Pangasinan v. Roy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Province of Pangasinan filed a complaint for expropriation on July 10, 1963, for a lot to be used for school purposes. An order dated July 11, 1963, fixed the provisional value at P1,050.48, allowing the Province to take immediate possession. Private respondents, the owners of the lot, moved to withdraw this deposit over three years later, on August 27, 1966. The lower court issued an order fixing the just compensation at P18,137.68 with legal interest from the date of possession on December 9, 1971. This order became final. Almost two years later, on September 14, 1973, private respondents moved for its execution. An opposition was filed, but the court resolved to approve the motion for execution on October 25, 1973, noting that the period for appeal had expired without the plaintiff perfecting an appeal. Procedural History: The Province of Pangasinan filed a petition for certiorari to nullify the order of execution, alleging that there was no final judgment and that the order was a "patent nullity." The Petition: The province sought to delay the payment of just compensation for the expropriated lot, which had been in its possession since 1963.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of Judge Domondon approving the motion for execution of judgment was a "patent nullity." Whether the Province of Pangasinan can legally justify further delay in the payment of just compensation for the expropriated property.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the order of Judge Domondon approving the motion for execution of judgment was a "patent nullity": The Supreme Court held that the claim of "patent nullity" was based on a misreading of Section 13 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The Court clarified that the rule requires an adequate description of the particular property condemned and the nature of the public use. The challenged order, in conjunction with the complaint, sufficiently described the property and the public purpose. Even if there were an irregularity, it was not grave enough to warrant the assertion that the order was a nullity, especially considering the unconscionable delay in payment. The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate for just compensation in expropriation cases cannot be disregarded. On the issue of whether the Province of Pangasinan can legally justify further delay in the payment of just compensation for the expropriated property: The Court found no merit to the petition. It reiterated that the power of eminent domain is inseparable from sovereignty but is restrained by the constitutional requirement of just compensation. The Court stressed that the prolonged delay in paying the just compensation, after the Province had taken possession of the property for fourteen years, was indefensible and contrary to both law and morals. The constitutional provision requiring just compensation is explicit and has been consistently upheld by the Court to prevent arbitrariness.
Main Doctrine
The State's power of eminent domain is conditioned on the payment of just compensation, and undue delay in the payment of such compensation after taking possession of the property constitutes a violation of constitutional rights and cannot be justified.