GR 35364; (October, 1931) (Digest)
G.R. No. 35364 . October 29, 1931.
THE PROVINCE OF TAYABAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SIMEON PEREZ, defendant-appellee. GODOFREDO REYES and DOMINGO LOPEZ, intervenors-appellants.
FACTS
The Province of Tayabas filed an expropriation case for land in Lucena. Commissioners were appointed and submitted a report recommending specific prices per square meter for the lots and a value for the sheds thereon. The trial court accepted these values in its judgment. The plaintiff province appealed, seeking a reduction of the price. Intervenors Godofredo Reyes and Domingo Lopez also appealed, as the trial court denied their complaint in intervention for being filed out of time (after judgment) and for lack of showing of necessity for a new investigation. The record indicated that although a hearing on the commissioners’ report was scheduled, it did not actually take place because the plaintiff submitted the report to the court without recommendation, and the parties merely filed pleadings regarding the valuation.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment based on the commissioners’ report without holding a proper hearing as required by law.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. The law (Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure) requires a hearing upon the commissioners’ report in expropriation proceedings. The English text, which prevails for interpretation, uses “shall, upon hearing,” making a hearing mandatory. Strict compliance with expropriation procedures is required to guarantee due process to the property owner. The failure to hold a hearing rendered the judgment invalid. The case was ordered reopened for a proper hearing on the commissioners’ report, at which the intervenors and other interested parties may be heard.
AI Generated by Armztrong.