RULES OF COURT the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his

property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or

RULE 67
Expropriation
Section 1. The complaint. — The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the
filing of a verified complaint which shall state with certainty the right and purpose of
expropriation, describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and
join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part
thereof or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of
each defendant. If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be
in the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or if the
title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or
certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to that effect shall be made in
the complaint. (1a)
Section 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government
depositary. — Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after
due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon
the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized
government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property
for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court.
Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit
of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines
payable on demand to the authorized government depositary.
allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the court, in the
interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made not later than
ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of the issue of just
compensation whether or not a defendant has previously appeared or answered, he
may present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his
property, and he may share in the distribution of the award. (n)
Section 4. Order of expropriation. — If the objections to and the defenses against the
right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party
appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of
expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property
sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint,
upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking
of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any
party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from
determining the just compensation to be paid.
After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or
discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and
equitable. (4a)

If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the Section 5. Ascertainment of compensation. — Upon the rendition of the order of
amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court. expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and
disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to
compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall
forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved and promptly
designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the
submit a report thereof to the court with service of copies to the parties. (2a)
commissioners and specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to
Section 3. Defenses and objections. — If a defendant has no objection or defense to the court.
the action or the taking of his property, he may file and serve a notice of appearance
Copies of the order shall be served on the parties. Objections to the appointment of
and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or identifying the property
any of the commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten (10) days from
in which he claims to be interested, within the time stated in the summons.
service, and shall be resolved within thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall
Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same.
have received copies of the objections. (5a)
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or
Section 6. Proceedings by commissioners. — Before entering upon the performance
any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within
of their duties, the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they will
the time stated in the summons. The answer shall specifically designate or identify
faithfully perform their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court
the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of
with the other proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party
before the commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on hearings before
them, and the commissioners shall, unless the parties consent to the contrary, after
due notice to the parties, to attend, view and examine the property sought to be
expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same, after which either
party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The commissioners shall assess the
consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from such
consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from
the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the
corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the
property. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the
consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his
property so taken. (6a)
Section 7. Report by commissioners and judgment thereupon. — The court may
order the commissioners to report when any particular portion of the real estate shall
have been passed upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partial report,
and direct the commissioners to proceed with their work as to subsequent portions
of the property sought to be expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with
such property. The commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to the court
of all their proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be effectual until the court
shall have accepted their report and rendered judgment in accordance with their
recommendations. Except as otherwise expressly ordered by the court, such report
shall be filed within sixty (60) days from the date the commissioners were notified of
their appointment, which time may be extended in the discretion of the court. Upon
the filing of such report, the clerk of the court shall serve copies thereof on all
interested parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days within which to file
objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire. (7a)
Section 8. Action upon commissioners' report. — Upon the expiration of the period
of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section, or even before the expiration of
such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report
or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the
report and render judgment in accordance therewith, or, for cause shown, it may
recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts, or it may set
aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or it may accept the report in part
and reject it in part and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall
secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of
expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.
(8a)
Section 9. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims. — If the ownership of the
property taken is uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the
court may order any sum or sums awarded as compensation for the property to be
paid to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the same proceeding to
be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall require the payment of the sum or sums
awarded to either the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon the
property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has already been made.
(9a)
Section 10. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment. — Upon payment by the
plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal
interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender to
him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right
to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or
purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken immediate
possession thereof under the provisions of section 2 hereof. If the defendant and his
counsel absent themselves from the court, or decline to receive the amount
tendered, the same shall be ordered to be deposited in court and such deposit shall
have the same effect as actual payment thereof to the defendant or the person
ultimately adjudged entitled thereto. (10a)
Section 11. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal. — The right of the plaintiff
to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the same for public use
or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate
court determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall be
rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court to forthwith enforce the restoration to
the defendant of the possession of the property, and to determine the damages
which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of the possession taken
by the plaintiff. (11a)
Section 12. Costs, by whom paid. — The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as
a part of the costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival claimants
litigating their claims, shall be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the
owner of the property and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of the
appeal shall be paid by the owner. (12a)
Section 13. Recording judgment, and its effect. — The judgment entered in
expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an adequate description, the
particular property or interest therein expropriated, and the nature of the public use
or purpose for which it is expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a certified
copy of such judgment shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which
the property is situated, and its effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the
real estate so described for such public use or purpose. (13a)
Section 14. Power of guardian in such proceedings. — The guardian or guardian ad
litem of a minor or of a person judicially declared to be incompetent may, with the
approval of the court first had, do and perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter,
or thing respecting the expropriation for public use or purpose of property belonging
to such minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent, which such minor or
person judicially declared to be incompetent could do in such proceedings if he were
of age or competent. (14a)
GOLDEN NOTES 2017
EXPROPRIATION
Power of eminent domain
It is the right of the State to acquire private property for public use upon the
payment of just compensation.
NOTE: The scope of the power of eminent domain as exercised by the
Congress is plenary and is as broad as the police power. Such power
however, may also be delegated to local political subdivisions and public
utilities (Riano, 2012).
Expropriation
It is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain.
NOTE: Expropriation is proper only when:
1. The owner refuses to sell; or
2. If the latter agrees, agreement as to the price cannot be reached.
NOTE: It is the actual filing of complaint for expropriation which binds the
land, and not a mere notice of the intent to expropriate. However, the
owner of the land may still dispose of said property, despite the filing of the
action, as the grantee would merely be substituted in his place and holds
the land subject to the results of the action (Regalado, 2010).
By reason of expediency, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint
shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.
Requisites of the Exercise of a Valid Expropriation (DCP)
1. Due process of law;
2. Payment of just compensation; and
3. Taking must be for public use.
Properties that are subject to expropriation
All properties can be expropriated, except money and choses in action.
NOTE: Choses in action – A right to personal things of which the owner has
not the possession, but merely a right of action for their possession(Black’s
Law, 2004).
Scope of expropriation
Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a
corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement
resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land
traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit of the term
"expropriation (National Power Corporation v. Vda. De Capin, G.R. No.
175176, October 17, 2008).”
Court that has jurisdiction
It is filed with RTC because it is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation
regardless of the value of the subject property.
MATTERS TO ALLEGE IN COMPLAINT FOR EXPROPRIATION
The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of a verified
complaint, which shall:
1. State with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation;
2. Describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated;
3. Join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying,
any part thereof or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the
separate interest of each defendant;
4. If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the
Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or if
the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with
accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to that
effect shall be made in the complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 67).
NOTE: Expropriation by the local government requires an authorizing
ordinance before it may be accomplished. Under Rule 67 and RA 8974 there
is no need for legislative authorization before the Government may proceed
with a particular exercise of eminent domain (Riano, 2012).
TWO STAGES IN EVERY ACTION FOR EXPROPRIATION
1. First stage – the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to
expropriate. This determination includes an inquiry into the propriety of the
expropriation – its necessity and the public purpose.
NOTE: The first stage will end in the issuance of an order of expropriation if
the court finds for plaintiff or in dismissal of the complaint if it finds
otherwise.
2. Second stage – the determination of just compensation through the
court-appointed commissioners (Riano, 2012).
Q: The City of Iloilo (petitioner) represented by Mayor Treñas filed a
complaint for eminent domain against Javellana seeking to expropriate two
parcels of land. Mayor Treñas filed a motion for issuance of writ of
possession alleging that it had deposited 10% of the amount of
compensation which the court issued. A writ of possession was
subsequently issued, and petitioner was able to take physical possession of
the properties. After which, the expropriation proceedings remained
dormant. 16 years later, Javellana filed an ex parte motion/manifestation,
where he alleged that when he sought to withdraw the money, he
discovered that no deposit was made. Thus, Javellana filed a complaint for
recovery of possession, fixing and recovery of rental and damages. The City
of Iloilo argues that Javellana could no longer bring an action for recovery
since the subject property was already taken for public use. The trial court in
its orders and amended orders maintained that the assailed orders issued
by it were interlocutory in character and as such are always subject to
modification and revision by the court anytime. Is the order of expropriation
final?
A: An order of condemnation or dismissal is final, resolving the question of
whether or not the plaintiff has properly and legally exercised its power of
eminent domain. Once the first order becomes final and no appeal thereto
is taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can no longer be
questioned. Thus, it has become final, and the petitioner’s right to
expropriate the property for a public use is no longer subject to review (City
of Iloilo v. Hon. Lolita Contreras-Besana, G.R. No. 168967, February 12,
2010).
WHEN PLAINTIFF CAN IMMEDIATELY ENTER INTO POSSESSION OF THE
REAL PROPERTY, IN RELATION TO R.A. NO. 8974
Under RA 8974, whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the
right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project
through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate
the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the following
guidelines:
1. Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant,
the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property
the amount equivalent to the sum of 100% of the value of the property
based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR, and the value of
the improvements and/or structures;
2. In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal
valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of 60 days from the
date of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said
area; and
3. In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of
utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the
area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner
of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards
prescribed by the law.
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall
immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession
of the property and start the implementation of the project (Sec. 4, RA
8974).

