GR 33545; (March, 1931) (Digest)
G.R. No. 33545; March 7, 1931
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SIXTO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The Metropolitan Water District, a public corporation, filed an expropriation case to acquire a 171-hectare land in Montalban, Rizal, for the Angat Waterworks System. The trial court fixed provisional compensation, allowed the plaintiff to take possession, and appointed commissioners. The majority commissioners valued the land and improvements at P74,260.60. The trial court adopted this valuation. Both parties appealed: the plaintiff claiming the valuation was excessive, and the defendants claiming it was too low and that they were entitled to additional damages. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff, through a board resolution and a petition by the Attorney-General, moved to dismiss the case, alleging the land was no longer indispensably necessary. The defendants opposed, arguing dismissal after years of litigation and plaintiff’s possession would be unjust, and requested that if dismissal were granted, the case be remanded for determination of their damages.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the expropriation proceedings at the appellate stage after a judgment on compensation has been rendered and the plaintiff has taken possession of the property.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. The right to dismiss an action is not absolute, especially in expropriation cases where the defendant’s rights must be considered. Here, the plaintiff had already taken possession of the land under court authority, and the case had progressed through trial, judgment, and appeal over several years. To permit dismissal at this late stage would be inequitable, as it would deprive the landowners of compensation for the taking and occupation of their property. The Court held that the plaintiff, having exercised the power of eminent domain and obtained possession, could not abandon the proceedings after an adverse judgment. The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of the just compensation to be paid to the defendants.
AI Generated by Armztrong.