G.R. No. L-45673 November 22, 1977
Sps. SERAPIO SAN DIEGO and ASUNCION BALAJADIA, RODANTE SAN DIEGO and LILIA S.D. CHAVEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. NELLY L. ROMERO VALDELLON, Judge, Branch XXII, Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig), and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for expropriation against petitioners over a 642-square-meter parcel of land in Morong, Rizal, needed for the Pasig-Sta. Cruz-Calamba Road (Manila East Road) project. The Republic invoked Presidential Decree No. 42, which authorizes the plaintiff in eminent domain proceedings to take possession of the property upon deposit with the Philippine National Bank of an amount equivalent to the assessed value for taxation. The complaint alleged the assessed value was P2,889.00. The Republic later filed a manifestation and motion, stating it had deposited P5,848.00, representing the assessed value of the land and improvements, and prayed for a writ of possession.
Petitioners opposed, arguing that the requirements of Presidential Decrees Nos. 42 and 76 had not been met, as there was no independent assessment by the Provincial Assessor of the improvements. Respondent Judge initially deferred resolution but, after an ocular inspection and submission of an amended estimate, issued the challenged order dated January 26, 1977. The order authorized the Republic to take possession after depositing an additional P138.69, finding compliance with the decrees and holding that petitioners’ defenses were proper for trial on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order authorizing the Republic to take immediate possession of the property subject to expropriation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of respondent Judge. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and categorical language of Presidential Decree No. 42, which grants the right to take possession upon filing the complaint and after deposit of the assessed value. This decree, issued by the incumbent President, is expressly made part of the law of the land under the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution and remains valid unless modified or repealed. The Court, citing its prior ruling in Arce v. Genato, emphasized that a lower court order issued in compliance with such a decree is not susceptible to a charge of grave abuse of discretion.
The Court found that the Republic had complied with the deposit requirement, having initially deposited an amount and later adding a small sum to cover a difference in appraisal. Respondent Judge correctly determined that the procedural mandates of the decrees were satisfied. The defenses raised by petitioners regarding valuation and the propriety of the taking are substantive matters reserved for the trial on the merits and do not preclude the issuance of a writ of possession once the deposit is made. The expropriating entity here is the Republic itself, pursuing an infrastructure project of public necessity, further justifying the order allowing immediate possession to prevent judicial obstruction of vital government projects. Therefore, the assailed order was a valid implementation of applicable law, not an arbitrary exercise of power.