NOTE: RA 8974 – An act to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way, site or

location for national government infrastructure projects and for other
purposes.

NEW SYSTEM OF IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF INITIAL JUST COMPENSATION

Under Rule 67, the Government is required to deposit with an authorized

government depositary the assessed value of the property for expropriation
for it to be entitled to a writ of possession. On the other hand, under R.A.
8974, the Government is required to make a direct payment to the property
owner before a writ may issue (Riano, 2012). Such payment is based on the
zonal valuation of the BIR in the case of land, the value of the improvements
or structures under the replacement cost method, or if no such valuation is
available and in cases of utmost urgency, the proffered value of the
property to be seized (Ibid).

NOTE: RA 8974 provides for a procedure that is more favorable to the

property owner than Rule 67. This procedure only applies when the national
government expropriates property for national government infrastructure
projects (Riano, 2012). The intent of RA 8974 to supersede the system of
deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of immediate payment in cases
involving national government infrastructure projects is indeed very clear
(MCWD v. J. King and Sons, G.R. No. 175983, April 16, 2009).
Requisites in order that plaintiff may be authorized to immediately enter
into property under rule 67
Upon the:
1. Filing of complaint, serving notice to defendant and after depositing
the assessed value of property for taxation purposes with the
authorized government depositary (Sec. 2, Rule 67); and
2. Tender, or payment with legal interest from the taking of possession
of the property, of compensation fixed by the judgment and
payment of costs by plaintiff (Sec. 10, Rule 67).
NOTE: Once the preliminary deposit has been made, the expropriator is
entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right, and the issuance of said
writ becomes ministerial on the part of the trial court (Biglang-Awa v.
Bacalla, G.R. Nos. 139927-36, November 22, 2000). The defenses by the
owner against immediate possession can be considered during trial on the
merits (NAPOCOR v. Jocson, 206 SCRA 520).
Purposes of preliminary deposit
1. It serves as an advanced payment to the owner of the property should
the court decide in favor of the plaintiff;
2. It shall serve as indemnity against any damage which the owner may have
sustained (Visayan Refining Company v. Camus, 40 Phil. 550).
NOTE: The preliminary deposit is only necessary if the plaintiff desires entry
on the land upon its institution of the action (Regalado, 2010).
DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS
1. If a defendant has any objection or defense to the taking of his property:
a. He shall serve his answer. The answer shall specifically designate or
identify the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the nature
and extent of the interest claimed;
b. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the
same;
2. If there are no objections, he must file and serve a notice of appearance
and manifestation to that effect. And thereafter, shall be entitled to notice
of all proceedings (Sec. 3, Rule 67).
Remedy of defendant if answer omits some defenses
If the answer omits some defenses, the remedy, in order to prevent a
waiver of those defenses not alleged, is to seek leave to amend the answer
within 10 days from the filing thereof (Sec. 3, Rule 67).
Duty of the Court if the defendant waives his defenses or objections
If a defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged, the court,
in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be
made not later than 10 days from the filing thereof.
However, at the trial of the issue of just compensation, whether or not a
defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence
as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his property, and he
may share in the distribution of the award (Sec. 3, Rule 67).
Declaration of Default
The defendant cannot be declared in default. However, failure to file an
answer would not bar the court from rendering judgment on the right to
expropriate, without prejudice to the defendant’s right to present evidence
on just compensation and to share in the distribution of the award (Sec. 3,
Rule 67).
ORDER OF EXPROPRIATION
An order of expropriation (or order of condemnation) will be issued
declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property.
It is issued when: 1. The objections to and the defenses against the right of
the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or 2. No party
appears to defend as required by this Rule (Sec. 4, Rule 67).
NOTE: After the rendition of the order of expropriation, the plaintiff shall
not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except upon such
terms as the court deems just and equitable (Sec. 4, Rule 67).
Uncertain ownership
The trial court may decide conflicting claims of ownership in the same case.
There is no need for an independent action since the person entitled
thereto will be adjudged in the same proceeding. However, the court may
order any sum(s) awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to
the court for the benefit of the person that will be adjudged as entitled
thereto (Sec. 9, Rule 67).
Appeal
The order of expropriation may be appealed by the defendant by record on
appeal. This is an instance when multiple appeals are allowed because they
have separate and/or several judgments on different issues, e.g. issue on
the right to expropriate or issue of just compensation.
NOTE: An appeal does not delay the right of the plaintiff to enter upon the
property of the defendant and appropriate the same for public use (Sec. 11,
Rule 67). An appeal from judgment shall not prevent the court from
determining the just compensation to be paid (Sec. 4, Rule 67).
Effect of reversal
owner but also to the taker. Even as undervaluation would deprive the
owner of his property without due process, so too would its overvaluation
unduly favor him to the prejudice of the public (National Power Corporation
v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007).
How court determine just compensation
The trial court should first ascertain the market value of the property, to
which should be added the consequential damages after deducting
therefrom the consequential benefits which may arise from the
expropriation. If the consequential benefits exceed the consequential
damages, these items should be disregarded altogether as the basic value of
the property should be paid in every case.
The market value of the property is the price that may be agreed upon by
parties willing but not compelled to enter into the contract of sale. Not
unlikely, a buyer desperate to acquire a piece of property would agree to
pay more, and a seller in urgent need of funds would agree to accept less,
than what it is actually worth.
Among the factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value of
the property are the cost of acquisition, the current value of like properties,
its actual or potential uses, and in the particular case of lands, their size,
shape, location, and the tax declarations thereon (National Power
Corporation v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007).

