ o&re/s ropert+ 4it*out resort to expropriation procee$ings."C $ismisse$ its o4n complaint or t*e secon$ expropriation. At no point $i$ "C instituteexpropriation procee$ings or t*e lots outsi$e t*e 3,339 s5uare8meter portion su&ect o t*esecon$ expropriation. 1*e onl+ issues t*at t*e trial court *a$ to settle 4ere t*e amount o ustcompensation an$ $amages t*at "C *a$ to pa+ o&re.

Fe *ave *el$ t*at t*e usual proce$ure in t*e $etermination o ust compensation is 4aive$4*en t*e government itsel initiall+ violates proce$ural re5uirements. "C/s ta?ing o o&re/spropert+ 4it*out ling t*e appropriate expropriation procee$ings an$ pa+ing *im ustcompensation is a transgression o proce$ural $ue process.

0rom t*e &eginning, "C s*oul$ *ave initiate$ expropriation procee$ings or o&re/s entire6-,(6( s5uare8meter ropert+. "C $i$ not. nstea$, "C em&ar?e$ on a piecemealexpropriation o t*e ropert+. Even as t*e secon$ expropriation case 4as still pen$ing, "C4as 4ell a4are o t*e $amage t*at it *a$ unleas*e$ on t*e entire ropert+. "C, *o4ever,remaine$ impervious to o&re/s repeate$ $eman$s or "C to a&ate t*e $amage t*at it *a$4roug*t on *is ropert+.

"C move$ or t*e $ismissal o t*e complaint or t*e secon$ expropriation on t*e groun$ t*atit *a$ oun$ an alternative site an$ t*ere 4as stiH opposition rom o&re. "C a&an$one$ t*esecon$ expropriation case ve +ears ater it *a$ alrea$+ $eprive$ t*e ropert+ virtuall+ o allits value. "C *as $emonstrate$ its utter $isregar$ or o&re/s propert+ rig*ts.

1*us, it 4oul$ no4 &e utile to compel "C to institute expropriation procee$ings to $eterminet*e ust compensation or o&re/s 6-,(6( s5uare8meter ropert+. o&re must &e spare$ an+urt*er $ela+ in *is pursuit to receive ust compensation rom "C.


4/10


A$)$ E/e*#)n# D*#on Co*(. +$. DOTC G.R. No. 1!14

DOTC +$. C.A. n- Sn)5B%e*n) G.R. No. 1641!!

@Digest cNo #s. Amen

FACTS:

1*is is a consoli$ate$ case, &ut in vie4 o t*e topic o expropriation 4e ocus more in t*e caseo D%1C vs. alacni&Baternia.

n or$er to &etter appreciate t*e case 4e must rst $iscuss t*e acts an$ rulings in t*e case oAganan$ Gingoyon.

n '((3 Asias Emerging Dragon @AEDC, @compose$ o t*e 6 most inuential &usinessman int*e *ilippines mainl+ enr+ +, An$re4 ;otianun, ;eorge 1+ an$Alonso Guc*engco., O su&mitte$ an unsolicite$ proposal to t*e ;overnment t*roug* t*eD%1C or t*e $evelopment o "AA un$er a &uil$8operate8an$ transer8arrangementpursuant to RA 6(37 as amen$e$ &+ RA 77'-. F*ereore t*e proposal 4as in$ee$ approve$&+ t*e ;overnment.

Bi$$ings 4ere *el$, in 4*ic* in t*e en$ t*e roect 4as a4ar$e$ to A1C%. %&ections 4ereraise$ &+ AEDC &ut in t*e en$ t*e ;overnment ustie$ t*e a4ar$ to A1C% mainl+ &ecauseAEDC 4as not a&le to matc* t*e &i$ o A1C%.

n 22 t*e Buil$8operate8an$ transer8arrangement @B%1 &et4een t*e ;ovt. an$ A1C%4as 5uestione$ in t*e case o Agan. F*ereore t*e court rule$ among ot*ers t*at, in vie4 oanomalies in a4ar$ing A1C% t*e B%1 , t*e contractN a4ar$ @B%1 4as $eclare$ null an$voi$. However the court rule that it was not unminful of the reality that the structurescomprising the !AIA III facility are almost complete an that the funs have been spent by"IA#C$ in their construction. For the Government to ta%e over sai facility, it has tocompensate responent "IA#C$ as builer of the sai structures. #he compensation must be

&ust an accorance with law an e'uity for the government can not un&ustly enriche itself atthe e(pense of "IA#C$ an its investors.

