G.R. No. 141066 - Ladonga vs. People

Petitioners Remedios Biglang-Awa and Salvador Biglang-Awa are registered owners of parcels of land located in Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City.
Remedios Biglang-Awa’s property is documented under T.C.T. No. RT-101389 (769 sq. m.) while Salvador Biglang-Awa’s property is covered by T.C.T. No. RT-101390 (2,151 sq. m.).

The government, via the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), initiated expropriation for the construction of the Mindanao Avenue Extension, Stages II-B and II-C.
On August 29, 1996, petitioner Remedios Biglang-Awa received a Notice requiring submission of documents necessary to determine the just compensation for her property.
A subsequent Final Notice was issued on October 15, 1996, signed by the Project Director, which warned that failure to comply within five (5) days would lead to the filing of expropriation proceedings.

Due to non-compliance with the notices, the Republic, through the DPWH, filed separate expropriation cases (Civil Case Nos. Q-99-31368 and Q-97-31369) at the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216.
Summons were served on July 10, 1997, and petitioners filed their Answers on August 11, 1997.
The government deposited amounts—P3,964,500.00 for Salvador and P2,511,000.00 for Remedios Biglang-Awa’s properties—based on an appraisal by the Quezon City Appraisal Committee.

On April 24, 1998, the Republic filed separate Motions for the Issuance of Writs of Possession.
The court ordered that petitioners, through counsel Atty. Jose Felix Lucero, submit their Opposition within ten (10) days but the petitioners failed to file any opposition.
The writs of possession were subsequently granted on August 5, 1998, and issued on August 12, 1998.
On September 11, 1998, each petitioner received a Notice to Vacate their property.

On January 25, 1999, the petitioners informed the court that they had replaced their counsel—terminating Atty. Lucero due to alleged inaction.
On May 10, 1999, the petitioners, represented by new counsel, moved for reconsideration of the writs of possession and the court orders, arguing lack of compliance with Executive Order No. 1035 concerning feasibility studies, public information campaign, detailed engineering/surveys, and negotiation prior to expropriation.
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied on July 7, 1999.
The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was subsequently filed, questioning whether the issuance of the writs of possession and related orders by the respondent court amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and lacked jurisdiction.

Whether the respondent court gravely abused its discretion—in other words, whether it acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction—by issuing the writs of possession.

The petitioners contended that, under due process in expropriation proceedings, the government must comply with the substantive requirements of Executive Order No. 1035 (i.e., conducting feasibility studies, information campaigns, detailed engineering/surveys, and negotiating with the property owner) before a writ of possession can be issued.
They argued that the trial court’s issuance of the writs without such compliance violated their right to proper procedural safeguards.

Whether the issuance of the writs of possession, based solely on the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure—which requires the deposit of an amount equivalent to the assessed value—was proper.

The petitioners maintained that the deposit should have been supplemented by compliance with the activities mandated under EO 1035.
This raised the broader issue regarding the conflict and prioritization between EO 1035 and the revised statutory procedures under the 1997 Rules.