Title
Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. J. King and Sons Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 175983
Decision Date
Apr 16, 2009
MCWD, a government-owned corporation, sought to expropriate a portion of J. King and Sons' property for a production well. Negotiations failed, leading to expropriation proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld MCWD's authority, reinstated the writ of possession, and remanded the case for just compensation determination.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 175983)

Facts:

  • Parties and Property
    • Petitioner Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended, empowered to operate water supply and distribution systems.
    • Respondent J. King and Sons Company, Inc. owns a larger parcel covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 168605 in Banilad, Cebu City, within which MCWD’s production well occupies a 5-square-meter portion.
  • Pre-expropriation Steps and Lower Court Proceedings
    • MCWD negotiated for the voluntary sale of the 5-sqm lot; negotiations failed.
    • MCWD’s Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 015-2004 (27 February 2004), approved by the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) on 28 February 2005, authorizing expropriation.
    • MCWD filed an expropriation complaint on 10 November 2004 and moved for a writ of possession on 7 February 2005, depositing P17,500 (100% of zonal value at P3,500/sqm).
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Cebu City, granted the writ of possession by orders dated 1 April and 9 May 2005. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
    • Respondent petitioned for certiorari (Rule 65) with the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), preventing MCWD’s entry.
    • On 26 July 2006, the CA nullified the RTC orders and writ of possession, finding the board resolution lacked particularity, doubting the necessity of expropriation, and holding that reliance on R.A. No. 8974 violated judicial determination of just compensation. Reconsideration was denied (28 September 2006).

Issues:

  • Authority to Institute Expropriation
    • Whether MCWD’s board resolution and LWUA review sufficiently authorized the filing of the expropriation complaint.
  • Procedure for Writ of Possession
    • Whether MCWD complied with the required procedure—under R.A. No. 8974 and Rule 67 of the Rules of Court—in obtaining the writ of possession.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.