G.R. No. 135042 - Robern Development Corp. vs. Quitain

Robern Development Corporation is the registered owner of a parcel of land measuring approximately 17,746.50 square meters.
The property is part of a proposed low‐cost housing project in Inawayan, Binugao, Toril, Davao City, and is targeted for expropriation by the National Power Corporation (NPC).

On June 6, 1997, NPC filed a Complaint for Eminent Domain against Robern.
Instead of filing an answer, Robern countered by filing a Motion to Dismiss on grounds including:

A jurisdictional defect in the Complaint for not indicating board approval by NPC.
The verification and certification of the Complaint was signed by Nemesio S. CaAete, who allegedly was not the president, general manager, or an officer specifically empowered under NPC’s charter (RA 6395).
The selection of the subject property was improper and arbitrary because it was intended for a low-cost housing project and similar properties were available in the area.

Before resolving Robern’s Motion to Dismiss, NPC filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession based on Presidential Decree No. 42.
On July 9, 1997, NPC deposited P6,121.20 with the Philippine National Bank as evidence of its compliance with the provisional deposit requirement.
On August 13, 1997, the trial court denied Robern’s Motion to Dismiss, opting instead to set the issues aside for trial, noting the propriety of NPC’s exercise of eminent domain.

On September 2, 1997, Robern filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting that:

The issues raised in its Motion to Dismiss could be resolved from the face of the Complaint without trial, given the relevant provisions of law.
The objections did not require extraneous evidence and should be considered immediately.

On September 11, 1997, the trial court denied this Motion for Reconsideration, simultaneously granting a writ of possession in favor of NPC.
On September 22, 1997, Robern filed yet another Motion for Reconsideration focusing on the alleged virtual amendment of Section 15-A of RA 6395 regarding who may validly verify and sign the Complaint.

Despite pending motions raised by Robern, NPC proceeded with a Motion to Implement the Writ of Possession.
On September 19, 1997, the trial court issued a Writ of Possession ordering NPC to take immediate possession of the disputed portions of the property.
On November 5, 1997, NPC occupied the property before Robern received any directive from counsel regarding proper issuance.

Robern filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging:

The issuance of the Writ of Possession as unconstitutional, irregular, arbitrary, and despotic since the trial court had not conducted a hearing on the provisional deposit or just compensation.
The propriety of dismissing the Complaint on its face for alleged lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, and non-compliance with RA 6395.

The CA subsequently affirmed the trial court’s orders and decisions while noting issues that required further evidentiary determination at trial.

Whether the trial court’s order directing the issuance of the Writ of Possession is unconstitutional, highly irregular, arbitrary, and despotic, especially given that a hearing on the amount for provisional deposit was not held.

Whether the Complaint is dismissible on its face for lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, and non-compliance with RA 6395 due to:

The improper signing by Atty. CaAete instead of the NPC president or general manager.
The absence of board authorization as purported by Robern.

Whether the CA, in rendering its findings on issues not clearly borne out by the Complaint, exceeded its jurisdiction.

Whether the choice of the subject property for expropriation is arbitrary and erroneous in light of available alternatives in the area.

Whether under the revised Rule 67, an answer (and not a motion to dismiss) is the proper responsive pleading for expropriation proceedings.