G.R. No. L-51078 October 30, 1980
CRISTINA DE KNECHT, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, as Judge presiding over Branch III of the Court of First Instance (Pasay City) and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The government, through the Ministry of Public Highways, planned to extend Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) to Roxas Boulevard. Initially, the route was to pass through Cuneta Avenue. However, the Ministry later changed the alignment to traverse Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets, an area lined with substantial residential houses, including that of petitioner Cristina de Knecht. Affected homeowners petitioned the President, who referred the matter to the Human Settlements Commission. After hearings, the Commission recommended reverting to the original Cuneta Avenue route, citing that the new alignment would unnecessarily displace numerous families and that the Ministry’s decision appeared arbitrary. Despite this recommendation, the Ministry insisted on the Fernando Rein-Del Pan route.
Subsequently, the Republic filed a complaint for expropriation against the affected homeowners in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other grounds, that the choice of properties was arbitrary. The Republic then filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession after making the required deposit. The respondent judge granted the motion and issued the writ. Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, assailing the issuance of the writ of possession.

ISSUE

Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession for the expropriation of properties along the Fernando Rein-Del Pan Streets alignment?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the writ of possession, and ordered the dismissal of the expropriation case. The Court ruled that while the determination of the necessity and choice of property for a public purpose is generally vested in the expropriating agency, this discretion is not absolute. It is subject to judicial review for fraud, bad faith, or gross abuse of discretion. In this case, the factual findings and recommendation of the Human Settlements Commission, an independent body to which the President referred the dispute, established that the Ministry’s choice of the Fernando Rein-Del Pan route was arbitrary.
The Commission found the original Cuneta Avenue route to be more direct, less disruptive, and in line with the project’s intent. The Ministry’s shift in alignment, which would displace numerous established households without a clear, superior public advantage, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power. Since the very propriety of the taking for the stated public use was tainted by arbitrariness, the expropriation proceeding was fatally flawed. Consequently, the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in issuing the writ of possession without first resolving this fundamental constitutional question regarding the validity of the taking. The court’s duty to ensure that the power of eminent domain is exercised within the bounds of law and justice includes preventing the government from taking possession of property under an expropriation action that is infirm from its inception.