Title
Republic vs. Heirs of Ferdez
Case
G.R. No. 175493
Decision Date
Mar 25, 2015
Heirs contested expropriation of their land for a highway, citing insufficient payment and non-compliance with RA 8974. SC upheld CA, voiding writ of possession due to incorrect zonal valuation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 219111)

Facts:

  • Expropriation Background
    • The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and Highways, initiated an expropriation proceeding to acquire an 11,165‑square‑meter property owned by the Heirs of Gabriel Q. Fernandez in Barangay Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan.
    • The property, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-139051, was needed for the construction of a four‑lane highway, deemed a national infrastructure project.
  • Commencement of Proceedings and Allegations
    • On June 5, 2001, the Republic filed a Verified Complaint for Expropriation alleging:
      • The need for the property for the highway project.
      • That previous offers to purchase had been refused, despite successful acquisitions of adjacent properties.
    • The Republic prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Possession upon filing the Petition accompanied by a deposit of a provisional value—“not more than P50.00 per square meter.”
  • Positions of the Parties
    • The Republic’s Position
      • It asserted that it had complied with the guidelines prescribed in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974 by offering a deposit based on the current relevant zonal valuation.
      • It initially offered P35.00 per square meter (and later P50.00 per square meter) per its Manifestation, claiming that the deposit of P167,475.00 was equivalent to 100% of the zonal value calculated at P15.00 per square meter.
      • The Republic maintained that its valuation evidence (including a photocopy of the Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal valuation with annotations) supported its method of computing the provisional value.
    • The Heirs of Fernandez’s Position
      • They acknowledged the utility of the highway project but contested the necessity of expropriation of their property.
      • The heirs contended that the expropriation was unconstitutional unless the state complied with the guidelines under Section 4 of RA 8974 and Section 12 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
      • They argued that the proper classification of their property should be “Veg. land” or “A1” agricultural land, valued at P50.00 per square meter, not the P15.00 per square meter as calculated by the Republic for “pastureland.”
      • Additionally, they raised issues regarding the manner of service of certain orders and motions, alleging a lack of due process.
  • Pretrial, Trial Court, and Post‑Trial Developments
    • During the pretrial and initial hearing, issues arose regarding the marking of documentary evidence and the appropriateness of the provisional deposit.
    • The trial court, after re‑opening the pretrial, issued an Order on February 21, 2002, authorizing the Republic to take possession based on its deposit of P167,475.00.
    • Subsequent filings by both parties highlighted disputes on:
      • The authenticity and sufficiency of the deposited amount.
      • The correct zonal value and classification of the property.
    • On May 22, 2002, the trial court confirmed the Republic’s right to take possession and appointed commissioners to determine just compensation, though it rationalized the inadvertent service irregularities.
  • Court of Appeals Resolution
    • The Heirs of Fernandez appealed, arguing:
      • The expropriation was unnecessary due to the existence of several adjacent roads.
      • Their due process rights were violated as they were not properly notified of the Order authorizing possession.
      • The correct zonal valuation should be P50.00 per square meter.
    • On August 25, 2006, the Court of Appeals:
      • Set aside the trial court’s authorization allowing the Republic to take possession solely based on the deposit of P167,475.00.
      • Affirmed the appointment of commissioners to determine the final amount of just compensation.
    • The appellate court noted that, in accordance with Section 4 of RA 8974, the issuance of a Writ of Possession is conditioned upon compliance with prepayment requirements—including payment of 100% of the zonal value (which, as properly classified, was P50.00 per square meter) along with the submission of a certificate of availability of funds.
    • The Court of Appeals also addressed and rejected the argument that setting aside the writ was equivalent to an injunction.
  • Supreme Court Petition and Final Allegations
    • The Republic filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, contending:
      • That it had satisfied the statutory prerequisites for expropriation.
      • That its payment based on the BIR’s zonal valuation (alleged as P15.00 per square meter) was proper.
      • That the court’s reversal of the writ issuance amounted to a de facto injunction, which is disallowed under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8975.
    • The Supreme Court, however, upheld the appellate findings and denied the petition for review.

Issues:

  • Compliance with Statutory Requirements
    • Whether petitioner Republic complied with the requisites set forth in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974—specifically, the payment of 100% of the property’s value based on the current relevant zonal valuation—before the issuance of a Writ of Possession.
  • Nature of the Court’s Ruling on the Writ of Possession
    • Whether the setting aside of the trial court’s Order authorizing possession (i.e., the Writ of Possession) by the Court of Appeals constitutes an injunction (such as a Temporary Restraining Order or preliminary injunction), which is prohibited by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8975.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

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.

About Privacy Terms