G.R. No. 33545 - Metropolitan Water District vs. De los Angeles

Case Summary (G.R. No. 33545)

Factual Background

The Metropolitan Water District was organized under Act No. 2832 to provide an adequate water supply to the City of Manila and nearby municipalities. The complaint sought to expropriate 171.8861 hectares of land in the municipality of Montalban, Province of Rizal, owned by Sixto de los Angeles et al., on the ground that the land was necessary for the Angat Waterworks System and specifically for the watershed. The record shows that the plaintiff entered and took possession of the land pursuant to a provisional deposit ordered by the trial court.

Trial Court Proceedings and Provisional Possession

On October 27, 1926, the trial court fixed the provisional value of the property at P2,000 and authorized the plaintiff to take possession upon deposit of that amount with the provincial treasurer of Rizal. The defendants answered November 9, 1926, denying the allegations and praying dismissal. On April 27, 1927, the court appointed three commissioners to view the premises, assess value and damages, and report.

Commissioners' Reports

On May 10, 1929, two commissioners, Jose M. Perez and Facundo San Agustin, reported a valuation of P58,750.60 for the land and P15,510 for improvements, totaling P74,260.60, and recommended six percent as damages and six percent interest per annum. The third commissioner, Emilio de la Paz, filed a separate report valuing the land at P79,717.25 and the improvements at P21,825, totaling P101,542.25, with damages and interest.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance

On January 6, 1930, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment adopting the recommendation of the majority commissioners. The court fixed the value of the land at P58,750.60 and the improvements at P15,510, ordered the plaintiff to pay those amounts with interest at six percent per annum from the date the plaintiff took possession, and assessed costs against the plaintiff. Both parties appealed from that judgment.

Appeal and Board Resolution to Abandon Expropriation

While the appeal was pending the Board of the Metropolitan Water District adopted Resolution No. 38, Series 1930, on July 14, 1930, authorizing the Acting Manager to request the Attorney-General to petition the proper court to quash the condemnation proceedings on the ground that the land was not indispensably necessary. Pursuant to that resolution the Attorney-General filed a petition dated July 17 and filed July 18, 1930, seeking permission for the Metropolitan Water District to discontinue the condemnation proceedings and to have the complaint dismissed.

Defendants' Opposition to Dismissal

The defendants vigorously opposed the Attorney-General's petition. They argued that dismissal would be unjust after nearly five years of litigation, during which the plaintiff had been in possession of the land and the defendants had incurred heavy expenses and suffered other consequences. The defendants contended that it was too late to withdraw after judgment and the perfection of appeals. They asked, however, that if dismissal were permitted, the record be returned to the lower court for determination of damages incurred by virtue of the proceeding.

Legal Principles Governing Dismissal and Eminent Domain

The Court reviewed the general rule that a plaintiff may dismiss his action with the court's consent, subject to well-defined exceptions, and cited City of Manila v. Ruymann, 37 Phil. 421, for the proposition that courts should consider the effect of dismissal upon defendants. The Court reiterated the fundamental premise that actions in eminent domain must be maintained only for a public use. It traced the legislative authority for condemnation in the Philippines to the first and second organic Acts and Act No. 190, sec. 241, and observed that the Metropolitan Water District's charter expressly granted condemnation powers under Act No. 2832.

Majority Reasoning and Ruling on Dismissal

The Court held that the paramount requirement for any expropriation action is that it be for a public use. The Court stated that if at any stage of the proceedings it appears that the taking is not for a public use, the action cannot be maintained and must be dismissed. Because the Metropolitan Water District, by formal resolution, admitted that the expropriation was no longer necessary for public use, the Court concluded that dismissal of the complaint was appropriate notwithstanding the pendency of appeal and the prior proceedings. The Court emphasized that the admission of lack of necessity could have been made in the trial court, but that the admission at the appellate stage compelled dismissal.

Conditions Imposed on Dismissal and Relief for Defendants

The Court granted the petition to dismiss, but imposed conditions to protect the defendants. First, the Court ordered that the record be returned to the lower court and that a writ of possession issue directing the petitioner to return possession of the land to the defendants immediately. Second, the Court permitted the defendants to have their damages determined either in the present action on remand or in a separate action, provided any such claim be presented within thirty days from the return of the record to the court of origin and notice thereof. The Court instructed the lower court, whether in the present or in a separate proceeding, to consider for purposes of damages: (1) loss resulting from dispossession; (2) loss from deprivation of use and occupation; (3) expenses incurred during the pendency, including attorneys' fees; (4) destruction of buildings, canals, and growing crops caused by the occupation; and (5) all other damages of whatever kind which the defendants could prove as occasioned by the institution of the present action. The Court awarded costs.

Dissenting Opinion

Justices Malcolm, Villamor, and Johns dissented. The dissenters observed that the motion to discontinue came

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 33545)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The plaintiff was Metropolitan Water District, a public corporation organized under Act No. 2832 with its central office in the City of Manila.
The defendants were Sixto de los Angeles et al., owners of the land sought to be expropriated.
The action was filed in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal on October 27, 1926.
The complaint sought condemnation of a parcel of land of 171.8861 hectares in Montalban, Rizal, alleged to be necessary for the Angat Waterworks System and its watershed.
The trial court provisionally fixed the value of the land at P2,000 and authorized the plaintiff to take possession upon deposit of P2,000 with the provincial treasurer on October 27, 1926.
The defendants filed an answer on November 9, 1926, denying the allegations of the complaint.
The trial court appointed three commissioners on April 27, 1927, namely Emilio de la Paz, Jose M. Perez and Facundo San Agustin, to hear the parties, view the premises, and fix the value and damages.
A majority report dated May 10, 1929 fixed the land at P58,750.60 and the improvements at P15,510, totaling P74,260.60, and recommended six percent interest and six percent damages, while a separate report by Emilio de la Paz fixed higher values totaling P101,542.25.
The Court of First Instance rendered judgment on January 6, 1930 in accordance with the majority report and awarded interest at six percent per annum, with costs against the plaintiff.
Both parties appealed from the judgment, and during the pendency of the appeal the Board of Metropolitan Water District resolved on July 14, 1930 to request the Attorney-General to petition for quashing the condemnation proceedings.
The Attorney-General filed a petition on July 18, 1930 seeking permission for the Metropolitan Water District to discontinue the condemnation proceedings and for dismissal of the complaint.

Key Factual Allegations

The plaintiff alleged that the subject land was indispensably necessary for the construction and watershed of the Angat Waterworks System.
The plaintiff had taken possession of the land under the provisional deposit authorized by the trial court.
The defendants alleged that they suffered dispossession, loss of rents and profits, destruction of improvements, and substantial litigation expenses during nearly five years of proceedings.
The plaintiff subsequently resolved that the land was not indispensably necessary for the maintenance and operation of its waterworks system and sought to discontinue the proceedings.

Statutory Framework

The power to exercise eminent domain originated in section 63 of the Organic Act of July 1, 1902, which authorized acquisition of real estate for public uses.
The second Organic Act of August 29, 1916 continued the Government of the Philippine Islands' power to exercise eminent domain by virtue of section 28.
Section 241 of Act No. 190 provided the statutory manner in which the Government or any corporation having the right to condemn private property was to exercise that right.
The condemnation power of Metropolitan Water District stemmed from its charter, Act No. 2832, and specifically from section 2, paragraph (k) as relied upon in the Attorney-General's petition.

Issues Presented

Whether the Metropolitan Water District could discontinue the condemnation proceedings and have the complaint dismissed after judgment in the trial court, after commissioners' reports, after taking possession, and after appeals had been perfected.
Whether the