City of Iloilo v. Legaspi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City of Iloilo, through its Sangguniang Panlungsod, enacted an ordinance authorizing its Mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings for Lot No. 935, owned by the Heirs of Manuela Yusay. The City's initial offer to purchase the property for P250 per square meter for relocation purposes was rejected by the heirs. The City then terminated further negotiations, leading to the filing of an eminent domain complaint. Procedural History: The City of Iloilo filed an Amended Complaint for Eminent Domain against the Heirs of Manuela Yusay. The private respondents filed an Answer, followed by a Motion to Set Case for Preliminary Hearing on Special and Affirmative Defenses, which was initially granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) but later withdrawn. The RTC then set the case for pre-trial. Subsequently, the City filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, depositing 15% of the property's fair market value. The RTC, in an Order dated April 15, 2002, allowed the private respondents to file an opposition and stated it would resolve the motion after the City rested its case. The City moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated June 5, 2002, holding the resolution of the writ of possession in abeyance. This denial prompted the City to file a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The City of Iloilo, through a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, seeks to nullify the RTC's orders denying its Motion for Reconsideration and holding the resolution of its Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession in abeyance. The City argues that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by not immediately issuing the writ of possession, citing Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7160 and Supreme Court rulings in Robern Development Corp. v. Judge Jesus V. Quitain and Salvador Biglang-Awa v. Hon. Judge Marciano I. Bacalla. The City contends that upon filing a sufficient complaint and making the required deposit, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court, requiring no prior hearing. The City also disputes claims of waiver and estoppel, asserting its right to seek immediate possession in accordance with the law and jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and holding the resolution of the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession in abeyance. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the contention that the Amended Complaint for expropriation is not sufficient in form and substance, thus disentitling the petitioner to an immediate issuance of a writ of possession.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of the respondent judge dated 05 June 2002 and 15 April 2002 are set aside. The respondent Judge is directed to issue the writ of possession prayed for and to continue hearing the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the RTC's denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and holding the resolution of the Writ of Possession in abeyance: The Court ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed. It reiterated the principle that an order has no juridical existence until it is set in writing, signed, and promulgated. Since the order dictated in open court had no juridical existence until it was reduced to writing and served, the period to file a motion for reconsideration commenced from the receipt of the written order, not from its oral pronouncement. Therefore, the petitioner's motion filed on May 9, 2002, after receiving the written order on April 26, 2002, was within the fifteen-day reglementary period. The Court found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion and holding the resolution of the writ of possession in abeyance, as the issuance of such a writ is largely ministerial upon compliance with specific requirements. On the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint and entitlement to a Writ of Possession: The Court held that the petitioner has the irrefutable right to exercise its power of eminent domain under Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7160. The requisites for immediate entry and possession are the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and the deposit of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration. Upon compliance, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial. The Court found the Amended Complaint to be sufficient in form and substance and noted the deposit made by the petitioner. While the Court acknowledged that a hearing might be necessary to establish compliance with socialized housing requirements under R.A. 7279, this hearing is distinct from the determination for the issuance of a writ of possession. The sufficiency of the complaint for the purpose of issuing a writ of possession can be determined by mere examination of its allegations, which was confirmed by the RTC setting the case for pre-trial and hearing. Therefore, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in requiring the petitioner to first convince the court of its meritorious case of eminent domain before resolving the motion for a writ of possession.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in expropriation cases becomes a ministerial duty of the court upon the filing of a complaint sufficient in form and substance and the deposit of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration, and no prior hearing is required for its issuance.