G.R. No. 124779 November 29, 2005
DANILO ANTONIO, et al., Petitioners, vs. HON. ISAGANI A. GERONIMO, in his Capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal; and ALEXANDER CATOLOS, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Alexander Catolos, the registered owner of four parcels of land in Antipolo, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioners, who were occupying the properties. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Catolos, ordering petitioners to vacate and awarding compensation for use and attorney’s fees. A writ of demolition was subsequently issued and partially implemented. During this period, the Sangguniang Bayan of Antipolo passed resolutions authorizing the municipal mayor to acquire the subject properties through expropriation for socialized housing and informed the MTC of this intent, requesting a hold on the demolition.
Petitioners filed a motion to stay execution, invoking Commonwealth Act No. 538 (CA 538), which provides for the automatic suspension of ejectment actions when the government intends to acquire the land through expropriation. They argued the municipal resolutions constituted the required government advice of intent to acquire. The MTC denied the motion, reasoning that no formal expropriation complaint had been filed in court and petitioners had not complied with CA 538’s requirement to pay or deposit current rents. The demolition proceeded, leading petitioners to file this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to stay execution and in ruling that the municipal resolutions did not trigger the suspension mechanism under Commonwealth Act No. 538 .

RULING

No, the MTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that expropriation is a formal judicial process. Commonwealth Act No. 538 , Section 2, explicitly states that the government action “shall be considered as instituted” from either the filing of a complaint for expropriation in court or from the time a competent authority advises the owner in writing of the intention to acquire. The Court ruled that the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions, while expressing an intent, were merely preliminary and did not constitute the requisite formal written advice from a “competent authority” to the landowner, which is a necessary condition to suspend ejectment. The competent authority under the law is the entity vested with the power of eminent domain, and the advice must be a direct, definitive communication to the property owner, not a general legislative declaration. Furthermore, petitioners failed to fulfill a mandatory condition under CA 538 by not paying or depositing the current rents, which alone justified the denial of the suspension. The MTC’s order was thus in accordance with law and not tainted with arbitrariness.