Case Digest (G.R. No. 94193-99)
Facts:
Petitioner National Power Corporation filed seven eminent domain complaints on 30 March 1990 in the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Bacolod City, for right‑of‑way easements for its Negros‑Panay Interconnection Project; the cases were raffled, consolidated and ultimately assigned to Branch 47 presided by Hon. Enrique T. Jocson.
Between 25 June and 18 July 1990 the respondent judge issued successive orders fixing and then increasing the provisional values, ordered petitioner to deposit the amounts (which it did), directed defendants to state within twenty‑four hours whether they would accept the deposits as final and conditioned issuance of the writ of possession on defendants' receipt, whereupon petitioner filed this petition for certiorari on 24 July 1990 and this Court issued a temporary restraining order on 31 July 1990.
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge act in excess of jurisdiction or commit grave abuse in fixing provisional values contrary to P.D. No. 42 and Rule 67?
- Could the respondent judge increase provisional values after petitioner had deposited the amounts without hearing?
- Could the respondent judge compel defendants to accept deposited amounts as final and delay the writ of possession pending such acceptance?
- Could the respondent judge order immediate release of the deposited amounts as full satisfaction of just compensation?
Ruling:
The petition was granted. The Orders dated 25 June 1990, 12 July 1990, 16 July 1990 and 18 July 1990 were set aside and the temporary restraining order of 31 July 1990 was made permanent. The respondent judge was directed to fix provisional values in accordance with P.D. No. 42, to permit petitioner to retain in its PNB account an amount equivalent to the provisional value and withdraw the balance, and to proceed with the eminent domain cases under the procedure prescribed in Rule 67 without unnecessary delay. Costs were assessed against the private respondents.
Ratio:
The Court held that P.D. No. 42 prescribes that the deposit to obtain possession must be an amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation, thereby removing the court's discretion to fix a different provisional valuation for that ministerial purpose; notice to owners suffices and no hearing is required for the deposit. Once the deposit required by law was made, petitioner acquired the right to immediate possession and the trial court lost plenary power to annul or materially amend the substantive amount of the deposit pending final determination (Manila Railroad Co. v. Paredes). Moreover, the respondent judge violated Rule 67 and the judicial function of determining just compensation by increasing values without hearing, by subordinating the court's determination to defendants' acceptance, and by attempting to treat provisional deposits as final payment without following the commissioners' procedure.
Doctrine:
- Under P.D. No. 42 the plaintiff seeking possession in eminent domain proceedings must deposit an amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)