Case Digest (G.R. No. 195481)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 195481)
Facts:
National Housing Authority v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, G.R. No. 154411, June 19, 2003, First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.On February 23, 1999, petitioner National Housing Authority (NHA) filed an amended complaint for eminent domain in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Cebu City (Civil Case No. CEB‑23386), seeking to expropriate several lots in the Banilad Estate and Cadastral Lot No. 1613‑D at Carreta, Mabolo, Cebu City for a socialized housing project. On November 12, 1999, the Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo manifested that they would waive objections to NHA’s power to expropriate, and the RTC issued an order declaring that the plaintiff had a lawful right to expropriate those properties.
The trial court appointed three commissioners, who on April 17, 2000 recommended just compensation at P11,200.00 per square meter. On August 7, 2000 the RTC rendered a Partial Judgment adopting the commissioners’ report and fixing just compensation at P11,200.00/sq.m. NHA filed two motions for reconsideration (August 30 and 31, 2000) challenging the inclusion of certain lots and the amount; the Heirs also filed a motion for reconsideration. By an Omnibus Order dated October 11, 2000 the RTC denied most reconsideration motions but granted NHA’s August 30 motion insofar as Lots Nos. 12, 13 and 19 were concerned. An Entry of Judgment was issued October 31, 2000; the Heirs’ Motion for Execution was granted November 22, 2000.
NHA sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 61746), which dismissed the petition on January 31, 2001 on the ground that the Partial Judgment and Omnibus Order had become final and executory because NHA did not appeal. NHA pursued remedies in this Court (G.R. No. 147527) but the petition for review was denied May 9, 2001; a motion for reconsideration was denied August 20, 2001.
While those remedies were pending, NHA filed on July 16, 2001 in the RTC a Motion to Dismiss the expropriation proceedings, alleging that the unexpectedly high compensation made implementation impossible; that motion was denied on September 17, 2001 and its reconsideration denied November 20, 2001. NHA then filed a certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 68670). The CA initially dismissed that petition (February 5, 2002), after which the sheriff served a Notice of Levy; the CA reinstated the petition on February 18, 2002 and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement. The sheriff subsequently served a Notice of Third Garnishment on Landbank (May 27, 2002) and levied on NHA’s funds and personal properties.
On July 16, 2002 the Court of Appeals dismissed NHA’s certiorari petition. NHA then filed the present petition for review with this Court, raising three principal issues: (1) whether the State may be compelled to exercise or continue to exercise eminent domain; (2) whether the judgment had become final and executory and whether estoppel or laches applied to the government; and (3) whether writs of execution and garnishment may be issued against the State in an expropriation (invoking Administrative Circular No. 10‑2000). The Heirs answered, asserting finality and non‑exemption of NHA’s funds.
Issues:
- When a plaintiff in an eminent domain case has secured an RTC order declaring the lawful right to expropriate, may the plaintiff thereafter dismiss or discontinue the expropriation proceedings?
- Did the RTC’s order declaring NHA’s right to expropriate become final and executory such that estoppel or laches prevents NHA from reopening the question of public use?
- May writs of execution and garnishment be issued against NHA’s funds and properties in enforcement of a final judgment in an expropriation case, or are those funds exempt (including under Administrative Circular No. 10‑2000)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)