1*e a&ovementione$ pronouncement o t*e Court in Agan gave rise to t*e petition in t*e;ingo+an case. 1*e acts o 4*ic* are as ollo4s. Ater t*e promulgation o t*e ruling in Agancase, "AA 4as still in t*e possession o A1C%, $espite t*e avo4e$ intent o t*e;overnment to put t*e airport terminal into imme$iate operation. F*ere&+ t*e ;ovt. an$A1C% entere$ into several roun$s o negotiation an$ even appeare$ &eore ar&itralprocee$ings &eore nternational C*am&er o Commerce nternational Court o Ar&itration.

1*en on, Dec. 2', 29 t*e ;ovt le$ a complaint or expropriation 4it* t*e asa+ R1C. 1*e;ovt see?s t*e issuance o a 4rit o possession aut*oriing imme$iate possession o "AA ,it also $eclare$ t*at it *a$ $eposite$ t*e amount o ) Billion in cas* 4it* t*e Lan$ Ban?,representing t*e "AA ) terminal assesse$ value or tax purposes. 1*e R1C t*roug* ouse le$ a petition or ro*i&ition in ntervention4it* application or 1R%. Baterina, et. al &elieves t*at t*e ;ovt. nee$ not le expropriationprocee$ings to gain possession i "AA ) an$ t*at A1C% is not entitle$ to ust compensation,arguing t*at A1C% $oes not o4n "AA ) &ecause B%1 contract $o not vest o4ners*ip. 1*att*e lan$ in 4*ic* "AA ) is situate$ is o4ne$ &+ t*e ;overnment.

ISSUE:

In essence, 6aterina is opposing the e(propriation proceeings on the groun that !AIA < isalreay a public property. Hence "IA#C$ is not entitle to &ust compensation for !AIA


5/10


G.R. No. 160367 O%o5e* 13, 2010

RE&UBLIC OF TE &ILI&&INES,etitioner,vs.ON. MAMINDIARA &. MANGOTARA, )n 8)$ ()%9 $ &*e$)-)n# Ju-#e o %8eRe#)on T*) Cou*%, B*n8 1, I)#n C)%9, Lno -e No*%e, n- MARIA CRISTINAFERTILI;ER COR&ORATION, n- %8e &ILI&&INE NATIONAL BANE D#AL %0 A"AC1%" !R!A"1 1% EC1%" '', R!LE ) %0 1>E '((7 R!LE %0 CKLR%CED!RE

@& A" EWR%RA1%" R%CEED"; A" AC1%" X!A " RE# F>ERE" 1>E 0AC11>A1 1>E %F"ER %0 1>E R%ER1G #ADE A AR1G 1% 1>E AC1%" "%1EE"1ALLG "DE"ABLE

@c E11%"ER DD "%1 C%##1 A"G 0%R!# >%"; F1> 1>E 0L"; %0 1>EREKER%" C%#LA"1 D%C=E1ED A CKL CAE "%. 66-6 F>C> E"D";BE0%RE BRA"C> 9 %0 1>E RE;%"AL 1RAL C%!R1 %0 L;A" C1G.

1*e Court s*all no4 consi$er t*e propriet+ o t*e $ismissal &+ t*e R1C8Branc* ' o t*eComplaint or Expropriation o t*e Repu&lic.

#he proper parties in the e(propriation proceeings

1*e rig*t o t*e Repu&lic to &e su&stitute$ or A as plaintiH in Civil Case "o. '6 *a$ long&een aIrme$ &+ no less t*an t*is Court in t*e I*A case. 1*e $ispositive portion o t*e I*Acaserea$s:

F>ERE0%RE, or all t*e oregoing, t*e Decision o t*e Court o Appeals $ate$ - %cto&er '(('to t*e extent t*at it aIrme$ t*e trial courts or$er $ismissing t*e expropriation procee$ings,is *ere&+ REKERED an$ E1 ADE an$ t*e case is RE#A"DED to t*e court a 5uo 4*ic* s*allallo4 t*e su&stitution o t*e Repu&lic o t*e *ilippines or petitioner ron teel Aut*orit+ orurt*er procee$ings consistent 4it* t*is Decision. "o pronouncement as to costs.


