Metropolitan Cebu Water District v. J. King and Sons Company, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD), a government-owned and controlled corporation, sought to expropriate a five (5)-square meter lot from respondent J. King and Sons Company, Inc. for its production well. After negotiations failed, MCWD, through Board Resolution No. 015-2004 approved by LWUA, filed an expropriation complaint. Procedural History: MCWD filed a motion for a writ of possession, depositing ₱17,500.00 (100% of the zonal value) with the Clerk of Court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion and issued the writ. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) nullified the RTC orders, ruling that the board resolution lacked particularity, there was no genuine necessity for the expropriation, and reliance on R.A. No. 8974 for fixing property value contravened judicial determination of just compensation. MCWD's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: MCWD filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the CA decision.
Issue(s)
Whether there was sufficient authority from the petitioner’s board of directors to institute the expropriation complaint. Whether the procedure in obtaining a writ of possession was properly observed.
Ruling
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstated the RTC orders, and directed the RTC to remit the deposited amount to the respondent and to implement the writ of possession. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of authority to institute the expropriation complaint: The Court held that MCWD, as a government-owned and controlled corporation, is explicitly granted the power of eminent domain under its charter, P.D. No. 198, as amended. The exercise of this power requires a board resolution authorizing the expropriation and review by the LWUA. Board Resolution No. 015-2004 authorized the filing of expropriation cases, and a subsequent letter from LWUA Administrator Lorenzo H. Jamora explicitly authorized MCWD to file the expropriation case against the owner of the specific five-square meter portion of the lot, thereby debunks the CA's finding of lack of particularity and authorization. The Court reiterated that a corporation exercises its powers through its board of directors, and any delegation of ministerial powers to officers or agents is permissible. On the procedure for obtaining a writ of possession: The Court clarified that R.A. No. 8974, which applies to national government infrastructure projects including those by GOCCs like MCWD, supersedes the deposit system under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. R.A. No. 8974 requires the payment of 100% of the zonal value of the property as a prerequisite for a writ of possession. The Court found that MCWD complied with this requirement by depositing ₱17,500.00 with the Clerk of Court, which is equivalent to payment under the law. The determination of the necessity of expropriation and just compensation are distinct stages. The issuance of a writ of possession, upon compliance with the provisional payment requirement under R.A. No. 8974, is a ministerial duty of the trial court, as established in Capitol Steel Corporation v. PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority. The Court emphasized that R.A. No. 8974 does not remove the courts' power to determine just compensation but sets the minimum provisional value for immediate possession.
Main Doctrine
Under R.A. No. 8974, the deposit of 100% of the zonal value of the property with the Clerk of Court is equivalent to payment and entitles the government agency to a writ of possession as a ministerial duty of the trial court.