G.R. No. L-40108 August 31, 1984
CESAR B. HAGUISAN, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE OSTERVALDO Z. EMILIA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch VI-Himamaylan, and MARINDUQUE MINING AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cesar B. Haguisan is the registered owner of a parcel of coconut land in Cauayan, Negros Occidental. Private respondent Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation, a mining corporation, is constructing a pier in Barrio Bulata, Cauayan, to support its increased mineral production. A portion of Haguisan’s land falls within the construction site. After failed negotiations to acquire the property, the corporation filed an expropriation complaint, alleging it possessed the power of eminent domain under Presidential Decree No. 463 (The Mineral Resources Decree) and tendered the assessed value of P17,500.00 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 42.
Respondent Judge issued an Order dated January 16, 1975, fixing the provisional value at the assessed amount and, upon deposit, authorizing the corporation’s immediate possession. After the deposit was made, a second Order dated January 27, 1975, directed the sheriff to place the corporation in possession. Haguisan filed a motion to dismiss and subsequently instituted this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to annul the said orders and halt further proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing the orders granting immediate possession of the property to the private respondent upon deposit of its assessed value.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondent Judge acted within his jurisdiction and in accordance with law. The legal logic is anchored on the explicit provisions of Presidential Decree No. 42, which governs the procedure for immediate possession in expropriation cases. The decree mandates that upon the filing of the complaint and the deposit of an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession. No prior hearing on the necessity of the expropriation is required by the decree; only notice to the owner is necessary. In this case, it was undisputed that Haguisan was notified via summons.
The Court found that the respondent Judge correctly fixed the provisional value at the assessed value of P17,500.00, as stated in Haguisan’s own Declaration of Real Property, and that the corporation complied with the deposit requirement. The assailed orders were therefore legally sound. Haguisan’s substantive arguments—questioning the genuine necessity, the validity of the expropriation claim, and the public purpose of the pier facilities—were deemed matters to be properly ventilated during the trial on the merits in the lower court, not proper subjects for certiorari where no jurisdictional error or grave abuse was present. The extraordinary writs were thus unavailable.