Arce v. Genato
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Municipality of Baliangao initiated an expropriation case to acquire a parcel of land for the beautification and expansion of its public plaza. The petitioners, Pedro Arce and Carmen Barrica de Arce, contested the necessity of the expropriation, arguing that a portion of the existing plaza was leased to private third parties and could be utilized for the project. 2. Procedural History: The Municipality of Baliangao filed a civil case for expropriation. Following the filing, the Municipality sought immediate possession of the property, relying on Presidential Decree No. 42. The petitioners, in their answer, raised the issue of the lack of urgent necessity for immediate possession. Respondent Judge initially ordered Pedro Arce to be impleaded as a party defendant and held the motion for immediate possession in abeyance. After the amended complaint and answer, the Municipality reiterated its motion for immediate possession, which the petitioners opposed, questioning the assessment and the deposit. Despite the petitioners' motion for postponement, the respondent Judge issued an order allowing the Municipality immediate possession of the premises. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the respondent Judge's order granting immediate possession of the property. They contend that the order is vitiated by jurisdictional defect and constitutes a grave abuse of discretion because it was issued without a prior hearing to determine the necessity for the exercise of the power of eminent domain. The petitioners argue that Presidential Decree No. 42, upon which the order was based, should not permit immediate possession without such a preliminary determination of necessity.
Issue(s)
Whether the order allowing immediate possession of the property sought to be expropriated, without a prior hearing to determine the necessity for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, is vitiated by jurisdictional defect or grave abuse of discretion. Whether Presidential Decree No. 42, as part of the law of the land, permits immediate possession without prior determination of necessity.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The order allowing immediate possession is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdictional defect and grave abuse of discretion in allowing immediate possession without a prior hearing on necessity: The Court ruled that the order of the respondent Judge allowing immediate possession was not vitiated by jurisdictional defect or grave abuse of discretion. This is because the Judge acted in compliance with Presidential Decree No. 42, which is explicitly recognized as part of the law of the land under the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution. The decree itself grants the plaintiff the right to take possession upon depositing the assessed value for taxation purposes, after due notice to the defendant, and does not require a prior hearing to determine the necessity of expropriation. Therefore, the lower court's adherence to this decree cannot be considered an excess of jurisdiction or a grave abuse of discretion. On the validity and applicability of Presidential Decree No. 42: The Court affirmed that Presidential Decree No. 42 is a valid and binding law. It was issued by the incumbent President during the period of martial law and, as per Article XVII, Section 3, paragraph (2) of the Constitution, is considered part of the law of the land. The decree clearly states that the plaintiff in eminent domain proceedings has the right to take possession upon depositing the assessed value for taxation purposes. The Court emphasized that this decree has been accorded deference by the Supreme Court in previous rulings. Thus, the petition's attempt to assail an order made in compliance with this decree was deemed difficult and ultimately unsuccessful.
Main Doctrine
Under Presidential Decree No. 42, a plaintiff in eminent domain proceedings may take immediate possession of the property involved upon depositing the assessed value for taxation purposes, without prior hearing on the necessity of expropriation, as such decree is part of the law of the land and its application by a lower court does not constitute a jurisdictional defect or grave abuse of discretion.