6/10


1*e I*A case*a$ alrea$+ &ecome nal an$ executor+, an$ entr+ o u$gment 4as ma$e insai$ case on August )', '((-. 1*e R1C8Branc* ', in an %r$er $ate$ "ovem&er '6, 2',eHecte$ t*e su&stitution o t*e Repu&lic or A.

1*e ailure o t*e Repu&lic to actuall+ le a motion or execution $oes not ren$er t*esu&stitution voi$. A 4rit o execution re5uires t*e s*eriH or ot*er proper oIcer to 4*om it is$irecte$ to enorce t*e terms o t*e 4rit. 1*e "ovem&er '6, 2' %r$er o t*e R1C8Branc* 's*oul$ &e $eeme$ as voluntar+ compliance 4it* a nal an$ executor+ u$gment o t*is Court,alrea$+ ren$ering a motion or an$ issuance o a 4rit o execution superuous.

Besi$es, no su&stantive rig*t 4as violate$ &+ t*e voluntar+ compliance &+ t*e R1C8Branc* '4it* t*e $irective in t*e I*A caseeven 4it*out a motion or execution *aving &een le$. 1o

t*e contrar+, t*e R1C8Branc* ' merel+ enorce$ t*e u$iciall+ $etermine$ rig*t o t*e Repu&licto t*e su&stitution. F*ile it is $esira&le t*at t*e Rules o Court &e ait*ull+ an$ evenmeticulousl+ o&serve$, courts s*oul$ not &e so strict a&out proce$ural lapses t*at $o notreall+ impair t*e a$ministration o ustice. t*e rules are inten$e$ to insure t*e or$erl+con$uct o litigation it is &ecause o t*e *ig*er o&ective t*e+ see? 4*ic* is t*e protection ot*e su&stantive rig*ts o t*e parties.

1*e Court also o&serves t*at #C0C $i$ not see? an+ reme$+ rom t*e %r$er $ate$ "ovem&er'6, 2' o t*e R1C8Branc* '. Conse5uentl+, t*e sai$ %r$er alrea$+ &ecame nal, 4*ic* event*e R1C8Branc* ' itsel cannot reverse an$ set asi$e on t*e groun$ o J*onest mista?e.J

1*e R1C8Branc* ' $ismisse$ t*e Complaint in Civil Case "o. '6 on anot*er groun$: t*at#C0C is not a proper part+ to t*e expropriation procee$ings, not &eing t*e o4ner o t*eparcels o lan$ soug*t to &e expropriate$. 1*e R1C8Branc* ' ratiocinate$ t*at since t*eexercise o t*e po4er o eminent $omain involves t*e ta?ing o private lan$ inten$e$ orpu&lic use upon pa+ment o ust compensation to t*e o4ner, t*en a complaint orexpropriation must &e $irecte$ against t*e o4ner o t*e lan$ soug*t to &e expropriate$.

1*e Repu&lic insists, *o4ever, t*at #C0C is a real part+8in8interest, implea$e$ as a $een$antin t*e Complaint or Expropriation &ecause o its possessor+ or occupanc+ rig*ts over t*esu&ect parcels o lan$, an$ not &+ reason o its o4ners*ip o t*e sai$ properties. n a$$ition,t*e Repu&lic maintains t*at non8oin$er o parties is not a groun$ or t*e $ismissal o anaction.

Rule 67, ection ' o t*e t*en Rules o Court $escri&e$ *o4 expropriation procee$ings s*oul$&e institute$:

ection '. 1*e complaint. O 1*e rig*t o eminent $omain s*all &e exercise$ &+ t*e ling o acomplaint 4*ic* s*all state 4it* certaint+ t*e rig*t an$ purpose o con$emnation, $escri&et*e real or personal propert+ soug*t to &e con$emne$, an$ oin as $een$ants all personso4ning or claiming to o4n, or occup+ing, an+ part t*ereo or interest t*erein, s*o4ing, so aras practica&le, t*e interest o eac* $een$ant separatel+. t*e title to an+ propert+ soug*t to&e con$emne$ appears to &e in t*e Repu&lic o t*e *ilippines, alt*oug* occupie$ &+ privatein$ivi$uals, or i t*e title is ot*er4ise o&scure or $ou&tul so t*at t*e plaintiH cannot 4it*accurac+ or certaint+ speci+ 4*o are t*e real o4ners, averment to t*at eHect ma+ &e ma$ein t*e complaint.

