G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q. FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The respondents, Heirs of Gabriel Q. Fernandez, are the owners of an 11,165-square-meter property in Balanga, Bataan. On June 5, 2001, the Republic of the Philippines, on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Highways, filed a Verified Complaint for Expropriation to acquire the property for the construction of a four-lane highway. The Republic alleged its offer to purchase was refused and prayed for a Writ of Possession upon deposit of the provisionally ascertained value, which it suggested should not exceed P50.00 per square meter. The Heirs admitted the utility of the project but disputed the necessity of expropriating their property, arguing the Republic must first comply with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974 and its Implementing Rules. They claimed the fair market value was P1,200.00 per square meter. The Republic filed a Motion/Manifestation stating it had offered P35.00 per square meter, later increased to P50.00, and was ready to deposit P167,475.00 based on a zonal value of P15.00 per square meter. On February 21, 2002, the trial court issued an Order allowing the Republic to take possession upon its deposit of P167,475.00. The Heirs filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to nullify this Order, alleging lack of service of the Republic’s motion and the court’s order. On May 22, 2002, the trial court affirmed its earlier order, found a lawful right to take the property, and appointed commissioners to determine just compensation. The Heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on August 25, 2006, set aside the authorization for the Republic to take possession, finding the deposit amount incorrect, but affirmed the appointment of commissioners. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Writ of Possession for the Republic’s failure to comply with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974.
2. Whether the reversal of the Writ of Possession by the Court of Appeals was effectively an injunction against the Republic from proceeding with the expropriation.

RULING

The Petition is denied.
1. The Court of Appeals did not err. A Writ of Possession for a national government infrastructure project may be issued only upon full compliance with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974. This requires the implementing agency, upon filing the complaint and after due notice, to immediately pay the property owner an amount equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant BIR zonal valuation, plus the value of improvements. The Republic’s deposit of P167,475.00 was based on a zonal value of P15.00 per square meter for “pastureland.” However, evidence, including the Republic’s own exhibit (the tax declaration of Gabriel Q. Fernandez), showed the property was classified as “1st agricultural land” with a zonal value of P50.00 per square meter. Therefore, the correct deposit should have been 100% of P558,250.00 (11,165 sqm x P50.00). The Republic’s failure to deposit the correct amount based on the proper zonal valuation warranted the setting aside of the Writ of Possession.
2. The reversal by the Court of Appeals was not a prohibited injunction under Republic Act No. 8975. The Court of Appeals’ decision was a final ruling on the invalidity of the Writ of Possession due to non-compliance with the law, not a provisional remedy like a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Its decision did not enjoin the expropriation proceedings but correctly required compliance with the mandatory deposit under Republic Act No. 8974 as a precondition for the issuance of a writ of possession.