GR 172243; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172243 , June 26, 2007
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll Regulatory Board, petitioner, vs. Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation and Sy Chi Siong and Co., Inc., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Republic through the Toll Regulatory Board, filed a complaint for expropriation to acquire parcels of land owned by the respondents to widen the Balintawak Toll Plaza of the North Luzon Expressway, a public purpose. After depositing the zonal value with the Land Bank, the petitioner moved for a writ of possession, which the trial court granted. The respondents did not contest the petitioner’s right to expropriate or the public purpose. The petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Issuance of Order of Expropriation and Appointment of Commissioners.
The Regional Trial Court, while finding the motion meritorious, deferred the issuance of an order of expropriation. It ruled that just compensation must first be determined and paid before such an order could be issued. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether a final determination and payment of just compensation is a prerequisite for the issuance of an order of expropriation.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower courts. The legal logic is anchored on the proper procedural stages of expropriation under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The proceedings involve two distinct stages: first, the determination of the plaintiff’s lawful right to expropriate the property for a public purpose, and second, the ascertainment of just compensation.
The issuance of an order of expropriation, which declares the plaintiff’s right to take the property, concludes the first stage. This order can and should be issued once the court is satisfied of the public purpose and the right to expropriate, which was uncontested here. Payment of just compensation is not a condition precedent for this order. Section 4, Rule 67 explicitly allows a defendant to appeal from the order of expropriation, and such an appeal does not suspend the court’s determination of just compensation.
The Court clarified that it is the actual transfer of title, not the issuance of the expropriation order, that is contingent upon payment. Section 5, Rule 67 further supports this sequence by stating that commissioners to ascertain just compensation are appointed “[u]pon the rendition of the order of expropriation.” Thus, the trial court committed a reversible error by conflating the two stages and delaying the order. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to issue the order of expropriation immediately.