0or sure, $een$ants in an expropriation case are not limite$ to t*e o4ners o t*e propert+ to&e expropriate$, an$ ust compensation is not $ue to t*e propert+ o4ner alone. As t*is Court*el$ inDe =necht v. Court of Appeals79:

1*e $een$ants in an expropriation case are not limite$ to t*e o4ners o t*e propert+con$emne$. 1*e+ inclu$e all ot*er persons o4ning, occup+ing or claiming to o4n t*epropert+. F*en Tpropert+U is ta?en &+ eminent $omain, t*e o4ner x x x is not necessaril+ t*eonl+ person 4*o is entitle$ to compensation. n t*e American uris$iction, t*e term Yo4ner4*en emplo+e$ in statutes relating to eminent $omain to $esignate t*e persons 4*o are to&e ma$e parties to t*e procee$ing, reer, as is t*e rule in respect o t*ose entitle$ tocompensation, to all t*ose 4*o *ave la4ul interest in t*e propert+ to &e con$emne$,inclu$ing a mortgagee, a lessee an$ a ven$ee in possession un$er an executor+ contract.Ever+ person *aving an estate or interest at la4 or in e5uit+ in t*e lan$ ta?en is entitle$ tos*are in t*e a4ar$. a person claiming an interest in t*e lan$ soug*t to &e con$emne$ is notma$e a part+, *e is given t*e rig*t to intervene an$ la+ claim to t*e compensation.

At t*e time o t*e ling o t*e Complaint or Expropriation in '(-), possessor+Noccupanc+rig*ts o #C0C over t*e parcels o lan$ soug*t to &e expropriate$ 4ere un$ispute$. n act,

Letter o nstructions "o. '27773

$ate$ "ovem&er '6, '(-2 expressl+ recognie$ t*at portionso t*e lan$s reserve$ &+ resi$ential roclamation "o. 22)(, also $ate$ "ovem&er '6, '(-2,

or t*e use an$ imme$iate occupation &+ t*e "C, 4ere t*en occupie$ &+ an i$le ertilierplantNactor+ an$ relate$ acilities o #C0C. t 4as or$ere$ in t*e same Letter o nstructiont*at:

@' "C s*all negotiate 4it* t*e o4ners o #C0C, or an$ on &e*al o t*e ;overnment,or t*e compensation o #C0C/s present occupanc+ rig*ts on t*e su&ect lan$s at anamount o 1*irt+ @). esos per s5uare meter or e5uivalent to t*e assesse$value t*ereo @as $etermine$ &+ t*e Cit+ Assessor o ligan, 4*ic*ever is *ig*er."C s*all give #C0C t*e option to eit*er remove its aoresai$ plant, structures,e5uipment, mac*iner+ an$ ot*er acilities rom t*e lan$s or to sell or ce$eo4ners*ip t*ereo to "C at a price e5uivalent to t*e air mar?et value t*ereo asappraise$ &+ t*e Asian Appraisal nc. as ma+ &e mutuall+ agree$ upon &+ "C an$#C0C.

@2 n t*e event t*at "C an$ #C0C ail to agree on t*e oregoing 4it*in sixt+ @6 $a+srom t*e $ate *ereo, t*e ron an$ teel Aut*orit+ @A s*all exercise its aut*orit+un$er resi$ential Decree @D "o. 272, as amen$e$, to initiate t*e expropriation ot*e aorementione$ occupanc+ rig*ts o #C0C on t*e su&ect lan$s as 4ell as t*eplant, structures, e5uipment, mac*iner+ an$ relate$ acilities, or an$ on &e*al o"C, an$ t*ereater ce$e t*e same to "C. During t*e pen$enc+ o t*eexpropriation procee$ings, "C s*all ta?e possession o t*e properties, su&ect to&on$ing an$ ot*er re5uirements o .D. '3)). @Emp*asis supplie$.