If on appeal the appellate court determines that the plaintiff has no right of Formula for the determination of just compensation
expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court
to enforce the restoration to the defendant of the possession of the
property, and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained JC = FMV + CD – CB
and may recover by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff (Sec. 11,
Rule 67).
If CD is more than CB then:
ASCERTAINMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION

Just compensation
JC = FMV
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
sought to be expropriated. The measure is not the taker’s gain but the
owner’s loss. The compensation, to be just, must be fair not only to the
LEGEND:
JC – Just compensation
FMV – Fair market value
CD – Consequential damages
CB – Consequential benefits
NOTE: Sentimental value is not included
Consequential Benefit
It refers to actual benefits derived by the owner on the remaining portion of
his land which are the direct and proximate results of the improvements
consequent to the expropriation, and not the general benefits which he
receives in common with community (Regalado, 2010).
Reckoning point for determining just compensation
The value of just compensation shall be determined as of the date of the
taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first
(Sec. 4, Rule 67).
GR: When the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides
with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place
subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just
compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint (City of Iloilo v. Hon. Lolita Contreras-Besana, G.R. No. 168967,
February 12, 2010).
XPNs:
1. Grave injustice to the property owner - Air Transportation Office cannot
conveniently invoke the right of eminent domain to take advantage of the
ridiculously low value of the property at the time of taking that it arbitrarily
chooses to the prejudice of the land owners (Heirs of Mateo Pidacan &
Romana Eigo v. Air Transportation Office, G.R. No. 162779, June 15, 2007).
2. The taking did not have color of legal authority - To allow NAPOCOR to
use the date it constructed the tunnels as the date of valuation would be
grossly unfair. First, it did not enter the land under warrant or color of legal
authority or with intent to expropriate the same. It did not bother to notify
the owners and wrongly assumed it had the right to dig those tunnels under
their property. Secondly, the “improvements” introduced by NAPOCOR, the
tunnels, in no way contributed to an increase in the value of the land. The
trial court rightly computed the valuation of the property as of 1992, when
the owners discovered the construction of the huge underground tunnels
beneath their lands and NAPOCOR confirmed the same and started
negotiations for their purchase but no agreement could be reached
(NAPOCOR v. Ibrahim, G.R. No. 168732, June 29, 2007).
3. The taking of the property was not initially for expropriation - There was
no taking of the property in 1985 by Public Estates Authority (PEA) for
purposes of expropriation. As shown by the records, PEA filed with the RTC
its petition for expropriation on September 22, 2003. The trial court was
correct in ordering the Republic, through PEA, upon the filing of its
complaint for expropriation, to pay Tan just compensation on the basis of
the BIR zonal valuation of the subject property (Tan v. Republic, G.R. No.
170740, May 25, 2007).
4. The owner will be given undue increment advantages because of the
expropriation - The value of the property in question was greatly enhanced
between the time when the extension of the street was laid out and the
date when the condemnation proceedings were filed. The owners of the
land have no right to recover damages for this unearned increment resulting
from the construction of the public improvement for which the land was
taken. To permit them to do so would be to allow them to recover more
than the value of the land at the time when it was taken, which is the true
measure of the damages, or just compensation, and would discourage the
construction of important public improvements (Provincial Gov’t. of Rizal v.
Caro de Araullo, G.R. No. L-36096, August 16, 1933).
NOTE: Under Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code the amount to be paid
for the expropriation of the expropriated property shall be determined
based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property
(Riano, 2012).
Effect of non-payment of just compensation

