Case Digest (G.R. No. 33545)
Facts:
Metropolitan Water District v. Sixto de los Angeles et al., G.R. No. L-33545, March 07, 1931, Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.
The Metropolitan Water District (plaintiff-appellant) instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal on October 27, 1926, seeking to condemn a 171.8861-hectare tract in the municipality of Montalban owned by Sixto de los Angeles et al. (defendants-appellants). The District alleged the land was necessary for the Angat Waterworks System and that the watershed was located on the land. The District was organized under Act No. 2832 and claimed authority to condemn under that charter.
On the day the suit was filed the trial court fixed a provisional value at P2,000 and authorized the District to take possession upon deposit. The defendants answered on November 9, 1926, denying the allegations. On April 27, 1927 the court appointed three commissioners (Emilio de la Paz, Jose M. Perez, Facundo San Agustin) to view the premises and assess value and damages. Two commissioners (Perez and San Agustin) reported a total valuation of P74,260.60 (land plus improvements) with recommended damages and interest; the dissenting commissioner (de la Paz) reported a higher valuation of P101,542.25.
On January 6, 1930 the Court of First Instance rendered judgment following the majority commissioners’ report, fixing compensation at P74,260.60 with 6% interest from the date of occupation and taxed costs against the plaintiff. Both parties appealed to this Court.
While the appeal was pending, the Metropolitan Water District Board on July 14, 1930 adopted Resolution No. 38 (Series 1930) directing the Acting Manager to request the Attorney-General to petition for quashing the proceedings because the land was no longer "indispensably necessary." Pursuant thereto the Attorney‑General filed on July 18, 1930 a petition in this Court praying that the District be permitted to discontinue the condemnation proceedings and that the complaint be dismissed; the petition invoked section 2(k) of Act No. 2832. The defendants vigorously opposed, asserting prejudice from years of dispossession, expense, and destruction of improvements, and insisted it was too late to abandon the taking after judgment and appeal; they requested that, if dismissal were allowed, the r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a condemning authority discontinue (dismiss) pending eminent-domain proceedings after judgment in the trial court and while an appeal is pending?
- If dismissal is permitted because the taking is no longer for public use, what remedies and conditions should protect the dispossessed owners (i.e., must possession be returned and are the owners entitled to damages, and b...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)