GR 139936; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 139927 and 139936; November 22, 2000
SALVADOR BIGLANG-AWA and REMEDIOS BIGLANG-AWA, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE MARCIANO I. BACALLA and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS), respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners are registered owners of parcels of land in Quezon City needed by the government for the Mindanao Avenue Extension project. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) sent notices to the petitioners to submit documents for just compensation determination. Upon the petitioners’ failure to comply with final notices, the Republic filed separate expropriation cases. The respondent court, after the Republic deposited the appraised amounts with the Land Bank, granted the motions for issuance of writs of possession. The petitioners, through new counsel, moved for reconsideration, arguing the Republic failed to comply with the substantive pre-expropriation requirements of Executive Order No. 1035, such as conducting feasibility studies and an information campaign.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writs of possession despite alleged non-compliance with Executive Order No. 1035.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled there was no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between the substantive right of eminent domain and the procedural requirements for its exercise. Compliance with EO 1035, which outlines preparatory activities like feasibility studies, is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the court to authorize the taking of property or to issue a writ of possession. The court’s authority in expropriation proceedings is governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 2 of Rule 67, upon the filing of the complaint and after deposit of the provisional value determined by the government, the plaintiff is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right. The issuance becomes a ministerial duty of the court. The petitioners’ claim of non-compliance with EO 1035 pertains to administrative procedures directed at the implementing agency (DPWH) and does not affect the court’s ministerial function to issue the writ once the deposit is made. The Court further noted that the petitioners were not prejudiced by their former counsel’s failure to oppose the motion for the writ, as any such opposition on these grounds would not have legally prevented its issuance.