Being t*e occupant o t*e parcel o lan$ soug*t to &e expropriate$, #C0C coul$ ver+ 4ell &ename$ a $een$ant in Civil Case "o. '6. 1*e R1C8Branc* ' evi$entl+ erre$ in $ismissing t*eComplaint or Expropriation against #C0C or not &eing a proper part+.

Also erroneous 4as t*e $ismissal &+ t*e R1C8Branc* ' o t*e original Complaint orExpropriation or *aving &een le$ onl+ against #C0C, t*e occupant o t*e su&ect lan$, &utnot t*e o4nerNs o t*e sai$ propert+.

Dismissal is not t*e reme$+ or misoin$er or non8oin$er o parties. Accor$ing to Rule ),ection '' o t*e Rules o Court:

EC. ''. #isoin$er an$ non8oin$er o parties. O "eit*er misoin$er nor non8oin$er o partiesis groun$ or $ismissal o an action. arties ma+ &e $roppe$ or a$$e$ &+ or$er o t*e court onmotion o an+ part+ or on its o4n initiative at an+ stage o t*e action an$ on suc* terms asare ust. An+ claim against a misoine$ part+ ma+ &e severe$ an$ procee$e$ 4it* separatel+.

#C0C conten$s t*at t*e aore5uote$ rule $oes not appl+ in t*is case 4*ere t*e part+ notoine$, i.e., t*e o4ner o t*e propert+ to &e expropriate$, is an in$ispensa&le part+.

An in$ispensa&le part+ is a part+8in8interest 4it*out 4*om no nal $etermination can &e *a$o an action.

"o4, is t*e o4ner o t*e propert+ an in$ispensa&le part+ in an action or expropriationZ "otnecessaril+. ;oing &ac? to Rule 67, ection ' o t*e Rules o Court, expropriation procee$ingsma+ &e institute$ even 4*en Jtitle to t*e propert+ soug*t to &e con$emne$ appears to &e int*e Repu&lic o t*e *ilippines, alt*oug* occupie$ &+ private in$ivi$uals.J 1*e same ruleprovi$es t*at a complaint or expropriation s*all name as $een$ants Jall persons o4ning or

claiming to o4n, or occup+ing, an+ part t*ereo or interestJ in t*e propert+ soug*t to &econ$emne$. Clearl+, 4*en t*e propert+ alrea$+ appears to &elong to t*e Repu&lic, t*ere is nosense in t*e Repu&lic instituting expropriation procee$ings against itsel. t can still, *o4ever,le a complaint or expropriation against t*e private persons occup+ing t*e propert+. n suc*an expropriation case, t*e o4ner o t*e propert+ is not an in$ispensa&le part+.

1o recall, resi$ential roclamation "o. 22)( explicitl+ states t*at t*e parcels o lan$ reserve$to "C are part o t*e pu&lic $omain, *ence, o4ne$ &+ t*e Repu&lic. Letter o nstructions "o.'277 recognie$ onl+ t*e occupanc+ rig*ts o #C0C an$ $irecte$ "C to instituteexpropriation procee$ings to $etermine t*e ust compensation or sai$ occupanc+ rig*ts.

1*ereore, t*e o4ner o t*e propert+ is not an in$ispensa&le part+ in t*e original Complaint orExpropriation in Civil Case "o. '6.

Assuming or t*e sa?e o argument t*at t*e o4ner o t*e propert+ is an in$ispensa&le part+ int*e expropriation procee$ings, t*e non8oin$er o sai$ part+ 4oul$ still not 4arrant imme$iate$ismissal o t*e complaint or expropriation. n K$a. De #anguerra v. Risos, t*e Court applie$Rule ), ection '' o t*e Rules o Court even in case o non8oin$er o an in$ispensa&le part+,vi:


