Case Digest (G.R. No. 56219-20)
Facts:
Jaime T. Panes et al. v. Visayas State College of Agriculture et al., G.R. Nos. 56219, 56220, 56393 & 56394, November 27, 1996, Supreme Court First Division, Hermosisima, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
On March 21, 1977, President Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree No. 1107 creating the Philippine Root Crops Research and Training Center to be located in the Visayas State College of Agriculture (VISCA) at Baybay, Leyte, and authorizing VISCA to acquire by negotiated sale or expropriation private agricultural properties in specified barrios (Annex “A”) up to stated hectare limits. Pursuant to P.D. No. 1107, VISCA filed CAR Case No. 1659 for expropriation to establish experimental fields and related facilities. VISCA deposited P74,050.00 with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) representing assessed values under P.D. No. 76 and moved for a writ of possession under P.D. No. 42.
Petitioners—landowners represented by counsel, joined by numerous tenants (later intervenors)—answered, raising factual and legal objections: that the lands were outside Annex A; that the deposit did not constitute just compensation; that provisions such as P.D. No. 794 (and related decrees) and P.D. No. 1107 were unconstitutional (impairing freedom of contract and violating equal protection); and that there was no public necessity. By counterclaim petitioners sought damages for anguish and anxiety caused by the expropriation suit.
On July 7, 1978, about 1,298 tenant-tillers moved to intervene asserting tenurial security (relying on agrarian laws and P.D. No. 27) and contending that tenants could not be removed by eminent domain. The trial court admitted the intervention but, on March 29, 1979, denied VISCA’s motion for a writ of possession, holding among other things that expropriation was not a ground for ejectment under existing agrarian statutes, that P.D. No. 42 was procedural and inapplicable to tenanted lands, and that questions existed whether the lands were within the areas designated by P.D. No. 1107; a motion for reconsideration was denied on June 21, 1979.
VISCA filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for TRO in the Supreme Court on August 17, 1979, which this Court referred to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. No. 09659‑SP). The Court of Appeals issued a TRO on August 30, 1979 directing maintenance of the status quo. Notwithstanding the TRO, the trial court proceeded with hearings and dismissed CAR Case No. 1659 on September 6, 1979; its order of dismissal and denial of reconsideration (October 23, 1979) were appealed by VISCA (docketed CA-G.R. No. 10250‑CAR), and the CA consolidated the matters on February 20, 1980.
On August 14, 1980, the Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) reversed the trial court, finding dismissal with prejudice tainted by grave abuse of discretion and holding that VISCA had complied with requirements for immediate possession under P.D. No. 1107 in relation to P.D. No. 42 and (as interpreted by the CA) P.D. No. 1533, and ordering the trial court to require compliance with P.D. No. 1533 if necessary and to issue a writ of possession and proceed with the merits; the CA also made its preliminary injunction permanent.
Petitioners elevated the CA decision to the Supreme Court. Two consolidated petitions initially included G.R. Nos. 56219‑20 (which this Court denied by resolution of February 27, 1...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering the reinstatement of CAR Case No. 1659 that the trial court had dismissed with prejudice?
- Was respondent VISCA entitled to immediate possession of the subject lands upon deposit with a bank pursuant to P.D. No. 42 (and/or compliance with P.D. No. 1533) or was another procedure required?
- Should the Supreme Court finally decide the constitutional challenges to P.D. No. 1107...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)