Title
Republic vs. Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 172243
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2007
Philippines expropriates land for toll plaza expansion; Supreme Court rules order of expropriation precedes just compensation determination.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 148163)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner: Republic represented by the Toll Regulatory Board, initiating the expropriation proceedings.
    • Respondents:
      • Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation
      • Sy Chi Siong and Co., Inc.
    • Purpose of Expropriation:
      • To widen the Balintawak Toll Plaza in an effort to ease traffic congestion on the North Luzon Expressway.
      • The widening project necessitated the acquisition of two parcels of land owned by the respondents.
  • Description of the Affected Properties
    • Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation’s Property:
      • Title No./Lot No.: 243189
      • Total Area: 425 sq. m.
      • Assessed Value of Entire Area: ₱45,900.00
      • Affected Area: Entire area (425 sq. m.)
      • Zonal Value: ₱1,062,500.00
    • Sy Chi Siong and Co., Inc.’s Property:
      • Title No./Lot No.: 29737
      • Total Area: 8,425 sq. m.
      • Assessed Value of Entire Area: ₱658,690.00
      • Affected Area: 2,924 sq. m.
      • Assessed Value of Affected Area: ₱228,606.47
      • Zonal Value: ₱7,310,000.00
  • Procedural History and Litigation Timeline
    • Filing of Expropriation Complaint
      • Date: January 3, 2001
      • Court: Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131
      • Petitioner amended its complaint to reflect the correct schedule of valuation for the subject properties.
      • A deposit of ₱2,311,200.00 (equivalent to the total zonal value) was made with the Land Bank of the Philippines.
    • Motions and Court Orders at the Trial Level
      • Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession:
        • Respondents filed motions to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds regarding the subject matter (the res).
ii. The trial court denied these dismissal motions and asserted jurisdiction.
  • Subsequent Motions:
    • Respondents filed motions for reconsideration which were denied in the Order dated June 18, 2002.
ii. The Order also directed the issuance of a writ of possession and required respondents to file their answers.
  • Pleadings of the Respondents:
    • Sy Chi Siong filed an Answer, reiterating earlier defenses and alternatively praying for just compensation.
ii. Phil-Ville had not yet filed its responsive pleading, with petitioner noting such absence.
  • Petitioner's Motion for Issuance of Order of Expropriation
    • Rationale:
      • Petitioner argued that respondents never disputed its right to expropriate as provided under the applicable court rules.
ii. Asserted that the issuance of an expropriation order should not be held up by the pending determination of just compensation.
  • Trial Court's Response (Order dated January 27, 2005):
    • Although finding the motion meritorious, the court deferred the issuance of an expropriation order.
ii. The deferral was pending the final determination of just compensation by appointing commissioners to determine the amount. iii. The court set the hearing for March 7, 2005, for the nomination of commissioners.
  • Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration
    • Date: February 22, 2005
    • Argument:
      • Cited Section 4, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to support the immediate issuance of an expropriation order.
ii. Contended that when a defendant raises only the issue of just compensation, the order should be issued forthwith.
  • Trial Court’s Denial (Order dated March 7, 2005):
    • The court maintained that the payment of just compensation must precede the issuance of an expropriation order.
ii. Emphasized that the rules require a determination and payment of just compensation prior to the order's issuance.
  • Escalation to Appellate Level
    • Petitioner's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 89878.
    • CA upheld the trial court's ruling that mandated the determination and payment of just compensation before the issuance of an expropriation order.
  • Issues with Respect to the Expropriation Process
    • Whether a final determination of just compensation must be made before the issuance of an order of expropriation by the court.
    • The contention by the petitioner that the expropriation order merely declares the state's right to expropriate, independent of the timing for payment of just compensation.

Issues:

  • Legal Issue
    • Does the issuance of an order of expropriation require that the court first make a final determination of just compensation?
    • Can an expropriation order be issued immediately to declare the sovereign’s right of eminent domain, irrespective of whether the amount of just compensation has been determined and paid?
  • Sub-Issues
    • Interpretation of Section 4, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the conditions precedent for issuing an order of expropriation.
    • The procedural separation of the two stages in expropriation proceedings:
      • Authorization of expropriation (order of expropriation).
      • Determination and payment of just compensation.

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