7/10


T0Uailure to implea$ an in$ispensa&le part+ is not a groun$ or t*e $ismissal o an action. nsuc* a case, t*e reme$+ is to implea$ t*e non8part+ claime$ to &e in$ispensa&le. arties ma+&e a$$e$ &+ or$er o t*e court, on motion o t*e part+ or on its o4n initiative at an+ stage ot*e action an$Nor suc* times as are ust. t*e petitionerNplaintiH reuses to implea$ anin$ispensa&le part+ $espite t*e or$er o t*e court, t*e latter ma+ $ismiss t*ecomplaintNpetition or t*e petitioner/sNplaintiH/s ailure to compl+.

n t*is case, t*e R1C8Branc* ' $i$ not rst re5uire t*e Repu&lic to implea$ t*e allege$ o4nerNso t*e parcel o lan$ soug*t to &e expropriate$. Despite t*e a&sence o an+ or$er rom t*eCourt, t*e Repu&lic O upon &ecoming a4are t*at t*e parcels o lan$ involve$ in t*e '('9Cac*o case an$ '((7 Cac*o case, claime$ &+ 1eolo an$ LA"D1RADE, an$ Ki$al an$AS#!1>, encroac*e$ into an$ overlappe$ 4it* t*e parcel o lan$ su&ect o Civil Case "o.'6 O soug*t leave o court to le a upplemental Complaint to implea$ t*ese our parties.

1*e R1C8Branc* ' $i$ not ta?e t*e upplemental Complaint o t*e Repu&lic into consi$eration.nstea$, it $ismisse$ outrig*t t*e original Complaint or Expropriation against #C0C.

Expropriation vis8[8vis reversion

1*e Repu&lic is not engaging in contra$ictions 4*en it institute$ &ot* expropriation an$reversion procee$ings or t*e same parcels o lan$. 1*e expropriation an$ reversionprocee$ings are $istinct reme$ies t*at are not necessaril+ exclusionar+ o eac* ot*er.

1*e ling o a complaint or reversion $oes not preclu$e t*e institution o an action orexpropriation. Even i t*e lan$ is reverte$ &ac? to t*e tate, t*e same ma+ still &e su&ect toexpropriation as against t*e occupants t*ereo.

Also, Rule 67, ection ' o t*e Rules o Court allo4s t*e ling o a complaint or expropriationeven 4*en Jt*e title to an+ propert+ soug*t to &e con$emne$ appears to &e in t*e Repu&lic ot*e *ilippines, alt*oug* occupie$ &+ private in$ivi$uals, or i t*e title is ot*er4ise o&scure or

$ou&tul so t*at t*e plaintiH cannot 4it* accurac+ or certaint+ speci+ 4*o are t*e realo4ners.J Rule 67, ection ( o t*e Rules o Court urt*er provi$es:

EC. (. !ncertain o4ners*ip conicting claims. O I %8e o=ne*$8)( o %8e (*o(e*%9 %>en)$ une*%)n, o* %8e*e *e on?)%)n# )/$ %o n9 (*% %8e*eo, t*e court ma+ or$eran+ sum or sums a4ar$e$ as compensation or t*e propert+ to &e pai$ to t*e court or t*e&enet o t*e person a$u$ge$ in t*e same procee$ing to &e entitle$ t*ereto. But t*e

u$gment s*all re5uire t*e pa+ment o t*e sum or sums a4ar$e$ to eit*er t*e $een$ant ort*e court &eore t*e plaintiH can enter upon t*e propert+, or retain it or t*e pu&lic use orpurpose i entr+ *as alrea$+ &een ma$e.

>ence, t*e ling &+ t*e Repu&lic o t*e upplemental Complaint or Expropriation implea$ing1eolo, Ki$al, LA"D1RADE, an$ AS#!1>, is not necessaril+ an a$mission t*at t*e parcels olan$ soug*t to &e expropriate$ are privatel+ o4ne$. At most, t*e Repu&lic merel+ac?no4le$ge$ in its upplemental Complaint t*at t*ere are private persons also claimingo4ners*ip o t*e parcels o lan$. 1*e Repu&lic can still consistentl+ assert, in &ot* actions orexpropriation an$ reversion, t*at t*e su&ect parcels o lan$ are part o t*e pu&lic $omain.

n sum, t*e R1C8Branc* ' erre$ in $ismissing t*e original Complaint an$ $isallo4ing t*e

upplemental Complaint in Civil Case "o. '6. 1*e Court reverses an$ sets asi$e t*eResolutions $ate$


8/10


su&ect propert+ since t*e Cit+ %r$inance aut*oriing t*e initiation o t*e procee$ings$esignate$ t*em as &eneciaries o t*e lots.

