Case Summary (B.M. No. 139)
Initiation of Expropriation Proceedings
On June 5, 2001, the Republic filed a Verified Complaint for Expropriation against the Heirs of Fernandez and another property owner. The Republic sought to acquire the properties for the construction of a four-lane highway, asserting that negotiations for purchase were unsuccessful and indicating that adjacent properties were already acquired. The petition included a request for a Writ of Possession upon the deposit of the property's value, provisionally set at a maximum of P50.00 per square meter.
Respondents' Opposition
The Heirs of Fernandez acknowledged the utility of the highway project but contested the necessity of expropriating their property, arguing that the Republic had not complied with statutory requirements outlined in Republic Act No. 8974. They disputed the proposed compensation, asserting that the actual fair market value was P1,200.00 per square meter.
Court Proceedings and Findings
During pre-trial, no stipulation of facts was established. The trial court allowed the Republic to take possession of the property on February 21, 2002, based on a check representing a deposit of P167,475.00. The Heirs filed subsequent motions disputing the order due to alleged lack of proper notification and called for the nullification of the February Order.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the trial court's decision on August 25, 2006, ruling that the Republic failed to meet the requirements of Republic Act No. 8974 before taking possession. The appellate court acknowledged the justification for the highway project but emphasized due process principles, affirming the necessity of complying with procedural statutory guidelines.
Evaluation of Compensation Valuation
The appellate court further analyzed the evidence presented regarding the zonal valuation. The Republic's evidence indicated a valuation of P15.00 per square meter for pastureland, whereas the Heirs contended the valuation should be P50.00 per square meter as agricultural land. The appellate court sided with the Heirs, asserting the necessity for the Republic to pay 100% of the correct zonal value prior to obtaining a Writ of Possession.
Legal Framework and Requirements for Expropriation
According to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, before expropriation, an implementing agency must pay the property owner an amount corresponding to 100% of the property’s zonal valuation and present a certificate of availability of funds before a Writ of Possession is issued. The Act mandates immediate payment as part of safeguarding property owner rights during the expropriation process.
Conclusion on Legal Compliance
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, reiterat
...continue readingCase Syllabus (B.M. No. 139)
Case Background
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Petitioner) against the Heirs of Gabriel Q. Fernandez (Respondents) concerning an expropriation proceeding.
- The property in question is an 11,165-square-meter lot in Barangay Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan, owned by the Heirs of Fernandez and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-139051.
- The Republic, on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Highways, sought to expropriate the property to construct a four-lane highway, alleging necessity for the project after its offer to purchase was refused.
Procedural History
- The Republic initiated expropriation proceedings by filing a Verified Complaint on June 5, 2001, requesting a Writ of Possession contingent upon a deposit of the property’s value.
- The Heirs of Fernandez contested the expropriation, claiming that the Republic had not complied with the requirements set forth in Republic Act No. 8974 and its Implementing Rules.
- The trial court issued an Order allowing the Republic to take possession of the property after a deposit of P167,475.00, which the Heirs contested.
Appeals and Court of Appeals' Decision
- The Heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the expropriation was unnecessary due to existing roads, and that they had been denied due process.
- On August 25, 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's Order allowing possession, ci