Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Expropriation proceedings are governed by revised Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect on July 1, 1997. Previous doctrines inconsistent with this Rule are deemed reversed or modified. Specifically, (1) an answer, not a motion to dismiss, is the responsive pleading to a complaint in eminent domain; (2) the trial court may issue a writ of possession once the plaintiff deposits an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, pursuant to Section 2 of said Rule, without need of a hearing to determine the provisional sum to be deposited; and (3) a final order of expropriation may not be issued prior to a full hearing and resolution of the objections and defenses of the property owner.

The Case Before us is a Petition under Rule 45, challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals1 promulgated February 27, 1998 and its Resolution promulgated July 23, 1998 in CA-GR SP-46002, which (1) dismissed the action for certiorari and preliminary injunction filed by Robern Development Corporation ("Robern" for brevity); and (2) effectively affirmed the Orders (dated August 13, 1997; September 11, 1997; and November 5, 1997) and the Writ of Possession (dated September 19, 1997), all issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in Civil Case No. 25356-97. The assailed Decision disposed as follows:2 IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is ordered DISMISSED.

Costs against the petitioner. In its assailed Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in this manner:3 There being no compelling reason to modify, reverse or reconsider the Decision rendered in the case dated February 27, 1998[;] the Motion for Reconsideration posted by petitioner on March 23, 1998 is DENIED, it appearing further that the arguments raised therein were already considered and passed upon in the aforesaid Decision. The Facts The following facts are undisputed.

1. Robern is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of about 17,746.50 square meters, which the National Power Corporation ("NPC" for brevity) is seeking to expropriate.

the property forms part of a proposed low-cost housing project in Inawayan, Binugao, Toril, Davao City. 2. on June 6, 1997, NPC filed a Complaint for Eminent Domain against Robern.4 Instead of filing an answer, petitioner countered with a Motion to Dismiss,5 alleging (a) that the Complaint suffered a jurisdictional defect for not showing that the action bore the approval of the NPC board of directors; (b) that Nemesio S. Cañete, who signed the verification and certification in the Complaint, was not the president, the general manager or an officer specifically authorized under the NPC charter (RA 6395); (c) that the choice of property to be expropriated was improper, as it had already been intended for use in a low-cost housing project, a public purpose within the contemplation of law; and the choice was also arbitrary, as there were similar properties available within the area.1âwphi1.nêt 3.

Before this Motion could be resolved, NPC filed a Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Possession based on Presidential Decree No. 42. on July 9, 1997, NPC deposited P6,121.20 at the Philippine National Bank, Davao Branch, as evidenced by PNB Savings Account No. 385-560728-9.6 4. in its Order of August 13, 1997, the trial court denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss in this wise: This refers to the motion to dismiss.

the issues raised are matters that should be dealt with during the trial proper. Suffice it to say that [NPC] has the privilege as a utility to use the power of eminent domain. The motion is denied for lack of merit.

the pre-trial conference shall be on August 27, 1997 at 2:30 P.M.7 5.

on September 2, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, pointing out that (a) the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss could be resolved without trial, as they could be readily appreciated on the face of the Complaint itself vis-à-vis the applicable provisions of law on the matter; and (b) the grounds relied upon for dismissing the Complaint did not require evidence aliunde. 6. on September 11, 1997, the trial court denied the Motion.

as follows: The . . .

motion [of the petitioner] for reconsideration is denied for lack of merit. Finding the . .

. motion [of NPC] to be meritorious[,] let a writ of possession issue.8 7. on September 22, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of September 11, 1997, arguing among others that Section 15-A of RA 6395 was virtually "amended"

when Cañete was allowed to verify and sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in regard to the Complaint for expropriation filed by NPC. 8. Without awaiting the outcome of the Motion for Reconsideration, NPC filed a Motion to Implement the Writ of Possession.

9. on September 19, 1997, in spite of petitioner's opposition, the trial court issued a Writ of Possession as follows: WHEREAS, the applicant National Power Corporation in the above-titled case has presented to this Court a petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Possession of the affected property of the . .

. Robern Development Corporation, described hereinbelow, as follows: TCT No. Total Area in Square Meter Area Affected in Square Meter T-251558 (T-141754) 11,469.00 3,393.00 T-251559 (T-141755) 10,000.00 2,124.00 T-251556 (T-14152) 30,000.00 3,402.00 T-251555 45,000.00