ELD:

1*e petition ails.

n t*e exercise o t*e po4er o eminent $omain, t*e tate expropriates private propert+ orpu&lic use upon pa+ment o ust compensation. A socialie$ *ousing proect alls 4it*in t*eam&it o pu&lic use as it is in urt*erance o t*e constitutional provisions on social ustice.(

As a general rule, eectment procee$ings, $ue to its summar+ nature, are not suspen$e$ ort*eir resolution *el$ in a&e+ance $espite t*e pen$enc+ o a civil action regar$ing o4ners*ip.

ection ' o Common4ealt* Act "o. 3)-'enlig*tens, *o4ever:

*ection 8. :hen the Government see%s to ac'uire, through purchase or e(propriationproceeings, lans belonging to any estate or chaplaincy >cappellania?, any action fore&ectment against the tenants occupying sai lans shall be automatically suspene, forsuch time as may be re'uire by the e(propriation proceeings or the necessary negotiationsfor the purchase of the lans, in which latter case, the perio of suspension shall not e(ceeone year.

1o avail *imsel o t*e &enets o t*e suspension, t*e tenants s*all pa+ to t*e lan$o4ner t*ecurrent rents as t*e+ &ecome $ue or $eposit t*e same 4it* t*e court 4*ere t*e action oreectment *as &een institute$.

etitioners $i$ not compl+ 4it* an+ o t*e acts mentione$ in t*e la4 to avail o t*e &enets ot*e suspension. 1*e+ nevert*eless posit t*at since t*e lots are t*e su&ect o expropriationprocee$ings, respon$ents can no longer assert a &etter rig*t o possession an$ t*at t*e Cit+%r$inance aut*oriing t*e initiation o expropriation procee$ings $esignate$ t*em as

&eneciaries o t*e lots, *ence, t*e+ are entitle$ to continue sta+ing t*ere.

etitioners position $oes not lie.

Expropriation o lan$s consists o t4o stages:

1*e frstis concerne$ 4it* t*e $etermination o t*e aut*orit+ o t*e plaintiH to exercise t*epo4er o eminent $omain an$ t*e propriet+ o its exercise in t*e context o t*e acts involve$in t*e suit. t en$s 4it* an or$er, i not o $ismissal o t*e action, Jo con$emnation $eclaringt*at t*e plaintiH *as a la4ul rig*t to ta?e t*e propert+ soug*t to &e con$emne$, or t*epu&lic use or purpose $escri&e$ in t*e complaint, upon t*e pa+ment o ust compensation to&e $etermine$ as o t*e $ate o t*e ling o t*e complaint x x x.

1*e secondp*ase o t*e eminent $omain action is concerne$ 4it* t*e $etermination &+ t*ecourt o Jt*e ust compensation or t*e propert+ soug*t to &e ta?en.J 1*is is $one &+ t*e court4it* t*e assistance o not more t*an t*ree @) commissioners x x x

t is onl+ upon t*e completion o t*ese t4o stages t*at expropriation is sai$ to *ave &eencomplete$. 1*e process is not complete until pa+ment o ust compensation. Accor$ingl+, t*e

issuance o t*e 4rit o possession in t*is case $oes not 4rite nis to t*e expropriationprocee$ings. 1o eHectuate t*e transer o o4ners*ip, it is necessar+ or t*e "C to pa+ t*epropert+ o4ners t*e nal ust compensation.

n t*e present case, t*e mere issuance o a 4rit o possession in t*e expropriationprocee$ings $i$ not transer o4ners*ip o t*e lots in avor o t*e Cit+. uc* issuance 4as onl+t*e rst stage in expropriation. 1*ere is even no evi$ence t*at u$icial $eposit *a$ &een ma$ein avor o respon$ents prior to t*e Cit+s possession o t*e lots.

