Robern Development v. National Power Corporation
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The National Power Corporation (NPC) initiated expropriation proceedings against Robern Development Corporation (Robern) for a parcel of land spanning 17,746.50 square meters, intended for a low-cost housing project. Robern contested the expropriation, arguing that the chosen property was already designated for public use and that the selection was arbitrary. 2. Procedural History: NPC filed a Complaint for Eminent Domain, to which Robern responded with a Motion to Dismiss, citing jurisdictional defects and improper authorization. Despite Robern's objections, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion and subsequently issued a Writ of Possession upon NPC's deposit of P6,121.20. Robern's subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Robern's petition for certiorari and preliminary injunction, affirming the RTC's orders and writ. 3. The Petition: Robern filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA's decision. Robern argued that the RTC's orders and the Writ of Possession were unconstitutional, irregular, and arbitrary. Specifically, Robern contended that the Complaint was dismissible on its face due to lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, and violation of RA 6395, and that the Writ of Possession was improperly issued without a proper hearing to determine just compensation. The Supreme Court modified the CA's ruling, allowing Robern to file an answer and requiring NPC to deposit the full assessed value of the property, while also ordering the trial court to fix rental fees for NPC's use of the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the Complaint for expropriation was dismissible on its face for lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, and violation of RA 6395. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its findings and exceeded its jurisdiction. Whether the choice of the property to be expropriated was arbitrary. Whether the questioned Order of the Respondent Judge dated September 11, 1997, directing the issuance of a Writ of Possession is unconstitutional, highly irregular, arbitrary, and despotic. Whether the issuance of the Writ of Possession was valid, considering that the trial court had not conducted any hearing on the amount to be deposited.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution with modifications. It granted Robern a period of ten days to file its answer, ordered NPC to deposit the full amount required under Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Court within ten days from finality of the decision, and directed the trial court to fix the rental for NPC's use and occupation of the property from the date of entry until the full deposit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the grounds for dismissal of the Complaint: The Court held that the verification and certification by Atty. Cañete, as acting regional legal counsel, were sufficient. Lack of verification is a formal defect, not jurisdictional. The issues of board authorization and the propriety of the property choice are evidentiary and determinable during trial. The argument of prematurity was also dismissed, as NPC only needed to comply with Rule 67. The Court emphasized that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, defenses and objections must be raised in an answer, not a motion to dismiss, as these require presentation of evidence. On the Court of Appeals' Ruling: The Court found the CA's rulings generally correct but modified the dispositive portion to allow Robern to file its answer and to ensure NPC's compliance with the deposit requirements for the writ of possession. On the Order of Expropriation: The Court clarified that an order sustaining the right to expropriate is not final until after a full hearing and resolution of objections and defenses. The trial court should not have issued an order of expropriation before resolving issues requiring presentation of evidence, such as the necessity of the taking and the public character of the purpose. The issuance of the order of expropriation in this case was deemed premature. On the validity of the Writ of Possession: The Court clarified that under Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the issuance of a writ of possession is now ministerial upon the deposit of an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property. This rule, which took effect on July 1, 1997, superseded prior rulings that required a hearing to determine the provisional sum. The Court noted that while PD 42 and subsequent decrees were previously held unconstitutional for encroaching on judicial prerogatives, the 1997 Rules reverted to a procedure allowing immediate entry upon deposit of the assessed value. On the sufficiency of the deposit for the Writ of Possession: The Court found NPC's initial deposit insufficient as it was only P6,121.20, while the total assessed value of the affected portions was P8,924.09. Therefore, NPC was ordered to deposit the full assessed value.
Main Doctrine
Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court may issue a writ of possession once the plaintiff deposits an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, without need of a hearing to determine the provisional sum to be deposited. However, the deposit must be equivalent to the full assessed value, not merely ten percent thereof, and the trial court shall fix reasonable rental for the use and occupation of the property from the date of entry until the full deposit is made.