G.R. No. 135042 - Robern Development Corp. vs. Quitain

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135042)

Procedural Posture

Robern sought certiorari and preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals to annul RTC orders that denied its Motion to Dismiss, granted NPC’s Motion for issuance of a Writ of Possession, and authorized NPC’s entry. The Court of Appeals dismissed Robern’s petition and upheld the RTC orders and the Writ of Possession. Robern then filed a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision and resolution.

Undisputed Facts

Facts Established by the Record

Robern owns the parcels; NPC seeks to expropriate portions totaling 17,746.50 sq. m. for the Mantanao-New-Loon 138 KV Transmission Line Project.
NPC filed a verified complaint for eminent domain on June 6, 1997. Robern filed a Motion to Dismiss (rather than an answer) asserting jurisdictional defects, lack of board approval and improper verification, prematurity, prior commitment of land to low-cost housing, availability of alternative lots, and that only an easement was sought.
NPC filed a Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Possession and deposited P6,121.20 with PNB (documented July 9, 1997).
RTC denied Robern’s Motion to Dismiss (Order Aug. 13, 1997), denied reconsideration (Order Sept. 11, 1997), issued the Writ of Possession (Sept. 19, 1997) and NPC entered and occupied the property (Nov. 5, 1997) before further RTC action.

Issues Presented

Issues Raised by Petitioner

The petition framed multiple issues, consolidated by the Court into two principal questions: (1) whether the complaint was dismissible on its face for lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, and noncompliance with RA 6395; and (2) whether the Writ of Possession was validly issued given the absence of a hearing to determine the provisional deposit.

Court of Appeals Rulings

Rulings of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals: (a) held that verification and certification by a person other than the president/general manager of NPC was not a fatal jurisdictional defect and that authorization and verification issues were evidentiary matters for trial; (b) found that factual questions (e.g., prior commitment for housing, arbitrariness of property choice, whether only an easement was sought) required evidence at trial; (c) concluded the writ was properly issued because NPC deposited an amount equivalent to the assessed value per Section 2, Rule 67, 1997 Rules; and (d) deemed certiorari inappropriate because the questioned orders were not final and were appealable.

Supreme Court—Governing Rule and Impact on Prior Doctrine

Governing Rule 67 (1997) and Its Effect on Earlier Doctrine

The Supreme Court recognized that the 1997 revision of Rule 67 governs expropriation proceedings that arose after its effectivity. The revision produced three principal changes relative to prior doctrine: (1) a defendant’s responsive pleading in eminent domain is an answer (not a special omnibus motion to dismiss as formerly required); (2) once plaintiff deposits an amount equivalent to the assessed value with the authorized government depositary, the court’s issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial and not subject to a preliminary hearing fixing a provisional deposit; and (3) a final order of expropriation that extinguishes defenses may not be issued prior to a full hearing and resolution of the property owner’s objections and defenses.

Verification, Certification, and Jurisdiction

Verification, Certification, and Jurisdictional Defects

The Court held that the verification and the certificate against forum shopping signed by Atty. Nemesio S. CaAete—identified as NPC’s acting regional legal counsel for Mindanao and joined by other NPC in-house counsel—were sufficient in form. Lack of strict compliance with formal verification requirements is generally not jurisdictional or fatal; verification primarily assures the truthfulness of allegations and the certificate of non-forum shopping prevents duplicative litigation. Administrative Circular No. 04-94 and related formalities are mandatory but not jurisdictional. Questions as to board approval or authority of signatories are evidentiary and to be resolved at trial.

Corporate Authority and Prematurity

Corporate Authority to Sue and Prematurity Objection

The Court ruled the complaint need not expressly allege board approval under Rule 67; corporate authorization is a factual matter for trial. Petitioner’s arguments that NPC lacked standing or that the complaint was premature because local government approvals had not been secured were rejected as not constituting facial defects warranting dismissal. Compliance with Rule 67 and prevailing expropriation jurisprudence is the operative standard; prematurity and similar factual defenses are to be raised in the answer and proved with evidence.

Defenses and the Proper Responsive Pleading

Defenses, Objections, and the Requirement to Answer

Under the 1997 Rule 67, issues formerly raised by the omnibus motion to dismiss are now affirmative defenses to be presented in the answer with the attendant opportunity for evidence. Because the new rules took effect July 1, 1997, and procedural rules apply to pending actions where subsequent proceedings occur after their effectivity, Robern should have been given the opportunity to file an answer instead of having the complaint dismissed on those grounds. Dismissal without trial when material issues require evidentiary resolution would be a denial of due process.

Order of Expropriation and Final Determination

Order of Expropriation and the Court’s Clarification

The Supreme Court clarified that a court should not issue a final order of expropriation that forecloses further objections when there remain defenses and factual issues necessitating a full hearing—specifically, issues about authorization, prior public commitment of the land, arbitrariness of the choice, and whether only an easement (not full taking) is involved. Section 4, Rule 67 contemplates that the trial court overrule objections only after the objections and defenses have been addressed; issuing a final condemnation order prematurely is erroneous.

