Case Digest (G.R. No. 129079)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of Trade and Industry v. Hon. Lucenito N. Tagle and Helena Z. Benitez, G.R. No. 129079, December 02, 1998, the Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The petition arose from competing claims over two parcels of land in Barangay Salawag, Dasmariñas, Cavite (TCT No. 14701) owned by private respondent Helena Z. Benitez. The Government, through the Philippine Human Resources Development Center (PHRDC) and later the Construction Manpower Development Center (CMDC) attached to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), occupied the site beginning in the 1980s pursuant to a series of agreements (a 1983 memorandum of agreement, a 1983 permit from Philippine Women’s University (PWU), and a 1983 lease). Negotiations for sale followed but Benitez allegedly reneged on a promised sale despite drafts of a Deed of Absolute Sale and communications indicating an agreed price.
When negotiations failed and an unlawful detainer action was filed in the Municipal Trial Court against the Government-occupant, the Government initiated expropriation proceedings under Executive Order No. 1035 (dated June 25, 1985), depositing with the Philippine National Bank the provisional value of P708,490.00 (equivalent to the assessed value) in compliance with Section 2, Rule 67 as amended by PD No. 42. On May 16, 1996 petitioner moved for issuance of a writ of possession; on May 24, 1996 the Regional Trial Court (Branch 20, Imus, Cavite), Hon. Lucenito N. Tagle presiding, granted the motion and the sheriff implemented the writ.
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 26, 1996 the RTC quashed the May 24 writ of possession on the ground that the Government was already in actual possession and that the writ was therefore being sought to gain leverage in the pending ejectment/unlawful detainer suit; the court treated the situation as different from an ordinary eminent domain case because of the prior ejectment suit. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the quashal; the RTC denied reconsideration on February 20, 1997. The Government filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, contending that the RTC committed grave abuse of disc...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in quashing the writ of possession he had previously issued under Executive Order No. 1035?
- May a trial court quash a writ of possession issued under EO 1035 on the ground that the expropriating government agency is already in physical poss...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)