San Diego v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Republic of the Philippines initiated expropriation proceedings against spouses Serapio San Diego and Asuncion Balajadia, Rodante San Diego, and Lilia S.D. Chavez for the acquisition of 642 square meters of land to be used for the Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road (Manila East Road), 2nd IBRD Project. The Republic alleged compliance with Presidential Decree No. 42 by depositing P2,889.00, representing the assessed value for taxation purposes, with the Philippine National Bank. Procedural History: Petitioners sought to defer the Republic's motion for immediate possession, arguing non-compliance with Presidential Decree No. 76 due to the lack of an independent assessment of improvements. The respondent Judge initially deferred ruling, then conducted an ocular inspection, and subsequently ordered the Republic to submit an amended estimate of damages. The Republic filed a manifestation and motion, submitting an amended estimate of P3,097.39 and requesting possession upon depositing the additional P138.39. Petitioners opposed this motion. On January 26, 1977, the respondent Judge issued the assailed order authorizing immediate possession. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the respondent Judge's order as having been issued either in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, arguing for a prior hearing on the necessity of expropriation before immediate possession could be granted.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for immediate possession. Whether a prior hearing on the necessity of expropriation is required before immediate possession can be granted.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The order of the respondent Judge is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for immediate possession: The Court held that the respondent Judge did not act in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Presidential Decree No. 42 clearly states that upon filing the complaint and giving due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff has the right to take possession if they deposit an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for taxation purposes with the Philippine National Bank. The Court emphasized that this decree is part of the law of the land, as recognized by the Constitution. The facts showed that the Republic complied with the requirements of Presidential Decree No. 42 by filing the complaint, providing notice, and making the required deposit. The subsequent filings and oppositions by the petitioners did not negate the Republic's right to immediate possession under the decree. The Court found the petitioners' assertion that the requirements of Presidential Decree No. 42 were not complied with to be bereft of factual or legal support. Furthermore, the Court noted that the assailed order was in conformity with the ruling in Arce v. Genato, which involved similar facts and legal issues. The Court also highlighted that the plaintiff in this case is the Republic of the Philippines, seeking to construct a national highway, a project vital for economic growth and development, and the respondent Judge merely implemented the applicable decrees to facilitate this governmental effort. On the issue of whether a prior hearing on the necessity of expropriation is required before immediate possession can be granted: The Court ruled that there is no such requirement in Presidential Decree No. 42. The decree is plain and explicit, requiring only notice to the owner of the property sought to be condemned. The Court reiterated that defenses raised by the defendants, including the question of necessity, are proper matters to be considered during the trial on the merits, not as a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of possession. The Court distinguished the present case from Urban Estates, Inc. v. Montesa and Republic of the Philippines v. La Order de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, finding them inapplicable to the facts and legal framework of the instant case. The Court stressed that the petitioners' insistence on a prior hearing on necessity before immediate possession is an untenable stand, as it contradicts the clear provisions of Presidential Decree No. 42 and established jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Compliance with Presidential Decree No. 42, which requires deposit of the assessed value of the property for taxation purposes and notice to the owner, is sufficient to authorize immediate possession in expropriation proceedings, and the necessity of the taking or defenses raised by the owner are matters to be resolved during the trial on the merits.