Republic v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a Verified Complaint for Expropriation to acquire an 11,165-square-meter property owned by the Heirs of Gabriel Q. Fernandez (Heirs of Fernandez) for the construction of a four-lane highway. The Republic alleged that its offer to purchase was refused and that adjacent properties were acquired by negotiation. The Republic prayed for a Writ of Possession upon filing the complaint and depositing P50.00 per square meter as provisional value. Procedural History: The Heirs of Fernandez admitted the utility of the highway but disputed the necessity of expropriating their property, arguing that the Republic must first comply with Republic Act No. 8974 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations before a Writ of Possession can be issued. They also claimed the property's fair market value was P1,200.00 per square meter. The Republic later offered P35.00 per square meter, then P50.00 per square meter, and was ready to deposit P167,475.00 based on the zonal value of P15.00 per square meter. The trial court, despite the Heirs of Fernandez's arguments regarding due process and the proper valuation, issued an Order allowing the Republic to take possession upon payment of P167,475.00. The Heirs of Fernandez appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the expropriation was unnecessary, they were deprived of due process, and the Republic failed to comply with RA 8974. The Court of Appeals set aside the authority to take possession due to incorrect valuation but affirmed the appointment of commissioners. The Republic's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: The Republic assails the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing it complied with legal requirements for possession and that the reversal was akin to an injunction prohibited by RA 8975. The Heirs of Fernandez counter that the P15.00 per square meter valuation was for pastureland, not agricultural land, and that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the writ.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside petitioner Republic's Writ of Possession for failure to comply with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974. Whether the reversal of the issuance of the Writ of Possession by the Court of Appeals was effectively an injunction against petitioner Republic from proceeding with the expropriation.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Court of Appeals correctly set aside the Writ of Possession issued by the trial court due to the Republic's failure to comply with the full requirements of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, specifically the payment of the correct provisional value based on the proper zonal valuation. The setting aside of the writ is not an injunction prohibited by Republic Act No. 8975.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Failure to comply with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974): The Supreme Court reiterated that a Writ of Possession in expropriation cases under Republic Act No. 8974 can only be issued upon full compliance with Section 4 of the Act. This compliance necessitates the immediate payment to the owner of an amount equivalent to 100% of the property's value based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), plus the value of any improvements. Furthermore, a certificate of availability of funds must be presented to the court. The Court found that the Republic's deposit of P167,475.00, based on a P15.00 per square meter zonal valuation, was incorrect. The Court examined two versions of the BIR zonal valuation for Barangay Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan. The Republic presented a photocopy with typewritten annotations classifying the property as "pastureland" at P15.00 per square meter, while the Heirs of Fernandez presented a version without these annotations and a tax declaration classifying the property as "Veg. land." The Court gave more weight to the version presented by the Heirs of Fernandez and the BIR's official website records, which did not contain the annotations present in the Republic's photocopy. The Court ruled that the Republic's photocopy was inadmissible as evidence due to unexplained alterations and the failure to present the certifying official to testify. Moreover, even if the Republic's photocopy were considered, the classification of "Veg. land" (vegetable land) in the tax declaration corresponded to a higher zonal value than "pastureland." The Court concluded that the correct zonal value was P50.00 per square meter, making the Republic's deposit insufficient and thus, the Writ of Possession was improperly issued. The Court emphasized that the provisional value paid under RA 8974 is distinct from just compensation and serves as a pre-payment, but it must be the correct amount as determined by law. On the second issue (Reversal of Writ of Possession as an injunction): The Supreme Court clarified that the setting aside of an improperly issued Writ of Possession is not equivalent to an injunction prohibited by Republic Act No. 8975. Republic Act No. 8975 prohibits lower courts from issuing temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions against the government to restrain the acquisition of the right-of-way for national government projects. However, the Court explained that a Writ of Possession is issued under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974 upon compliance with specific guidelines. If these guidelines are not met, the court cannot issue the writ, and conversely, it has the power to set aside a writ that was improvidently issued, especially on appeal. This action is distinct from an injunction, which is a separate ancillary remedy requiring a party to refrain from a particular act and necessitates the establishment of a right to be protected and a perceived injury. The Court noted that the Heirs of Fernandez did not initiate any proceeding for an injunction. Therefore, the Court of Appeals' decision to set aside the Writ of Possession was a correct exercise of its appellate power based on the Republic's failure to comply with statutory requirements, not an prohibited injunctive relief.
Main Doctrine
A Writ of Possession in expropriation proceedings under Republic Act No. 8974 can only be issued upon full compliance with the requirements of Section 4 of the said Act, which includes the immediate payment of 100% of the property's value based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the presentation of a certificate of availability of funds. Failure to comply with the correct zonal valuation renders the deposit insufficient and the writ of possession improperly issued.