Non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner
to recover possession of the expropriated lots. However, in case where the
government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the finality
of judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall
have the right to recover possession of their property (Republic v. Lim, G.R.
No. 161656, June 29, 2005).
NOTE: If the compensation is not paid when the property is taken, but is
postponed to a later date, the interest awarded is actually part of just
compensation, which takes into account such delay (Benguet Consolidated
v. Republic, G.R. No. 712412, August 15, 1986).
Q: May Congress enact a law providing that a 5,000 square meter lot, a part
of the UST compound in Sampaloc, Manila, be expropriated for the
construction of a park in honor of former City Mayor Arsenio Lacson, and as
compensation to UST, the City of Manila shall deliver its 5-hectare lot in Sta.
Rosa, Laguna originally intended as a residential subdivision for the Manila
City Hall employees? Explain. (2006 Bar)
A: Congress may enact a law to expropriate property but it cannot limit just
compensation. The determination of just compensation is a judicial function
and Congress may not supplant or prevent the exercise of judicial discretion
to determine just compensation. Under Sec. 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court,
the ascertainment of just compensation requires the evaluation of 3
commissioners.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS; COMMISSIONER’S REPORT; COURT
ACTION UPON COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
Appointment of commissioner
Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not
more than 3 competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to
ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property
sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall designate the time and
place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and
specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the court
(Sec. 5, Rule 67).
NOTE: Objections to the order of appointment must be filed within 10 days
from service of the order and shall be resolved within 30 days after all the
commissioners received the copies of the objections (Sec. 5, Rule 67).
Mandatory requirement of appointing Commissioner
Appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the
property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation
cases. Where the principal issue is the determination of just compensation,
a hearing before the commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to
present evidence on the issue of just compensation.
While it is true that the findings of commissioners may be disregarded and
the trial court may substitute its own estimate of the value, the latter may
only do so for valid reasons, that is, where the commissioners have applied
illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, where they have
disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount
allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive (National Power
Corporation v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007).
Commissioner’s Report
As a rule, the commissioners shall make their report within 60 days from the
date they were notified of their appointment. This period may be extended
in the discretion of the court.
Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of the court shall serve copies
thereof on all interested parties, with notice that they are allowed 10 days
within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire
(Sec. 7, Rule 67; Riano, 2009).
The court may order the commissioners to report when any particular
portion of the real estate shall have been passed upon by them, and may
render judgment upon such partial report, and direct the commissioners to
proceed with their work as to subsequent portions of the property sought to
be expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such property. The
commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to the court of all their
proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be effectual until the court
shall have accepted their report and rendered judgment in accordance with
their recommendations (Sec. 7, Rule 67).
RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF UPON JUDGMENT AND PAYMENT
After payment of just compensation, as determined in the judgment, the
plaintiff shall have the right to:
1. Enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate the same for
the public use or purpose defined in the judgment; or
2. To retain possession already previously made in accordance with Sec. 2
(Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government
depositary) (Sec. 10, Rule 67).
When defendant declines to receive the amount tendered
If the defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court, or
decline to receive the amount tendered, the same shall be ordered to be
deposited in court and such deposit shall have the same effect as actual
payment thereof to the defendant or the person ultimately adjudged
entitled thereto (Sec. 10, Rule 67).
NOTE: The payment shall involve the amount fixed in the judgment and
shall include legal interest from the taking of possession of the property
(Ibid.).
EFFECT OF RECORDING OF JUDGMENT
When real estate is expropriated, a certified copy of such judgment shall be
recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is
situated, and its effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real
estate so described for such public use or purpose (Sec. 13, Rule 67).
ATENEO
Rule 67
EXPROPRIATION
Section 1. The complaint — The right of eminent domain shall
be exercised by the filing of a verified complaint which shall state
with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation, describe the
real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as
defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying,
any part thereof or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable,
the separate interest of each defendant. If the title to any
property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the Republic
of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or if
the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff
cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners,
averment to that effect shall be made in the complaint. (1a)
An action for expropriation is an exercise of the State of its one of the inherent
powers: right of eminent domain.
Q: So how do you define expropriation?
A: It is the power of the sovereign state to take or authorize the taking of any
property within its jurisdiction for public use without the owner’s consent. (18 Am.
Jur. 631) If the owner consents, there is no need of filing the case.
The normal cause of eminent domain is that the government will take your
property because it is for public use and the owner ayaw ibenta. Or, he is willing to
sell but ang kanyang selling price masyadong mataas and the government does not
agree with that price. So the government has to file an action for expropriation.
Normally, it is a real action because what is involved is a real property. The venue
is the place where the property is located or situated.
Q: Now, what are the limitations in the exercise of eminent domain?
A: The following are the limitations:
1. Exercised only by the State or its entities authorized by law.
Actually, the inherent power belongs to the national government.
Not to the local government.
Q: Does the City of Davao has the power of eminent domain?
A: Yes, because of its charter.
Q: How about other cities?
A: Yes if their charter allows it. Provinces under the local Government Code but it is
a delegated power. They derive their power from the law. Whereas, the Republic has
the inherent power.
The power of eminent domain will be exercised only by the state or by such entities
as may be deemed expressly authorized by law.
2. Just compensation must be paid to the property owner. You cannot just
confiscate it kung walang bayad.
3. In the exercise of the power, due process of law must be observed.
Q: What do you mean by that?
A: You must file a complaint in court, the other party is given the right to file his
answer, to oppose, in determining what is the price. You will be given the right to
present evidence. Basta due process will be observed.
4. Only as much property will be taken as necessary for the legitimate
purpose of expropriation.
For example, the government needs a strip of land to construct a road traversing your
property, kalsada ba. Maybe two lanes, and your property has an area of 20 hectares.
Q: Should the government expropriate the entire 20 hectares?
A: No. That is too much. We only expropriate yung kailangan mo lang. Not the entire
property. That is another limitation. You only expropriate so much as necessary for
the purpose of the public use intended.
Q: What kind of property to be expropriated?
A: While we heard the word expropriation and eminent domain what comes into your
mind automatically is lupa eh, land. That is correct. But actually there is nothing in
the law which says that expropriation is limited to real property. You look at Sec. 1.
Section 1 says : the right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of verified
complaint which states with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation,
described the real or personal property sought to be expropriated.
Q: Can you file for expropriation personal property?
A: Yes.
Q: So what kind of property can be expropriated?
A: Any kind of property, real, personal, tangible, intangible except, money. Di pwede
i-expropriate ang kwarta! Because if the government will expropriate money, the
government will also pay you with money. Anong klaseng sytema yun? Nagsaulian
lang kayo: I will expropriate your bank deposit of P10 million and then you will
determine just compensation… P10 million din! So yan, hindi pwede i-expropriate.
Every property is subject to expropriation except money. Alright.
Q: And the next is you file the complaint, anong nakalagay sa complaint mo?
A: The basic allegations are there in Section 1. The complaint must state in certainty
the right and purpose of expropriation kung para saan yan. And take note ha, the
complaint must be verified. It must describe the real or personal property sought to
be expropriated.
Q: Who should be joined as defendants?
A: All persons owning or claiming to own or interest on the property sought to
condemned showing the separate interest of each defendant. So, if the property is
under co-ownership. All the co-owners will be deemed as defendants. And to be safe,
if you have an interest in the property.
