G.R. No. 66102-04 - Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

On October 29, 1976, the Republic of the Philippines initiated expropriation proceedings through a complaint filed with the proper court against petitioners (Sps. Serapio San Diego and Asuncion Balajadia, Rodante San Diego, and Lilia S. D. Chavez).
The property involved measured 642 square meters, located in the municipality of Morong, Rizal, and was intended to form part of a national highway (Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road – Manila East Road) under the 2nd IBRD Project.
The complaint alleged that upon filing the complaint and giving due notice to petitioners, the Republic was authorized to take or enter possession of the property upon depositing with the Philippine National Bank an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for taxation purposes pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 42.

The complaint and subsequent motions repeatedly referred to compliance with Presidential Decree No. 42 (deposit requirement, proper notice, and filing for expropriation) and Presidential Decree No. 76 (sworn statement of the true value of the subject property for taxation purposes).
The assessed valuation for taxation, as computed, was initially set at P2,889.00. Later, an amended estimate determined that the value of improvements increased by P138.39, leading to a revised deposit requirement.

On November 10, 1976, the Republic filed a manifestation and motion indicating that it had deposited P5,848.00 (representing the assessed value for taxation and additional value of affected improvements) with the Philippine National Bank’s Pasig Branch, praying for an order allowing immediate possession.
Petitioners opposed the immediate possession claim, contending that the deposit requirement was not met and that an independent assessment under PD No. 76 was lacking.
On November 24, 1976, the lower court, respondent Judge Nelly L. Romero Valdellon, granted petitioners’ request by deferring the issuance of an order for immediate possession until compliance with both decrees could be shown.
The lower court conducted further proceedings, including an ocular inspection, and on December 8, 1976, continued to defer action to allow for an updated appraisal of damages.
On December 15, 1976, the Republic submitted an amended estimate reflecting an additional P138.39 increase in the appraisal. An opposition by petitioners to this motion was also filed.
Finally, on January 26, 1977, the judge issued the order, authorizing the Republic to take possession of the property upon the deposit of the additional P138.39, concluding that the procedural requirements of Presidential Decrees Nos. 42 and 76 had been complied with.

Petitioners argued that a prior hearing was necessary before the issuance of an immediate possession order, asserting that the deposit requirement alone was insufficient to preclude such a hearing.
Petitioners relied on previous case precedents (Urban Estates, Inc. v. Montesa and Republic of the Philippines v. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas) to argue for the necessity of a prior hearing.
The Solicitor General, representing the government, argued that all requisite procedures under the Presidential Decrees had been satisfied, thereby.

Whether the lower court, by issuing an order for immediate possession, acted exceeding its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; specifically:

Did the lower court properly implement the requirements set forth in Presidential Decree No. 42 in authorizing immediate possession upon deposit?
Is the petitioners’ insistence on a prior hearing before the issuance of immediate possession order legally tenable?
Do the precedents cited by the petitioners (Urban Estates, Inc. v. Montesa and Republic of the Philippines v. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas) support their contention for a mandatory prior hearing in expropriation proceedings?

Whether the compliance with the requirements of Presidential Decree No. 42 and No. 76, as evidenced by the deposit and notice procedures, precludes any judicial intervention regarding the order for immediate possession.