SMI Development Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Health through the National Children's Hospital, filed a complaint for eminent domain against SMI Development Corporation to expropriate three parcels of land adjacent to the hospital for expansion purposes. Procedural History: After service of summons, the Republic filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, depositing P3,126,000.00 representing the assessed value. SMI Development Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging lack of cause of action, insufficient cause of action, that the taking would not serve its purpose, that the plaintiff failed to negotiate, and that less costly alternatives existed. SMI also opposed the motion for a writ of possession, arguing lack of urgency and necessity, and the unconstitutionality of immediate possession upon deposit, citing the need for a prior determination of just compensation. The Petition: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) nullified and set aside the RTC's order, directing the reinstatement of the case. SMI Development Corporation filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the remedy of certiorari was proper in case of the dismissal of the complaint for expropriation. Whether the trial court's resolution of the motion to dismiss without receiving evidence from both parties on the merits was correct. Whether the complaint states a cause of action, including the requirement of prior negotiation. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error when it annulled and reversed the order of the Regional Trial Court, specifically regarding the issuance of a writ of possession.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and granted the Republic's request for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, directing the court of origin to issue a writ of possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of Certiorari: The Court held that certiorari was a proper remedy. While appeal is generally the appropriate recourse, the Court has allowed certiorari when appeal does not provide a speedy and adequate remedy. In this case, the public interest involved and the urgency to provide medical facilities justified the resort to certiorari, as the respondent successfully proved to the CA that an ordinary appeal would not be adequate. On the dismissal without prior evidence: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the trial judge acted in excess of jurisdiction. The Motion to Dismiss, filed under Section 3 of Rule 67 (prior to the 1997 amendments), partook of the nature of an answer. Therefore, its allegations of fact, including those regarding necessity and public use, could not be deemed proven without evidence. The trial court erred in granting the motion based solely on unsubstantiated allegations. On the lack of cause of action and the requirement of prior negotiation: The Court found that the complaint stated a cause of action for eminent domain. The complaint alleged the necessity for taking the property for public use and the payment of just compensation. The allegation that the property would be used to improve health services satisfied the requirements of necessity and public use. The burden of proving these elements rests with the respondent during the trial proceedings. The Court clarified that prior unsuccessful negotiation is not a statutory requirement for the exercise of eminent domain under the Revised Administrative Code. While a previous case, Iron and Steel Authority v. Court of Appeals, mentioned this as an additional requirement, it was a voluntary restriction imposed by the President in that instance, not a general rule. In the present case, no such restriction was imposed by the President. On the issuance of a writ of possession: Applying the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which became effective during the pendency of the case, the Court found the Republic entitled to a writ of possession. Section 2 of Rule 67 states that upon filing the complaint and depositing an amount equivalent to the assessed value, the plaintiff has the right to take possession. The deposit made by the Republic met this requirement, making the issuance of the writ ministerial.
Main Doctrine
In eminent domain proceedings, a motion to dismiss filed prior to the 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court partakes of the nature of an answer, requiring proof of its allegations. Under the 1997 Rules, upon deposit of the assessed value, a writ of possession shall be issued without a hearing on the deposit amount.