Q: Are we referring only to the may-ari? To the registered owner?
A: No. The SC said, all persons having an interest in the property would refer to the
mortgagee, bacause if the property is going to be expropriated. Kawawa yung
mortgagee. Mawawala na yung mortgage; a lessee, because if it is going to be
expropriated, the lease will be terminated automatically. The government will take-
over. This should be included, if there is payment of just compensation, babayaran
rin sila for the disturbance of their right. The lessee has to be paid for whatever the
damage or indemnity he is entitled That is in the recent case of:
DE KNECHT VS. CA
290 SCRA 223, May 20, 1998
ISSUE: Who are those persons having a lawful interest in the
property to be condemned or expropriated?
 HELD: “The defendants in an expropriation case are not limited to
the owners of the property condemned. They include all other persons
owning, occupying or claiming to own the property. When a parcel of
land is taken by eminent domain, the owner of the fee is not necessarily
the only person who is entitled to compensation. In the American
jurisdiction, the term "owner" when employed in statutes relating to
eminent domain to designate the persons who are to be made parties
to the proceeding, refers, as is the rule in respect of those entitled to
compensation, to all those who have lawful interest in the property to
be condemned, including a mortgagee, a lessee and a vendee in
possession under an executory contract. Every person having an estate
or interest at law or in equity in the land taken is entitled to share in the
award. If a person claiming an interest in the land sought to be
condemned is not made a party, he is given the right to intervene and
lay claim to the compensation.”
Sec. 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with
authorized government depositary — Upon the filing of the
complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the
defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon
the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the
authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the
assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held
by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall
be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit
of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of
the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government
depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally
ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly
fixed by the court.
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or
other proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession
of the property involved and promptly submit a report thereof to
the court with service of copies to the parties. (2a)
For example, the government needs a portion of your land for the purpose of
opening a street. What will the government do? The government files an
expropriation case against you. Of course, you can file your answer if you oppose.
There will be trial, decision. We will wait for the decision to become final. If you lose,
you can appeal. Then we will wait for the decision of the CA. So while we are going
to these stages, when will the final judgment come? Maybe 2 years pa. Matagal pa.
Q: Now, am I trying to say since there is still no judgment or if there is a judgment
we have to wait for its finality, the government cannot proceed with the project?
A: Hinde. Under Section 2, if the government deposits with the depositary bank,
normally the LandBank, an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property
(usually seen in the tax declaration), the government can file a motion to take over
the property immediately while the case is still pending.
So you cannot paralyze a government project by resisting this. They can take
over. That is the only condition – the deposit. The money which the plaintiff deposits
is also known as Preliminary Deposit. That is not really determinative of awardship of
the value. Parang kwan lang yan e, estimate ba. Assessed value man lang. Hindi man
market value.
Q: What is the purpose of preliminary deposit:
A: There are two (2) possible purposes:
1. If the government wins the case and the amount of just compensation
is now fixed by the court, the deposit is parang down payment na no?
So the government will just raise the money to fill the balance. Yung
deposit, nakareserba na sa iyo yun e. In short, it is an advance deposit
for just compensation; and
2. If the government lose the case and it has already explored your land,
according to the SC: you are entitled to claim for damages for the
damage sustained by your property because of the entry of the
government and that the money deposited is already an advance
deposit by the government to answer for the damages. (Republic vs.
Baylosis, Sept. 30, 1960)
Sec. 3. Defenses and objections. — If a defendant has no
objection or defense to the action or the taking of his property, he
may file and serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation to
that effect, specifically designating or identifying the property in
which he claims to be interested, within the time stated in the
summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all
proceedings affecting the same. (first paragraph)
So you are summoned. Suppose wala kang objection; wala kang defense? Well,
you can file a notice of appearance and just manifest: “I am not objecting to the right
of the government to expropriate my property.”
Section 3 second paragraph - If a defendant has any objection
to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection
or defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer
within the time stated in the summons. The answer shall
specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims
to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest
claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking
of his property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any
subsequent pleading.
Now, if you resist, you file an answer outlining your objections or defenses to the
taking of your property. And the new rule is: no counterclaims are allowed; no cross-
claims are allowed; no third-party claims shall be alleged in the answer or any
subsequent pleadings. Ayan! So it is only complaint and answer.
Section 3 last paragraph - A defendant waives all defenses
and objections not so alleged but the court, in the interest of
justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made not
later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However, at the
trial of the issue of just compensation, whether or not a defendant
has previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as
to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his property,
and he may share in the distribution of the award. (n)
OK. Just like in Ordinary Civil Actions, defenses and objections not alleged in the
answer are waived. Although in the interest of justice, the court may allow to amend
your answer within 10 days from filing thereof.
But whether you file an answer or you do not file an answer, you can participate
in determining on how much just compensation you are entitled. That is another
story eh. Maybe you have no defense to the expropriation but you may dispute the
amount that they appropriate for you.
Sec. 4. Order of expropriation — If the objections to and the
defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the
property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as
required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of
expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take
the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or
purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just
compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the
property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property
may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal,
however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just
compensation to be paid.
After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be
permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such
terms as the court deems just and equitable. (4a)
Q: What happens if the defendant will not file an answer? Parang default no? Or
what happens if he files an answer but his objections and defenses are overruled?
A: The court will issue what is known as Order of Expropriation declaring that the
plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the
public use or purpose described in the complaint. And from that moment, your
property is deemed automatically expropriated. And that is the end of Part 1 of the
case. And now, you will enter Part 2.
Q: Ano man yang Part 2?
A: We will now determine how much you are entitled. Yan na ang Second Part -
payment of just compensation.
Q: But suppose you are declared in default, are you still entitled to prove that
you are entitled to this amount as just compensation?
A: Ah Yes, because you are only declared in default sa first part lang. But you are
not declared in default in the part 2.
Huwag mong sabihing if you are in default because you did not file an answer,
your property will be expropriated and you will not get anything? There is something
wrong there! Babayaran ka pa rin! Even if you will not file an answer, babayaran ka.
And if you say “ito ang dapat!”, meron kang personality. You only have no personality
in Part 1.
Q: When you receive the order of expropriation (Part 1), can you appeal from
the order? Is the order of expropriation final or interlocutory? Because if you look at
it, parang interlocutory eh because after issuance of such order, there will still be
hearing for just compensation. And the general rule is, an interlocutory order cannot
be appealed until everything is finished.
 A: But look at the law. Second paragraph, “A final order sustaining the right to
expropriate the property may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.” So the
order of expropriation is a final order. You can appeal.
And when you appeal, what will happen to the case? Tuloy! for the purpose of
determining how much you are going to receive. And after hearing the court will say,
“you are entitled to receive so much for your property.” But you are not satisfied.
Appeal na pud ka. Pwede ba yan? Answer: Yes. You can appeal for the first order, you
can also appeal for the second order.
So, how many appeals do you have? There are two. This is a perfect example of
a civil action wherein multiple appeals are allowed. Remember?
Second paragraph is not present in the 1964 Rules but it is recognized as an
instance were there could be a second appeal as explained in the case of
