Title
Province of Pangasi vs. Presiding Judge, Branch VIII, Court of 1st Instance of Pangasi
Case
G.R. No. L-38587
Decision Date
Oct 28, 1977
Province of Pangasinan expropriated land for school use; delayed payment of just compensation; Supreme Court upheld execution order, ruling delay unjustified and violating constitutional mandate.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-38587)

Relevant Facts

The petition for expropriation was filed on July 10, 1963, with an order issued the following day by Judge Guillermo Dacumos, establishing a provisional value for the property at P1,050.48. After more than three years, a motion was submitted to withdraw part of this deposit, which was subsequently granted. However, it took the court more than five years, until December 9, 1971, to formally set the final just compensation for the property at P18,137.68, including interest, thereby recognizing the substantial delay in awarding compensation for the expropriated land.

Legal Basis for Compensation

Article III, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, echoed in the current Constitution, mandates that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." This fundamental principle underscores the court's obligation to ensure the payment of just compensation is made to owners whose property has been expropriated, highlighting the intrinsic link between eminent domain and due process.

Judicial Findings

The court dismissed the petition for certiorari brought forth by the Province, concluding that the arguments made were not valid and lacked merit. The petitioners contended that there was no final judgment regarding the order issued by Judge Domondon for lack of adequate descriptions concerning the property. However, the court reasoned that the description provided in both the earlier complaint and the order met the legal requisites, sufficient to identify the property being expropriated and the intended public use.

Conclusion on Petition's Validity

The court characterized the claim that the order was a "patent nullity" as exaggerated, based primarily on a misinterpretation of the procedural law provided in Section 13 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Despite acknowledging that the order could have had a more precise description, the court emphasized that the rights and obligations pertaining to just compensation must not be undermined by formal imperfections that do not affect the substance of the order. Ultimately, the court reaffirmed that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.