G.R. No. 77071 March 22, 1990
Municipality of Talisay, petitioner, vs. Spouses Hilario Ramirez and Erlinda Ramirez and Spouses William Abarquez and Josephine Abarquez, respondents.

FACTS

The Municipality of Talisay filed a complaint to expropriate lots owned by the private respondents. The Regional Trial Court issued a writ of possession and later ordered both parties to designate three commissioners each to assist in determining just compensation. The petitioner Municipality failed to submit its list of recommendees. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with its order. The Municipality filed a motion for reconsideration, belatedly submitting the names, but the motion was denied. The trial court noted the new municipal administration had not passed a resolution adopting the expropriation, though it amended the dismissal to be without prejudice. The Municipality then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, the private respondents manifested that the new municipal government was not pursuing the expropriation. The Court required the Sangguniang Bayan of Talisay to clarify its position. The Sangguniang Bayan responded with a resolution manifesting its intention to continue with the expropriation. The petitioner, in its arguments before the Supreme Court, contended it had no obligation to recommend commissioners. It argued that presidential decrees had repealed the relevant rule and established that just compensation should be the lower value between the owner’s declaration and the government assessor’s valuation, making commissioners unnecessary.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the expropriation complaint for the petitioner’s failure to recommend commissioners, and whether the presidential decrees cited by the petitioner rendered the appointment of commissioners superfluous.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court’s orders of dismissal should be set aside and the case reinstated. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Court definitively addressed the petitioner’s core argument regarding the presidential decrees. Citing its landmark ruling in Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, the Court held that decrees fixing just compensation as the lower of the owner’s or assessor’s valuation are unconstitutional. Such decrees constitute an impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives, reducing the court’s role to a mere ministerial act and violating due process. Consequently, the procedure under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the appointment of commissioners to aid the court in determining just compensation, was reactivated and remains fully applicable.
Second, while the petitioner initially quibbled and failed to comply with the trial court’s order, its subsequent submission of recommended commissioners in its motion for reconsideration constituted substantial compliance. The Supreme Court found that dismissing the case outright would cause unnecessary delay, forcing the parties to start the proceedings anew, which would not be in the interest of justice or the public intended to benefit from the expropriation. Therefore, to avoid further delay, the case was ordered reinstated for continuation under the proper procedure of Rule 67.