Respecting petitioners claim t*at t*e+ *ave &een name$ &eneciaries o t*e lots, t*e cit+or$inance aut*oriing t*e initiation o expropriation procee$ings $oes not state so.')

etitioners cannot t*us claim an+ rig*t over t*e lots on t*e &asis o t*e or$inance.

Even i t*e lots are eventuall+ transerre$ to t*e Cit+, it is non se'uituror petitioners to claimt*at t*e+ are automaticall+ entitle$ to &e &eneciaries t*ereo. 0or certain re5uirements must&e met an$ complie$ 4it* &eore t*e+ can &e consi$ere$ to &e &eneciaries.

n anot*er vein, petitioners posit t*at respon$ents aile$ to prove t*at t*eir possession is &+mere tolerance. 1*is too ails. n allo4ing several +ears to pass 4it*out re5uiring t*e occupant

to vacate t*e premises nor ling an action to eect *im, plaintiHs *ave ac5uiesce$ to$een$ants possession an$ use o t*e premises. t *as &een *el$ t*at a person 4*o occupies

t*e lan$ o anot*er at t*e latters tolerance or permission, 4it*out an+ contract &et4eent*em, is necessaril+ &oun$ &+ an implie$ promise t*at *e 4ill vacate upon $eman$, ailing4*ic* a summar+ action or eectment is t*e proper reme$+ against t*em. 1*e status o t*e$een$ant is analogous to t*at o a lessee or tenant 4*ose term o lease *as expire$ &ut4*ose occupanc+ continue$ &+ tolerance o t*e o4ner. n suc* a case, t*e unla4ul$eprivation or 4it**ol$ing o possession is to &e counte$ rom t*e $ate o t*e $eman$ tovacate.


9/10


10/10


expropriate$ properties. Fe cannot, as petitioner 4oul$ 4ant us to, oversimpli+ t*e processun$erta?en &+ t*e committee in arriving at its recommen$ations, &ecause t*ese 4ere not&ase$ on mere conectures an$ unrelia&le $ata.

n "ational o4er Corporation v. Diato8Bernal, t*is Court emp*asie$ t*at t*e JustJ8ness ot*e compensation coul$ onl+ &e attaine$ &+ using relia&le an$ actual $ata as &ases or xingt*e value o t*e con$emne$ propert+. 1*e relia&le an$ actual $ata 4e reerre$ to in t*at case4ere t*e s4orn $eclarations o realtors in t*e area, as 4ell as tax $eclarations an$ onalvaluation rom t*e BR. n $isregar$ing t*e Committee Report assaile$ &+ t*e "ational o4erCorporation in t*e sai$ case, 4e rule$ t*us:

t is evi$ent t*at t*e a&ove conclusions are *ig*l+ speculative an$ $evoi$ o an+ actual an$

relia&le &asis. 0irst, t*e mar?et values o t*e su&ect propert+s neig*&oring lots 4ere mereestimates an$ unsupporte$ &+ an+ corro&orative $ocuments, suc* as s4orn $eclarations orealtors in t*e area concerne$, tax $eclarations or onal valuation rom t*e Bureau o nternalRevenue or t*e contiguous resi$ential $4ellings an$ commercial esta&lis*ments. 1*e reportalso aile$ to ela&orate on *o4 an$ &+ *o4 muc* t*e communit+ centers an$ convenienceacilities en*ance$ t*e value o respon$ents propert+. 0inall+, t*e mar?et sales $ata an$ pricelistings allu$e$ to in t*e report 4ere not even appen$e$ t*ereto.

As correctl+ invo?e$ &+ "A%C%R, a commissioners report o lan$ prices 4*ic* is not &ase$on an+ $ocumentar+ evi$ence is maniestl+ *earsa+ an$ s*oul$ &e $isregar$e$ &+ t*e court.

1*e trial court a$opte$ t*e a4e$ n$ings o t*e commissioners *oo?, line, an$ sin?er. t $i$not even &ot*er to re5uire t*e su&mission o t*e allege$ Jmar?et sales $ataJ an$ Jpricelistings.J 0urt*er, t*e R1C overloo?e$ t*e act t*at t*e recommen$e$ ust compensation 4asgauge$ as o eptem&er ', '((( or more t*an t4o +ears ater t*e complaint 4as le$ on

Documents

Rem2 Case Digests Rule 67