MUNICIPALITY OF BIÑAN vs. GARCIA (1989)
180 SCRA 576
HELD: There are two (2) stages in every action for expropriation:
1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the
power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the
context and facts involving the suit. It ends with the order of
dismissal or order of expropriation. Either one is a final order.
If it is a dismissal order, it finally disposes of the action and
leaves nothing more to be done by the court in the merits. So 100%
tapos na ang case. The government may now appeal.
If it is an order of expropriation, thereafter objections to the
exercise of right to expropriate or the propriety thereof, shall be
filed. From the moment the court will say your property will be
expropriated, that is now the settlement of the right of the
government. It is a final statement of the right of the government.
So it is a final order which finally disposes of the first stage.
2. Second stage is the determination by the court of just
compensation of the property sought to be taken. The order of
fixing the just compensation would be final too. It could finally
dispose of the second stage of the suit and leave nothing more to
be done by the court regarding the issue of just compensation.
Therefore, the SC concluded: in actions of eminent domain, two appeals
are allowed. Yan!
Now, when you say just compensation or the value of the property, what do you
mean by value of the property? Value of the property when the case was filed? Or
the value of the property when the property was taken by the government?
Normally sabay yan when the government files the complaint and they ask for
preliminary deposit. I don’t think the value of the property will change tremendously
in one or two months.
But there are instances na malayo ang deperensya when the property was taken
ahead of the filing of the case. And that happened several times. I’ve seen it
happened here in Davao, near Dumoy. Somebody owns a land there near the
highway. Nung sinukat nya, his property is part of the highway pala which is also part
of his title.
Obviously, when the government built the road, the government did not know
that they are encroaching a private property. And the owner did not realize it. And I
think the taking was as early as 1920 pa. And he only realize it in 1970.
Q: Suppose the government nagkamali dito, filed an expropriation to legalize the
taking of the property 80 years ago. Ano ngayon ang just compensation? Ang presyo
nung 1920? Or the value as of year 2000? Malaking deperensya yan. Maybe at that
time, one square meter is only 10 centavos. Maybe now, it is worth hundreds of
pesos. Of course if you are the owner, mas gusto mo yung ngayon because you are
only filing the case now.
A: Look at the first paragraph of Section 4: “payment of just compensation to be
determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint,
whichever came first.” Ayun! Whichever came first. If the filing was ahead of the
taking, the value is as of the time of filing. But if the property was taken as early as
1920 and the government is filing the case for the first time now to correct its
mistake, they will pay you based the price in 1920.
Actually, this provision is just a clarification e. Before, there are confusions in the
jurisprudence. Ano ba talaga ang value? Under the 64 Rules, the value at the time of
filing. But there were some SC decisions saying that it would be too unfair because
when it was taken, the property was practically worthless. But now it’s valuable. But
how come it become valuable? Precisely because may kalsada na. If the government
did not enter to put up a road, walang value. So your property was enhanced by the
taking.
So there were some decided cases which the SC ruled that the value at the time
of taking, among which were the cases of:
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL vs. DE ARAULLO 58 Phil 308 (1933)
 REPUBLIC vs. LARA 96 Phil 170 (1954)
ALFONSO vs. PASAY CITY 106 Phil 107 (1960)
MUNICIPALITY OF LA CARLITO vs. SPOUSES BALTAZAR 45 SCRA 235 (1972)
And in order to clarify this, nilagay nila under the new rules: “as of the date of
the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.”
Q: Now, what is the procedure for the determination of just compensation?
A: The court has to appoint commissioner or commissioners not more than 3 to
guide and help the court in determining how much is the amount.
So each party will go to the commissioner to present their evidence for them to
study. It’s good to appoint dito yung mga realtors, assessors or brokers. These are
the people who are well-versed on the value of property. We will have to apply the
provisions of Rule 32. Ano man yang Rule 32? Trial by Commissioners. This is a perfect
example of trial by commissioners.
Sec. 5. Ascertainment of compensation — Upon the rendition
of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more
than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as
commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just
compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order of
appointment shall designate the time and place of the first session
of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and specify the
time within which their report shall be submitted to the court.
Copies of the order shall be served on the parties. Objections
to the appointment of any of the commissioners shall be filed with
the court within ten (10) days from service, and shall be resolved
within thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall have
received copies of the objections. (5a)
Ok. Not more than three. The court will appoint this committee. If you object to
the appointment of any of the commissioners, you may do so.
Sec. 6. Proceedings by commissioners — Before entering upon
the performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take and
subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as
commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other
proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either
party before the commissioners who are authorized to administer
oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall,
unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the
parties to attend, view and examine the property sought to be
expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same,
after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the
case. The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages
to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential
damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner
from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the
operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of
the business of the corporation or person taking the property. But
in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the
consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the
actual value of his property so taken. (6a)
Sec. 7. Report by commissioners and judgment thereupon —
The court may order the commissioners to report when any
particular portion of the real estate shall have been passed upon
by them, and may render judgment upon such partial report, and
direct the commissioners to proceed with their work as to
subsequent portions of the property sought to be expropriated,
and may from time to time so deal with such property. The
commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to the court
of all their proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be
effectual until the court shall have accepted their report and
rendered judgment in accordance with their recommendations.
Except as otherwise expressly ordered by the court, such report
shall be filed within sixty (60) days from the date the
commissioners were notified of their appointment, which time
may be extended in the discretion of the court. Upon the filing of
such report, the clerk of the court shall serve copies thereof on all
interested parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days
within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they
so desire. (7a)
Sec. 8. Action upon commissioners’ report — Upon the
expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the
preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but
after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the
 report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may,
after hearing, accept the report and render judgment in
accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may recommit the
same to the commissioners for further report of facts; or it may
set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or it may
accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make
such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff
the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation,
and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.
(8a)
So same procedure in Trial by Commissioner. The commissioner will report and
they will give you copy. If you do not believe in their report, you object. And the court
may approve, disapprove or modify it. And once approved, the findings of the
commissioner is automatically the findings of the court.
Let’s go to a leading constitutional case which is also relevant to the appointment
of the commissioners. I am referring to the case of
EPZA VS. DULAY (1987)
149 SCRA 305
FACTS: During the Martial Law, President Marcos issued a lot of
Presidential Decrees regarding valuation of property. And in these
decrees, he resorted to shortcuts on how to determine the market
value ng property mo.
Actually, the market value in a tax declaration has 2 columns. In the
first column is the value as declared by the owner. And in the right
column is as determined by the assessor.
Now, Marcos issued these decrees among which were PD’s 79, 464,
794 and 1533. Ito sabi niya: In case of expropriation, in determining the
market value of the property, the market value will be the market value
as declared by the owner himself of as found by the assessor, whichever
is lower. Its either the finding of the government through the assessor
or the owner's declaration, meaning, if you under declare your property
you are in estoppel, or if it is the assessor's which has the lower findings,
then they will tell the owner: "why did you not appeal?" You file your
appeal in the Board of Assessors. You are also under estoppel. So either
way, yari ka!
HELD: All these decrees are unconstitutional because the
determination of just compensation is a judicial function. You cannot
deprive the court of its power to determine the just compensation. It is
a judicial function which cannot be encroached upon by the legislative
