ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE JESUS V. QUITAIN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DAVAO CITY, BR. 15; AND NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

Robern Development versus Quitain

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Robern Development Corporation against Judge Jesus Quitain of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City and the National Power Corporation. Robern asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had dismissed its special civil action for certiorari and preliminary injunction and had effectively upheld the trial court's orders denying its motion to dismiss and issuing a writ of possession in the power company's favor. The case matters because it marks the transition from the old expropriation procedure to Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and it settles three practical questions every examinee must know: what pleading a landowner files in eminent domain, when a writ of possession may issue, and when a final order of expropriation may be entered.

Procedural History

The National Power Corporation filed a complaint for eminent domain against Robern before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. Instead of an answer, Robern filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the issues raised were matters for the trial proper, and later denied reconsideration while granting the power company's motion for a writ of possession. The trial court then issued the writ of possession, and the power company occupied the property.

Robern went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a preliminary injunction, attacking the writ and the complaint. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration. Robern then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

Robern owned a parcel of land in Inawayan, Binugao, Toril, Davao City, with an area of about 17,746.50 square meters. The land formed part of a proposed low-cost housing project. The National Power Corporation sought to expropriate it for the Mantanao-New-Loon 138 KV Transmission Line Project.

On June 6, 1997, the power company filed its complaint for eminent domain. Robern did not answer; it filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the complaint did not show board approval, that the officer who verified and certified it was not authorized under the corporation's charter, and that the choice of property was improper and arbitrary because the land was already intended for low-cost housing and other similar lots were available.

While the motion was pending, the power company moved for a writ of possession based on Presidential Decree No. 42 and deposited 6,121.20 pesos with the Philippine National Bank, Davao Branch, as the assessed value of the property. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, denied reconsideration, and directed that a writ of possession issue. The writ was issued, and the power company occupied the property even before Robern's counsel received any order directing implementation.

Issues

• Whether or not there were valid grounds to dismiss the complaint for expropriation.
• Whether or not the writ of possession was validly issued, considering that the trial court had not conducted any hearing on the amount to be deposited.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

SECTION 1. The complaint. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of a verified complaint which shall state with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation, describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of each defendant.

This provision supplies the only requisites for the complaint and notably does not require express board approval of the corporation.

Section 3 of Rule 67 provides:

SEC. 3. Defenses and objections. If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his property.

This is the new responsive pleading that replaced the old motion to dismiss, and it governs Robern's objections.

Section 4 of Rule 67 provides:

If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint.

This provision requires that objections and defenses first be heard and resolved before a final order of expropriation may issue.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there were no valid grounds to dismiss the complaint. Verification and the certificate against forum shopping are formal requirements; their absence is not jurisdictional and does not divest the court of jurisdiction. The regional legal counsel who signed was an in-house officer in the best position to verify the allegations, and he signed together with other legal officers on behalf of the Solicitor General. Board authorization is not required by Section 1 of Rule 67 and is in any event a factual matter for trial. The claim of prematurity, the prior dedication of the land to low-cost housing, and the availability of other lots are all affirmative defenses that must be pleaded in an answer under Section 3 of Rule 67, not in a motion to dismiss, because they require evidence. The Court stressed that the grounds for dismissal under Rule 16 are exclusive.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the writ of possession. Under the new rule, the trial court may issue the writ once the plaintiff deposits an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, without need of a prior hearing to fix the provisional sum. The old requirement of a judicial determination of value under the 1964 Rules had been superseded.

However, the Court added a crucial correction. The trial court should not have issued what amounted to a final order of expropriation while objections requiring evidence remained unresolved. The Court explained that eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation, and that judicial review is limited to the adequacy of the compensation, the necessity of the taking, and the public-use character of the purpose.

Doctrine

Under Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an answer, not a motion to dismiss, is the responsive pleading in eminent domain; all objections and defenses to the taking must be raised there. A writ of possession may issue upon deposit of an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, without a prior hearing on the provisional sum. A final order of expropriation may not be issued before a full hearing and resolution of the owner's objections and defenses. Doctrines inconsistent with Rule 67 are deemed reversed or modified.

Disposition

The Court denied the petition and upheld the writ of possession, but set aside the order of expropriation and gave Robern an opportunity to file its answer under Section 3 of Rule 67.

Remember This

Memorize the three changes: answer not motion to dismiss, writ of possession on deposit of assessed value without hearing, and no final order of expropriation before hearing. Examiners use this case to test the effectivity of the 1997 Rules on pending expropriation cases and the requisites for a writ of possession.