G.R. No. 146735 - Villamor vs. National Power Corp.

Petitioner Carlos D. Villamor faced an eminent domain action initiated by the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).
The disputed property consisted of a portion measuring 3,224 square meters taken from a 10,625 square meter lot located in Barangay Catipay, Carmen, Cebu.
NAPOCOR intended to install transmission lines for its 230 KV Leyte-Cebu Interconnection Project and, in connection therewith, sought expropriation of the property.

Initially, the RTC of Danao City, Branch 25, issued an order for the writ of possession on August 1, 1996, allowing immediate possession by NAPOCOR, based on an assessed value deposited with the Philippine National Bank.
NAPOCOR later amended its complaint (March 12, 1997) to cover two parcels of land with an aggregate area of 8,724 square meters.
On July 14, 1997, the RTC granted an ex parte motion for issuance of a writ of possession permitting immediate occupation.
A board of three commissioners was constituted to determine the amount of just compensation. Their report led the RTC, on December 22, 1997, to issue a decision condemning the affected portions of the lots and fixing compensation amounts for both the land and improvements.
Subsequent relief was sought by both parties:

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging, among other things, an omission in compensation (specifically a 15.23 square meter portion).
NAPOCOR filed its own Motion for Reconsideration seeking that compensation be computed based on tax declarations and under Section 3-A of Republic Act No. 6395.

The RTC modified its decision by resolution on January 22, 1998, amending the judgment to include an additional payment order, while later denying NAPOCOR’s Motion for Reconsideration on February 20, 1998.

NAPOCOR filed a Notice of Appeal on March 2, 1998, and the RTC subsequently transmitted the case records to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Petitioner filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal on March 16, 1998, which was granted by the RTC on May 12, 1998 based on its remaining jurisdiction (the records had not yet been transmitted to the appellate court).
Despite the granting of execution pending appeal, NAPOCOR moved for reconsideration contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction after perfecting its appeal; this motion was denied by a subsequent RTC resolution and a writ of execution was issued on June 24, 1998.
A Notice of Garnishment was served on July 10, 1998, targeting NAPOCOR’s assets to enforce the writ.
In response, NAPOCOR filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, seeking annulment of the RTC’s orders relating to execution pending appeal.
The CA, on November 23, 1999, granted NAPOCOR’s petition for certiorari and set aside the RTC’s execution orders, directing petitioner to pay NAPOCOR a specific sum with interest.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the CA, which was partially granted by a resolution on January 2, 2001, altering the order to direct NAPOCOR to pay petitioner a reduced amount with interest.

Holding that the RTC had lost jurisdiction to entertain a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal even though the records had not been transmitted at the time the motion was filed.
Finding no urgent need for immediate execution pending appeal.
Ruling that NAPOCOR’s appeal was not dilatory despite petitioner's assertions.

The petitioner’s central argument was that the RTC properly exercised residual jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal under Section 2, Rule 39, until all appeals were perfected by the parties.

Whether the RTC possessed residual jurisdiction to grant the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal given that not all appellate records had been transmitted.
Whether the filing of NAPOCOR’s notice of appeal automatically divested the RTC of jurisdiction over all pending motions, particularly that for execution pending appeal.

Whether there existed compelling circumstances or “good reasons” which justified the immediate execution of judgment before the expiration of the appeal period.
Whether the failure of NAPOCOR to contest the commissioner’s valuation or offer contrary evidence could be considered a sufficient basis for immediate execution.

Whether the CA correctly determined that NAPOCOR’s appeal was not dilatory.
Whether the trial court’s finding of urgency based on what was deemed a non-dilatory appeal was appropriate and within the scope of its discretionary power.

The proper interpretation and application of Section 2, Rule 39 and Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court in determining jurisdiction, execution pending appeal, and the timing of motions.
Whether the RTC’s issuance of execution pending appeal was in conformity with the requirement that such disposition be supported by articulable, good reasons stated in a special order.