Writ of Possession: Legal Basis and Deposit Requirement

Writ of Possession: Deposit, Ministerial Issuance, and Deposit Shortfall

The Court analyzed the evolution of law on immediate entry: earlier presidential decrees mandated deposits equivalent to assessed values or percentages thereof; later jurisprudence (Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay and other rulings) declared some decree provisions unconstitutional to the extent they precluded judicial determination of just compensation. The 1997 revision of Rule 67 reinstated a procedure allowing immediate possession upon deposit with the authorized government depositary of an amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation purposes; after such deposit the court shall order the sheriff to place plaintiff in possession. Because NPC filed its Motion for Writ of Possession on July 28, 1997, the 1997 Rule applied and the writ issuance was ministerial once the assessed-value deposit requirement was met. However, the Court found NPC’s actual deposit (P6,121.20) insufficient; the correct provisional deposit com

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 135042)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition under Rule 45 challenging: (a) the Court of Appeals Decision promulgated February 27, 1998 and its Resolution promulgated July 23, 1998 in CA-GR SP-46002 that dismissed Robern Development Corporation's petition for certiorari and preliminary injunction; and (b) the effective affirmation of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Davao City, Branch 15 Orders dated August 13, 1997; September 11, 1997; November 5, 1997; and the Writ of Possession dated September 19, 1997, all issued in Civil Case No. 25356-97.
The Court of Appeals disposed of the petition by ordering it dismissed and denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of compelling reason and because the arguments had already been considered and passed upon.
Supreme Court action: review en banc of the issues raised by petitioner, with the Court ultimately affirming the Court of Appeals decision but granting specific modifications and relief in the interest of substantial justice.

Undisputed Facts

Robern Development Corporation is the registered owner of parcels of land totaling 97,371.00 square meters, of which 17,746.50 square meters are the subject of the expropriation.
The National Power Corporation (NPC) seeks expropriation for construction of the Mantanao-New-Loon 138 KV Transmission Line Project affecting 17,746.50 sq. m. of Robern's land; the property forms part of a proposed low-cost housing project in Inawayan, Binugao, Toril, Davao City.
NPC filed a Complaint for Eminent Domain on June 6, 1997 (docketed Civil Case No. 25,356-97, raffled to RTC Davao City, Br. 15).
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss (dated June 30, 1997) instead of an answer, asserting jurisdictional defects, improper signatory to verification and certification, prematurity because the land was intended for low-cost housing, and arbitrariness in choice of property.
NPC filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession (dated July 28, 1997). NPC deposited P6,121.20 at Philippine National Bank, Davao Branch (PNB Savings Account No. 385-560728-9), with the deposit evidenced as having been made on July 9, 1997.
RTC orders: August 13, 1997 order denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss and set pre-trial; September 11, 1997 order denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and granted NPC's request to issue a writ of possession; writ of possession issued September 19, 1997 commanding immediate placement of NPC in possession and ejection of adverse occupants; NPC implemented entry and occupied the disputed property on November 5, 1997 before counsel for petitioner received any trial court order directing implementation.

Petitioner’s Principal Contentions

The RTC order dated September 11, 1997 directing issuance of a Writ of Possession is unconstitutional, irregular, arbitrary, and despotic.
The Complaint is dismissible on its face for lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, and noncompliance with RA 6395 (NPC charter).
The Court of Appeals made findings not borne out by the Complaint and thus exceeded jurisdiction.
The selection of the property for expropriation is arbitrary.

Court of Appeals Rulings (Summarized)

The verification and certification by someone other than the president or general manager of NPC is not a fatal jurisdictional defect; allegations that NPC has the right of eminent domain suffice in form; questions of authorization are evidentiary and for trial.
Whether the property was already dedicated to low-cost housing or whether the choice was arbitrary are factual issues requiring evidence at trial.
Allegation that NPC sought only an easement of right-of-way does not preclude expropriation; NPC charter (Section 3-A) allows acquisition of an easement or the land itself if servitude would injure the land.
Issuance of the Writ of Possession was proper because NPC complied with Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by depositing an amount equivalent to the assessed value with PNB.
Certiorari was not the proper remedy because the order sustaining NPC's right to expropriate was not final and could be appealed.

Supreme Court Holding — Overview

The Court of Appeals was correct in most of its rulings, but in the interest of substantial justice Robern should be allowed to file an answer.
Key holdings: (1) expropriation proceedings arising under the 1997 Rules are governed by revised Rule 67 effective July 1, 1997; (2) earlier doctrines inconsistent with the 1997 Rule are deemed reversed or modified; and (3) while a writ of possession may be issued following deposit required by the 1997 Rule, a final order of expropriation may not be issued prior to full hearing and resolution of objections and defenses.

Governing Procedural Rule and Its Legal Effects

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (effective July 1, 1997) revised Rule 67; procedural rules apply to proceedings taking place after the rules' effectivity and to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.
Specific consequences of the 1997 revision:
- Section 1 of Rule 67 requires a verified complaint stating the right and purpose of expropriation and description of property, but does not require express board approval of a corporation in the complaint; authorization by the board is an evidentiary matter for trial.
- Section 3 of Rule 67 replaces the old provision allowing a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer; defenses and objections must now be raised in an answer within the time stated in the summons, identifying the property interest and adducing objections and defenses.
- Section 2 of Rule 67 (1997) allows the plaintiff to enter upon depositing with an authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation; after deposit the court shall order the sheriff to place plaintiff in possession and report to the court.

Analysis — Verification, Certification, and Jurisdictional Defect Claims

Verification ensures allegations are made in good faith and are true and correct; lack of strict formal compliance is generally a non-jurisdictional, correctable defect.
Certificate of non-forum-shopping requires representation that no similar action is pending; it is mandatory but not jurisdictional.
Atty. Nemesio S. CaAete, who signed verification/certificate, was the acting regional legal counsel o