G.R. No. L-49088 May 29, 1987
JOSE V. IGNACIO, petitioner, vs. HON. BUENAVENTURA J. GUERRERO, in his capacity as judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondents.

FACTS

The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint to expropriate a 3.6156-hectare parcel of land owned by Jose V. Ignacio in Antipolo, Rizal, for the expansion of the Bagong Nayon Housing Project. The NHA alleged the property’s market value was P36,160.00, as per the Provincial Assessor, and deposited P158,980.00 with a bank to cover the total value of all parcels subject to expropriation, including Ignacio’s. Ignacio moved to dismiss, contending the fair market value was P723,000.00 and that the NHA’s valuation was unconscionable and violated the constitutional guarantee of just compensation.
The trial court, presided by Judge Buenaventura J. Guerrero, issued a writ of possession in favor of the NHA based solely on the deposit made, citing Presidential Decree No. 1224. Ignacio filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that under Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, a court hearing to determine just compensation was a prerequisite before the issuance of a writ of possession. The NHA opposed, asserting that PD 1224 and related decrees repealed the rule and made the writ issuable as a matter of right upon filing the complaint and deposit. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by issuing a writ of possession in favor of the NHA without first conducting a hearing to determine provisional just compensation as required by Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and annulled the trial court’s orders. The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession in expropriation proceedings is not a ministerial act contingent merely upon the filing of a complaint and a deposit. Section 2, Rule 67 mandates that the court must first make a provisional determination of just compensation based on judicial discretion. This requires a hearing where the property owner is given an opportunity to be heard on the matter of valuation before the plaintiff can be placed in possession.
The Court ruled that PD 1224, which the NHA relied upon, could not validly dispense with this judicial requirement. The constitutional mandate that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation necessitates that the determination of such compensation must be essentially a judicial function. The trial court’s act of issuing the writ based solely on the administrative valuation and deposit, without a prior judicial determination, was a violation of this fundamental rule and constituted an act in excess of its jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this ruling.