Haguisan v. Emilia
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the expropriation of a parcel of coconut land owned by petitioner Cesar B. Haguisan, located in Cauayan, Negros Occidental. Private respondent Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation, a mining company, sought to acquire this land for the construction of pier facilities, essential for handling increased copper production for export. Despite attempts to negotiate a purchase, no agreement was reached with the petitioner. 2. Procedural History: Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation initiated expropriation proceedings against Cesar B. Haguisan in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch VI-Himamaylan, on January 8, 1975. The respondent judge issued an order on January 16, 1975, fixing the provisional value of the property at P17,500.00 and directing the plaintiff to deposit this amount. Following the deposit on January 23, 1975, a second order was issued on January 27, 1975, directing the sheriff to place the private respondent in immediate possession of the property. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 28, 1975, and subsequently filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition on February 10, 1975. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Haguisan filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the January 16 and January 27, 1975 orders issued by the respondent judge. He argued that these orders were issued without a hearing and before his time to file a responsive pleading had expired, constituting a grave abuse of discretion. The petition specifically questions whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing these orders, particularly concerning the immediate possession granted to the private respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting immediate possession to the expropriator without a prior hearing on the provisional value or the necessity of the taking under Presidential Decree No. 42.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The assailed Orders are free from legal infirmity. The extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition cannot lie. The other contentions of the petitioner are matters that should be taken up and considered in the trial on the merits before the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that Presidential Decree No. 42 (PD 42) explicitly repealed Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which previously required the trial court to conduct a hearing to ascertain and fix the provisional value of the property before possession could be granted. Applying the ruling in Arce v. Genato and San Diego v. Valdellon, the Court held that under PD 42, no prior hearing is necessary for the court to grant immediate possession; the only prerequisite is that the plaintiff files a complaint and deposits the assessed value for taxation purposes with the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The Court noted that the petitioner was duly notified of the complaint as he admitted to being served with summons on January 13, 1975, thus satisfying the requirement of notice. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that mining facilities are declared by Presidential Decree No. 463 and the Mining Act to be for 'public purpose, use or benefit,' which justifies the exercise of eminent domain. The Court also stated that arguments regarding the 'genuine necessity' of the taking or whether the purpose is truly for public use are evidentiary matters that should be resolved during the trial on the merits, rather than at the stage of awarding provisional possession. Consequently, the respondent Judge acted within his jurisdiction and in strict compliance with the prevailing decree when he authorized Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation to enter the property after the required deposit was made.
Main Doctrine
Under Presidential Decree No. 42, immediate possession of the property sought to be expropriated may be granted to the plaintiff upon filing the complaint and depositing the assessed value of the property with the Philippine National Bank, without the necessity of a prior hearing on the matter.