Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45896:154614&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:06:42+00:00

Document:
THE CITY OF ILOILO, Represented by HON. JERRY P. TREÃ‘AS, City Mayor, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE EMILIO LEGASPI, Presiding Judge, RTC, Iloilo City, Branch 22, and HEIRS OF MANUELA YUSAY, Represented by SYLVIA YUSAY DEL ROSARIO and ENRIQUE YUSAY, JR., Respondents.
Via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, the City of Iloilo, represented by Mayor Jerry P. TreÃ±as, seeks the nullification and/or modification of the Order dated 05 June 2002 of Honorable Emilio Legaspi, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Iloilo City, denying its Motion for Reconsideration of the court's Order dated 15 April 2002, holding in abeyance the resolution of the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession until after it shall have rested its case.
Petitioner City of Iloilo, represented by Mayor Jerry P. TreÃ±as, filed an Amended Complaint4 for Eminent Domain against private respondents Heirs of Manuela Yusay, represented by Sylvia Yusay del Rosario and Enrique Yusay, Jr.5 The subject of the same is Lot No. 935 of the Cadastral Survey of Arevalo covered by TCT No. T-67506.
Private respondents filed an Answer,6 dated 25 September 2001, to which petitioner filed a Reply,7 dated 19 October 2001.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Benedicto is given ten (10) days from today within which to file an Opposition to the pending Motion For Issuance of Writ of Possession, furnishing copy of the same to plaintiff's counsel who has the same period to file a Reply.
A. THAT THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED MAY 9, 2002 AS CONTAINED IN ITS ORDER OF JUNE 5, 2002, AND IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF POSSESSION BE RESOLVED AFTER HEREIN PETITIONER HAS CONVINCED THE TRIAL COURT THAT IT HAS A MERITORIOUS CASE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2, RULE 67 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND DESPITE THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF "ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JUDGE JESUS V. QUITAIN, ET AL."
As to its Amended Complaint, petitioner maintains that the same is sufficient in form and substance since it has complied with Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 7160 (1991 Local Government Code) and Section 1, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It explains that since public respondent has ordered the parties to proceed with the Pre-Trial Conference and trial of the case, it can be concluded that the Amended Complaint is sufficient in form and substance.
In compliance with Section 19 of the 1991 Local Government Code, petitioner says it deposited the amount of P2,809,696.50 with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, which is equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property sought to be expropriated based on its current tax declaration. It further argues that in the cases of Robern Development Corporation v. Judge Jesus Quitain, et al.,24 and Salvador Biglang-Awa v. Hon. Judge Marciano I. Bacalla, et al.,25 the duty to issue a Writ of Possession becomes a ministerial duty upon the trial court without necessity of a hearing once the provisional deposit under Section 2 of Rule 6726 has been complied with.
In its Reply, petitioner avers that the order of 15 April 2002 became final only after fifteen (15) days from the time the same was received by it on 26 April 2002, and not fifteen (15) days from the time the order was made in open court on 15 April 2002.
Petitioner argues that there is nothing in the rules which prohibits it from reversing its position with respect to the issuance of the writ of possession in light of Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which allows taking immediate possession of property sought to be expropriated upon compliance with said section. Further, it adds that its stand to seek immediate possession of the property is supported by the Robern and Biglang-awa cases.
It insists that there is no waiver or estoppel on its part. There is no provision of law which sets a time limit within which to file a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. It reiterated that the sufficiency of the form and substance of the Amended Complaint can be determined and resolved by the lower court through an examination of the allegations contained therein and if the same complies with the requisites set forth in Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 7160 and Section 1 of Rule 67.28 Thus, there is no necessity of a trial before the lower court can resolve the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Possession.
Finally, it argues that the Filstream29 cases are not applicable. It adds that the provisions of Rep. Act No. 7279 which private respondents allege as not to have been complied with are not conditions precedent for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
We first rule on the issue of whether the Order dated 15 April 2002, which was dictated in open court, was already final when petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 09 May 2002. Petitioner maintains that the motion for reconsideration was filed before the order became final fifteen (15) days from the time it received a copy thereof in writing, and not from the time the same was dictated in open court as claimed by private respondents.
In the case at bar, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was filed before the 15 April 2002 order became final. The order dictated in open court had no juridical existence before it is set in writing, signed, promulgated and served on the parties. Since the order orally pronounced in court had no juridical existence yet, the period within which to file a motion for reconsideration cannot be reckoned therefrom, but from the time the same was received in writing. Petitioner had fifteen (15) days from its receipt of the written order on 26 April 2002 within which to file a motion for reconsideration. Thus, when it filed the motion for reconsideration on 09 May 2002, the said motion was timely filed.
Sec. 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
In the case at bar, petitioner avers that the Amended Complaint it filed complies with both requisites, thus entitling it to a writ of possession as a matter of right and the issuance thereof becoming ministerial on the part of the lower court even without any hearing. On the other hand, private respondents allege that the Amended Complaint is not sufficient in form and substance since it failed to allege compliance with the mandatory requirements for the exercise of the power of eminent domain for purposes of socialized housing.
