Case Summary (G.R. No. 203882)
Applicable Law
This case primarily involves the Republic Act No. 8974 (RA 8974), which governs the expropriation of property for national government infrastructure projects. In this instance, it is applicable due to the economic zone being a national government project. The case highlights key provisions of RA 8974 that delineate the processes and requirements for expropriation, specifically regarding the payment of just compensation and the issuance of a writ of possession.
Factual Background
The petitioner, PEZA, is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under RA 7916, equipped with the powers of eminent domain. On January 15, 1979, Proclamation No. 1811 declared certain parcels of land in Lapu-Lapu City, including that of the respondents, as part of the Mactan Export Processing Zone. In 2001, PEZA sought to purchase the respondents' property for ₱1,100 per square meter, offering a total of ₱52,294,000. However, instead of accepting the offer, the respondents filed an unlawful detainer case against an investor leasing their property, prompting PEZA to initiate expropriation proceedings in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on August 27, 2001.
Procedural History
In the initial proceedings, PEZA sought a writ of possession by depositing 10% of the offered amount as stipulated by Administrative Order No. 50. The respondents countered by demanding compliance with RA 8974, which necessitated payment of 100% of the current zonal valuation upfront for the issuance of the writ of possession. The RTC initially agreed with the respondents, but reversed this decision upon PEZA's motion for reconsideration.
After further appeals and motions, the RTC ultimately reinstated its first order requiring payment per RA 8974. PEZA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC's orders, which eventually led to the current Supreme Court decision.
Main Issue
The central issue is whether RA 8974 is applicable in determining the amount of just compensation due to the respondents for the issuance of a writ of possession. While PEZA argued that A.O. No. 50 controlled the situation, the respondents maintained that RA 8974 governed their case.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8974 indeed governs the expropriation proceedings in this case as it was in effect when PEZA filed for expropriation. The Court clarified that the law applies to expropriation actions initiated for government projects and outlined that the payment of provisional value must be made based on the current zonal valuation as a prerequisite for obtaining a writ of possession.
The Court emphasi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 203882)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) against Spouses Agustin and Imelda Cancio concerning expropriation proceedings.
- The petition seeks to set aside the October 17, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 75092.
- PEZA is a government-owned and controlled corporation established under Republic Act No. 7916, with various governmental powers, including eminent domain.
Proclamation and Land Acquisition
- On January 15, 1979, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1811, reserving certain parcels of land in Lapu Lapu City for the establishment of the Mactan Export Processing Zone.
- Some of the lands reserved by the proclamation were private properties, including that of the Cancios.
- PEZA subsequently developed the economic zone and leased the Cancios' 47,540 square meter lot to an investor, Maitland Smith Inc.
Purchase Offer and Legal Proceedings
- On May 19, 2001, PEZA offered to purchase the Cancios' lot at a price of P1,100 per square meter, totaling P52,294,000, with a stipulation that if the offer was not accepted, expropriation proceedings would be initiated.
- The Cancios did not accept the offer and instead filed an unlawful detainer case against Maitland in the Municipal Trial Court of Lapu Lapu City.
- PEZA began expropriation proceedings on August 27, 2001, seeking a writ of possession fo