G.R. No. 176487; August 25, 2009
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways, Petitioner, vs. Far East Enterprises, Inc., Arsol Management Corporation, Maria Christina C. Bernasconi, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The Republic, through the DPWH, filed a complaint for eminent domain to acquire portions of land in Nasugbu, Batangas, for the Ternate-Nasugbu-Tali Batangas Road project. The Republic offered to deposit ₱2.233 million based on the zonal valuation of the properties. The respondents, the landowners, contested the offered amount as grossly inadequate. They presented evidence, including a Deed of Absolute Sale for a nearby property indicating a price of ₱600 per square meter, to support their claim for higher compensation.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), after a hearing, issued a Resolution requiring the Republic to make an additional provisional deposit of ₱425 per square meter, increasing the total deposit to approximately ₱14.8 million, before a writ of possession could be issued. The Republic filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering an additional deposit not based on the zonal value. The CA dismissed the petition, upholding the RTC’s order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner to make an additional provisional deposit based on evidence presented by the landowners, rather than strictly on the zonal valuation.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, which governs the issuance of a writ of possession in national government infrastructure projects. The Court clarified that while the law requires an initial deposit based on the relevant zonal valuation, this does not preclude the trial court from determining, after summary hearing, whether a higher provisional value is warranted to serve as the “full payment” necessary for the writ.
The RTC’s order for an additional deposit was not a final determination of just compensation, which remains subject to a full trial. It was a provisional measure to ensure the deposit approximates a potentially fair market value, thereby safeguarding the landowners’ constitutional right to just compensation from the outset. The RTC based its order on evidence, including a recent sale document, which provided a reasonable basis distinct from mere zonal value. This exercise of discretion, aimed at preventing a manifestly inadequate deposit, was not arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical and therefore did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the provisional value is merely an advance deposit, and the final just compensation will be adjudicated in the main expropriation proceedings.