Section 1. The complaint. - The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of a verified complaint which shall state with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation, describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part hereof or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of each defendant. If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to that effect shall be made in the complaint.
The Court finds the Amended Complaint sufficient in form and substance, and the amount of P2,809,696.50 deposited with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo is equivalent to fifteen percent (15%)33 of the fair market value of the property sought to be expropriated per current tax declaration.
On the averment of private respondents that the Amended Complaint failed to allege compliance with the mandatory requirements34 for the exercise of the power of eminent domain for purposes of socialized housing as interpreted in the Filstream cases, it appears that the Amended Complaint did contain allegations showing compliance therewith.35 However, whether there is, indeed, compliance with these requirements, the Court deems it not proper to resolve the issue at this time. Hearing must be held to establish compliance.
In City of Manila v. Serrano,36 this Court ruled that "hearing is still to be held to determine whether or not petitioner indeed complied with the requirements provided in Rep. Act No. 7279. x x x The determination of this question must await the hearing on the complaint for expropriation, particularly the hearing for the condemnation of the properties sought to be expropriated." From the foregoing, it is clear that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted if compliance with the requirements for socialized housing has been made. This hearing, however, is not a hearing to determine if a writ of possession is to be issued, but whether there was compliance with the requirements for socialized housing.
For a writ of possession to issue, only two requirements are required: the sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint and the required provisional deposit. In fact, no hearing is required for the issuance of a writ of possession. The sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint for expropriation can be determined by the mere examination of the allegations of the complaint. In this case, the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint was further confirmed by public respondent when he set the case for pre-trial and hearing.
We likewise find private respondents' claim that petitioner cannot change its position regarding the immediate issuance of the writ of possession on the ground of estoppel, to be untenable.
First, estoppel may be successfully invoked only if the party fails to raise the question in the early stages of the proceedings.37 In the case before us, petitioner, through its counsel, undeniably committed a mistake when it agreed that the resolution of its Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession be made by public respondent after a hearing is conducted and after it has adduced its evidence. To remedy this, petitioner immediately filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The filing thereof was precisely for the purpose of rectifying the error it committed. With the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration, petitioner cannot be held in estoppel because it right away asked the court to nullify the agreement it entered into. The filing of the motion for reconsideration which was done at the earliest possible time clearly negates the presence of estoppel.
Second, under the facts of the case, estoppel should not apply because petitioner is simply following the procedure laid down by the rules and jurisprudence. Under Section 1938 of Rep. Act No. 7160 (law governing exercise of eminent domain by local government units [LGU]) and Section 239 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (law governing exercise of eminent domain by entities other than LGUs), and in the cases of Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain, et al., and Biglang-awa v. Bacalla, et al., a prior hearing is not required before a writ of possession can be issued. As above discussed, a complaint, sufficient in form and substance, and the required deposit, are the only requirements before a writ of possession can be issued. Thus, petitioner should not be prevented from changing and correcting its position when the same is in accord with the rules and jurisprudence.
Private respondents argue that petitioner waived its right to ask for the immediate possession of Lot No. 935 since it took the latter eight (8) months and twelve (12) days from the filing of the Amended Complaint, and nine (9) months and thirteen (13) days from the filing of the Original Complaint, before it filed the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession.
Petitioner did not waive its right. Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 7160 does not put a time limit as to when a local government may immediately take possession of the real property. Said section provides that the local government unit may take immediate possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on its current tax declaration. As long as the expropriation proceedings have been commenced and the deposit has been made, the local government unit cannot be barred from praying for the issuance of a writ of possession.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders of respondent judge in Civil Case No. 01-26801 dated 05 June 2002 and 15 April 2002 are set aside. Respondent Judge is directed to issue the writ of possession prayed for and to continue hearing the case. No costs.
4 Original Complaint was not appended.
19 G.R. No. 135042, 23 September 1999, 315 SCRA 150.
25 G.R. NOS. 139927-139936, 22 November 2000, 345 SCRA 562.
26 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
27 G.R. NOS. 125218 and 128077, 23 January 1998, 248 SCRA 716.
28 Rules of Civil Procedure.
30 Echaus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57343, 23 July 1990, 187 SCRA 672, 674.
31 Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, 30 April 2003, 402 SCRA 440; citing Biglang-awa v. Bacalla, supra.
32 City of Manila v. Serrano, G.R. No. 142304, 20 June 2001, 359 SCRA 231.
33 As petitioner is a local government unit, the basis for the amount of the deposit before it can take possession of the property is Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 7160 and not Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (See III Oscar Herrera, Remedial Law, p. 317 [1999 Ed.]).
34 Sections 9 and 10, Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Republic Act No. 7279).
Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply, the local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site development of government lands.
SEC. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. - The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided, further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act: Provided, finally, That abandoned property, as herein defined, shall be reverted and escheated to the State in a proceeding analogous to the procedure laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court.
36 Supra, note 32 at 239-240.
37 Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128567, 01 September 2000, 339 SCRA 534.
38 Sec. 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
39 SEC. 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government depositary. - Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government depositary.
(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7 hereof; . .

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.