Title
Biglang-Awa vs. Bacalla
Case
G.R. No. 139927
Decision Date
Nov 22, 2000
Government expropriated petitioners' land for public use; writs of possession issued after deposit of assessed value. Compliance with E.O. 1035 not required under Rule 67. Petition dismissed.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139927)

Background of the Case

The petitioners, Remedios and Salvador Biglang-awa, owned parcels of land in Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City. The government required 558 sq. m. from Remedios’s property (T.C.T. No. RT-101389) and 881 sq. m. from Salvador’s property (T.C.T. No. RT-101390) for the Mindanao Avenue Extension project. On August 29, 1996, a notice from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was issued to Remedios, demanding necessary documents to determine just compensation. Following failure to comply with subsequent notices, the government filed expropriation cases against the petitioners.

Proceedings for Expropriation

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City initiated expropriation proceedings, to which the petitioners were summoned. They filed answers to the complaints on August 11, 1997. Subsequently, the DPWH deposited amounts for the petitioners' properties based on appraisals by the Quezon City Appraisal Committee. The DPWH later moved for the issuance of writs of possession, which the court granted despite the petitioners' failure to oppose.

Legal Argument of the Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the issuance of the writs of possession violated their right to due process, as the Republic failed to adhere to Executive Order No. 1035, specifically in conducting feasibility studies and other preparatory activities before expropriation. They argued that compliance with these requirements constituted a prerequisite to the issuance of writs of possession as per Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

Court's Ruling on Due Process

The court rejected the petitioners' argument, clarifying that the requirements for issuing a writ of possession are specifically governed by Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules. The court emphasized that while the cited activities in E.O. 1035 may be necessary prior to expropriation, they do not constitute conditions precedent for the issuance of a writ of possession once expropriation proceedings have commenced, as long as a deposit equivalent to the assessed value of the property is made.

Compliance with the Law

The court reiterated that per the relevant laws, the essential requirements for granting immediate possession in expropriation cases include the filing of a complaint and the subsequent deposit of the assessed value of the property. The trial court found no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writs of possession, as the required deposit had been made.

On the Petitioners' Counsel's Abandonment

The petitioners argued that they should not be held accountable for their former counsel's negligence, which resulted in their failure to file an opposition to the respondent's motions. However, the

...continue reading

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.