18 Barangay San Roque v.

Heirs of Pastor [GR 138896, 20 June 2000] Third Division,

Panganiban (J): 3 concur, 1 on leave on official business
Facts: Barangay San Roque in Talisay, Cebu filed before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Talisay, Cebu (Branch 1) a Complaint to expropriate a property of Heirs of
Francisco Pastor (Eugenio Sylianco, Teodoro Sylianco, Isabel Sylianco, Eugenia S.
Ong, Lawrence Sylianco, Lawson Sylianco, Lawina S. Notario, Leonardo Sylianco, Jr.
and Lawford Sylianco). In an Order dated 8 April 1997, the MTC dismissed the
Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that "[e]minent domain
is an exercise of the power to take private property for public use after payment of
just compensation. In an action for eminent domain, therefore, the principal cause
of action is the exercise of such power or right. The fact that the action also involves
real property is merely incidental. An action for eminent domain is therefore within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not with this Court."
When the complaint was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the RTC also
dismissed the Complaint on 29 March 1999, holding that an action for eminent
domain affected title to real property; hence, the value of the property to be
expropriated would determine whether the case should be filed before the MTC or
the RTC; therefore concluding that the action should have been filed before the MTC
since the value of the subject property was less than P20,000. The Barangay's
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on 14 May 1999. The Barangay filed
the petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC)
has jurisdiction over expropriation cases.
Held: The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the government
or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of
private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government
entity, the necessity of the expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the
main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent
domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. True, the value of the
property to be expropriated is Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 4 ) Narratives (Berne
Guerrero) estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine
the just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the expropriation
suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after the court is satisfied with the
propriety of the expropriation. Verily, the Court held in Republic of the Philippines v.
Zurbano that "condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of Courts of
First Instance," the forerunners of the regional trial courts (RTC). The said case was
decided during the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948 which, like Batas
Pambansa 129 in respect to RTCs, provided that courts of first instance had original
jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable
of pecuniary estimation." The 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court were not
intended to change these jurisprudential precedents.