or executive branch of the government. That’s why this is also a leading
case in political law.
“The method of ascertaining just compensation under the
aforecited decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial
prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile in a matter which
under the Constitution is reserved to it for final determination. the
court has only to choose between the valuation of the owner and that
of the assessor, and its choice is always limited to the lower of the two.
The court cannot exercise its discretion or independence in determining
what is just or fair. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for the
judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just compensation
is concerned…”
“The valuation in the decree may only serve as a guiding principle
or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not
substitute the court's own judgment as to what amount should be
awarded and how to arrive at such amount.”
[And what do you mean by just compensation?] “Just
compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking.
It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as
to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements
and capabilities, should be considered.”
“Various factors can come into play in the valuation of specific
properties singled out for expropriation. The values given by provincial
assessors are usually uniform for very wide areas covering several
barrios or even an entire town…” (Dean I: I think so.)
“To say that the owners are estopped to question the valuations
made by assessors since they had the opportunity to protest is illusory.
The overwhelming mass of land owners accept unquestioningly what is
found in the tax declarations prepared by local assessors or municipal
clerks for them. They do not even look at, much less analyze, the
statements. The idea of expropriation simply never occurs until a
demand is made or a case filed by an agency authorized to do so.”
“It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the opportunity
to prove that the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And
it is repulsive to basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the
haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail
over the judgment of a court…”
“The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain
cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature
may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation
of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be
taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or
executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail
over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from
 looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.”
So Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 are all intact. Yan!
MERALCO VS. PINEDA
206 SCRA 196
FACTS: After the issuance of the order of expropriation, the court
did not anymore appoint commissioners saying that even if there are
commissioners, the report is only recommendatory. The court will still
have the final say. So the appointment of the commissioners can be
dispensed with.
ISSUE: May the trial court dispense with the appointment of the
commissioners in expropriation proceedings?
HELD: No. The appointment of the commissioners cannot be
dispensed with. This is a mandatory procedure. This is a substantive
right of a party. While it is true that the court has the final say, the court
can do that only if there is a showing that the report of the
commissioners is 100% wrong. It cannot just disregard the report. The
aid of the commissioners is a substantial right that may not be done
away capriciously or for no reason at all.
Sec. 9. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims — If the
ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or there are
conflicting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any
sum or sums awarded as compensation for the property to be paid
to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the same
proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall require
the payment of the sum or sums awarded to either the defendant
or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon the property, or
retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has already been
made. (9a)
So, there is a conflict or claims in the property subject of expropriation. So what
will happen now? The court will deposit the money and after the conflict is resolved,
the money will be given to the right owner.
Sec. 10. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment —
Upon payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the
compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest thereon
from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender
to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the
plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property
expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or purpose
defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken
immediate possession thereof under the provisions of section 2
hereof. If the defendant and his counsel absent themselves from
the court, or decline to receive the amount tendered, the same
shall be ordered to be deposited in court and such deposit shall
have the same effect as actual payment thereof to the defendant
or the person ultimately adjudged entitled thereto. (10a)
Q: Assuming the government wins the case, when does the plaintiff become the
owner of the property?
A: Usually, upon payment of just compensation. The title to the property will be
transferred to the name of the plaintiff. From that moment, the government has now
the right to possess if it does not earlier entered, because in Section 2 it can take the
property earlier upon deposit of the preliminary deposit.
I noticed that one amendment introduced by the 1997 Rules is you are going to
pay the just compensation with legal interest thereon from the date of the taking of
the property…because you might be taking the property as early as 1950 and then
case is filed now and the value of just compensation will be based on the time of the
taking. So parang unfair naman no? Legal interest would make it fair enough.
There was a case here in Davao were that statement came eh. ‘Yang whole PTA
and some property of the late Monteverde. The Monterverdes filed a case to recover
the property which has been named in the name of the City I think as early as 1930
or earlier pa.
The City won in the RTC of Davao. In the CA it was reversed and the Monteverdes
were declared as owners. Since the case is sensitive, the lawyer of the City which is
the City Legal Office admits that it needs also the help of some people. The Office of
the City Mayor called mga 3-5 lawyers to review the case and help the City in
preparing the appeal to the SC. So there are legal consultants there and Batacan is
the recent one. We review all the requirements, circulars, para there is no way for
the case to be dismissed simply because of mere technicalities. That was our function
more or less.
But this was asked: When did the government take over the property? The
government has been in possession already for the past 70 years. Suppose the worst
scenario, the SC will affirm the CA, although I believe it will not and that’s my personal
opinion. But assuming it will, the family will get back the PTA. Kalaki gud nyan. It’s
very valuable. But the government will say: we will expropriate even if we lose.
Anyway we are in possession, we will still expropriate. It will still end up as
government property.
But the question is asked: Pila man ang bayaran? Of course sabi ng City Legal
Office: the value as of the time of filing of the complaint. I said: I don’t think so
because under the new Rules, it is the value at the time of the taking or at the time
of the filing of the complaint whichever came first. Kailan na-take over? 1930. Ayun!
What is the value? The ascertained value as of 1930. Siguro sentabos pa yan nung
araw eh. The most you will pay is legal interest.
So based on the assessment of the City, come what may the City still wins maski
anong gawin mo. The government has options all along.
Sec. 11. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal — The
right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant
and appropriate the same for public use or purpose shall not be
delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate
court determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation,
judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court to
forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the
possession of the property, and to determine the damages which
the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of the
possession taken by the plaintiff. (11a)
Assuming the government has not entered yet and wins the case then nag-
appeal ka. Immediately executory! Even if the judgment is not yet final, you appeal
will not delay the enforcement of the judgment.
On the other hand the government will lose the appeal, bayad! The government
will pay you damages also. That’s why meron ng preliminary deposit.
Sec. 12. Costs, by whom paid — The fees of the commissioners
shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings. All costs,
except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, shall be paid
by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of the
property and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of
the appeal shall be paid by the owner. (12a)
Sec. 13. Recording judgment, and its effect — The judgment
entered in expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an
adequate description, the particular property or interest therein
expropriated, and the nature of the public use or purpose for
which it is expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a
certified copy of such judgment shall be recorded in the registry of
deeds of the place in which the property is situated, and its effect
shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so
described for such public use or purpose. (13a)
Sec. 14. Power of guardian in such proceedings — The
guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor or of a person
judicially declared to be incompetent may, with the approval
of the court first had, do and perform on behalf of his ward
any act, matter, or thing respecting the expropriation for
public use or purpose of property belonging to such minor or
person judicially declared to be incompetent, which such
minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent could
do in such proceedings if he were of age or competent. (14a)
Q: A property has been expropriated for public purpose and the government
won. Suppose someday the government abandons the public use, will the ownership
go back to the original owner or will it still remain as government property?
A: In an old case sabi ng SC: depende. If the judgement says that if the public
purpose is later on abandoned and there would be reversion, then the property will
go back to its original owners. But if the judgment is silent, the government continues
to own the property. There will be no reversion. (Fery vs. Mun. of Cabanatuan, 42
Phil. 28)
And this ruling always remind me of what happened here in Davao. It’s not really
expropriation but it is similar that the original owner can get back the property from
the government.
I am referring to land occupied by the Sentral Bank (Uy! Du-ol ila Maya ug
Chelin!). Dyan banda sa Tomas Claudio, Jacinto. That was owned by the old Province
of Davao. Before the division of the Province of Davao into 3, the Province owns
several properties.
Before the Province acquired that property, who was the owner? Again, the so-
called Monteverdes. Kaya nga the children, the well-known Mrs. Garcia, the mother
of Congressman Garcia and the Tiongco family, mga descendants man yan ba.
That property was donated by the Tiongco family to the Province to be used as
court and jail. However when the Province of Davao was divided into 3, they have to
move outside of the City because they have their own capital: Digos, Tagum, Mati.
What did they do with their property in Davao City? They sold it. Kaya nga itong
Sanggunian was sold in the City and the City wanted to buy that property. But the
City was outweighted by the Sentral Bank.
I remember there was a sort of resentment why it was sold to the Sentral Bank
rather than the City at that time. What was the issue? The heirs of the original owner
said based on what they recollect, when that property was donated to the Province
of Davao, in the deed of donation, there was a condition that if the property is no
longer needed for court and jail, isauli! So they wanted to recover, revoke the
donation. The trouble is, where is t he deed of donation? Nobody has a copy! Because
you have to invoke it. Yun ang nakalagay eh. The Register of Deeds cannot find the
copy.
What happened to the original documents, to the original archives of the
Province? Actually the documents were also divided into 3. Assuming it is still in the
archives of the original Province, ay sus! Kahirap! They could not find it anymore.
They were trying to look out the notarial books of notaries public going back in 1930
to find out who notarized it. Sus! Kahirap. That is why nothing came out of it.
Actually, if you and your family can recover the property, you’ll become
billionaire considering the current value of real estates in that area.
That’s why I was telling some of them, madali man lang yan ba. Because right
now you do not know whether the document exists or does not exist. Maybe for all
you know the deed of donation is completely lost. But maybe it is intact or nobody is
looking for it. Sinabi nila; we look, we look, we look. How did you look? We went to
ask somebody to look. Yun lang? Ah walang mangyari sa inyo nyan! You do not know
how to look for the documents eh.
The first thing, did you go to Zamboanga? Because at that time, the Register of
Deeds for the whole Mindanao was in Zamboanga. So nung City na ang Davao, the
documents were transferred there. May mga na-cancel, so nandu’n yun! Why don’t
you go there? Of course archives na yan. You are looking for documents which are
almost 100 years old. Now you need somebody to look for that. Somebody who
knows.
Sabi ko, if I were you, I will give the Registrar of Deeds P50,000 to look for it. If
you can locate it, another P100,000! Tingnan natin kung hindi maglabas yan!
Now, because na-hati-hati yung documents noon eh? You go to the 3 provinces.
You go there. You invest: I’m giving you so much to look. If you recover it, I’ll double
it. You invest half a million. But if you recover it, that is worth billions! My golly! Ano
man lang yang half million as compared to the value of the land?! That is the way to
move. Hindi pwedeng laway lang yan. Hindi pwede yan. Somebody has to invest
money.
Ok. Let’s go to the last point in expropriation.
MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE vs. V.M. REALTY CORP.
July 20, 1998 (292 SCRA 678)
FACTS: The government filed an expropriation case and by reason
of some technicalities the case was dismissed and the judgment
became final. The expropriation is not for public purpose.
After 20 years, the government would like to file another case
because of the changed conditions. Sabi ng defendant, “ah hindi na
pwede. Wala na yan! Res judicata!”
ISSUE: Is the principle of res judicata strictly applies to
expropriation cases?
HELD: NO. the principle of res judicata does not strictly apply
against the State in eminent domain because you cannot curtail an
inherent power of the State.
“…the principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally
all cases and proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agent
to expropriate private property… The scope of eminent domain is
plenary and, like police power, can reach every form of property which
the State might need for public use… Thus, the State or its authorized
agent cannot be forever barred from exercising said right by reason
alone of previous non-compliance with any legal requirement.”
TRANSCRIBED
6) Expropriation
-Eminent Domain is the right (substantive). This is how it used to be called.
-How is it enforced? Through expropriation proceedings.
-Filed before the RTC- incapable of pecuniary estimation.
-2 stages of trial:
a) propriety of expropriation
-plaintiff- RP or gov’t institution vs private individual
-What does plaintiff have to prove? That the property is for public use. Prove in the
first stage.
-If private individual has no objection to the taking, then there is no need to file an
answer. Just file a manifestation and state that there is no objection to the taking.
-If no objection, must the government still prove that it is for public use? Yes, it has
to. Because there is disbursement of public funds.
-What if defendant objects? Then he must file an answer.
-Motion to Dismiss is not allowed in expropriation proceedings.
-If he has valid grounds to file a motion to dismiss, then defendant has to put this in
his affirmative defense.
-After first stage, can the court render a decision? Yes.
-Whether or not for public use.
b) Second Stage- Just compensation
-Will come in only when court determines that it is for public use. If the taking is only
for the building of a gold course for napoles and friends, then the court will deny, and
there will no longer be a 2nd stage.
-Can defendant appeal decision even if there is a second stage? Yes. There is where
record on appeal comes in.
-Record on Appeal- reproduction of the record of the original trial. Note that second
stage commences so records must remain with the court dealing with the
expropriation proceedings.
-The Record on Appeal is the one forwarded to the appellate court for purposes of
appeal.
-Thus, there are 2 records: The first one stays in the original court for purposes of
proceeding with the second stage, while the second one is sent to the appellate court
for purposes of appeal.
-Who is responsible for the production of record on appeal? Appellant. He will be
given 30 days to produce record on appeal.
-Contains all the pleadings and all the records. If the original court is satisfied, it will
approve the record on appeal and forward it to the appellate court.
-While the CA goes about with the appeal, the RTC determines the just compensation
in the 2nd stage.
-Trial by Commissioners. Court cannot be saddled with the nitty gritty of determining
value of each mango tree and whatnot, then it will appoint commissioners, usually 3:
One appointed by the government, another by the defendant, and the third
(chairman) is chosen by the court. Commissioners are answerable only to the court.
-Usual commissioners - assessors, real estate brokers, anybody from the treasurer’s
office or register of deeds.
-They have the right to subpoena persons who can testify.
-They submit their report – only recommendatory. Not binding on the court. Furnish
to plaintiff government, defendant private individual, and the court.
-The court sets the report for hearing and gets their comment, and then decide.
Court can adopt, modify, alter, or disregard entire report.
-Determination of just compensation can be appealed.
-No need for record on appeal because second stage is over and none follows after,
so the court can transmit the entire records to the CA.
-Can the government enter the private property without filing an expropriation
proceeding? Yes. By depositing the assessed value of the property- thereafter, they
can enter. Deposit is to be made in the name of the private person. Forms part of
the just compensation. Thereafter they can initiate expropriation proceedings.
(CHECK MY NOTES CIV PRO for ADDITIONAL TRANSCRIBED NOTES)
(PRINT TABLE FOR EXPROPRATON PROCEEDINGS)
RIANO BOOK NOTES
PRELIMINARIES
 Inherent power of the sovereign State
 Need not be conferred by law or the Constitution
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
A right to take or reassert dominion property within the state for
public use or meet a public exigency.
RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
To ultimate right of the sovereign to appropriate, not only the public
but the private property of al the citizens within territorial sovereignty, to
public purpose.
LIMITATIONS TO THE POWER OF EXPROPRATION:

1. Section 9 Article III of the Constitution.

That the taking of the private property must be for Public Purpose
and upon payment of Just Compensation.
2. Section I Article III.
Due Process and Equal protection Clause
3. Section 18 Article XII
Authority of the State to transfer to public ownership and
operation, privately owned enterprise in the interest of national
welfare or defense.
It may require expropriation of idle or abandoned agricultural lands
for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program.

SCOPE OF THE POWER OF EMIENT DOMAIN

- It is plenary and as broad as the police power.

- The exercise of its delegate is not absolute
- LGU have no inherent power of eminent domain
- The national legislature is still the principal of the local government
units and the latter cannot go against the principal’s will or modify
the same.

NOTE: despite such legislative gran, it is still the duty of the Courts to
determine whether the power of eminent domain Is being exercise in
accordance with the delegating law.