NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 6TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 47, BACOLOD CITY; JESUS…

National Power Corporation versus Jocson

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by the National Power Corporation against Judge Enrique T. Jocson, in his capacity as presiding judge of a branch of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City, and against the landowners whose properties the Corporation sought to expropriate. The Corporation asked the Supreme Court to annul four orders issued in seven eminent domain cases: the orders fixing and then increasing the provisional values of the lands, the order requiring the landowners to say whether they would accept the deposited amounts as full payment, and the order directing payment of a large sum through the court. The case matters because it draws the line between the court's discretion to fix provisional value and the expropriator's right, after deposit, to be placed at once in possession.

Procedural History

The Corporation filed seven complaints for eminent domain before the Regional Trial Court of the Sixth Judicial Region in Bacolod City. The cases were raffled to several branches, then consolidated in one branch, and later re-raffled to the branch presided over by Judge Jocson. After the judge returned the cases to his own sala, he issued the four questioned orders. Unable to accept them, the Corporation went directly to the Supreme Court by a special civil action for certiorari, alleging that the judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, in violation of law, and in deprivation of due process. The Supreme Court required the respondents to comment and issued a temporary restraining order, directing the judge to cease and desist from enforcing the questioned orders and, in the meantime, to place the Corporation in possession of the properties.

Facts

The National Power Corporation is a government-owned and controlled corporation created by Republic Act Number 6395, tasked with developing hydraulic power and authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain. On 30 March 1990 it filed seven complaints against the Gonzaga family and several other landowners to acquire a right-of-way easement over portions of their lots for its Negros-Panay Interconnection Project, particularly the Bacolod-Tomonton Transmission Line. The complaints alleged urgent need, that the lands would not be impaired since only an easement was taken, and that negotiations had failed. The Corporation prayed that the court fix the provisional value, authorize it to take possession upon deposit, and appoint commissioners to assess damages.

On 25 June 1990, Judge Jocson fixed the provisional values, taking into account the market values appearing in the tax declarations and the notices of assessment. The Corporation deposited the total sum of 23,180,828 pesos with the Philippine National Bank in escrow. The landowners in two of the cases then moved for reconsideration, claiming the values were too low. On 12 July 1990, without hearing the Corporation, the judge increased the provisional values in those two cases, directed the Corporation to deposit the differential within forty-eight hours, and held the writ of possession in abeyance until compliance. The Corporation deposited an additional 22,866,680 pesos.

On 16 July 1990, the judge ordered the landowners to state in writing within twenty-four hours whether they were amenable to accepting and withdrawing the deposited amounts as full and final satisfaction of the value of their properties, and said the writ of possession would issue only after they manifested acceptance. On 18 July 1990, he ordered the Corporation to pay the landowners, through the court, the amounts stated as full payment for their expropriated property, and directed that the writ of possession issue only after the landowners had received the amounts.

Issues

• Whether or not the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in fixing provisional values far exceeding the market values shown in the tax declarations and assessments.
• Whether or not the judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in increasing the provisional values in two cases without affording the Corporation a hearing.
• Whether or not the judge erred in withholding the writ of possession until the landowners accepted and received the deposited amounts.
• Whether or not the order requiring the landowners to accept the deposit as full and final payment, and the order directing payment through the court, unlawfully preempted the judicial determination of just compensation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, as it then stood, provides:

Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real or personal property involved if he deposits with the National or Provincial Treasurer its value, as provisionally and promptly ascertained and fixed by the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings, to be held by such treasurer subject to the orders and final disposition of the court.

This fixes the Corporation's right to possession upon deposit of the provisional value, and grounds its complaint that the writ was withheld.

Presidential Decree Number 42 provides:

Upon filing in the proper court of the complaint in eminent domain proceedings or at anytime thereafter, and after due notice to the defendant, plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the Philippine National Bank, in its main office or any of its branches or agencies, an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation, to be held by said bank subject to the orders and final disposition of the court.

This ties the provisional deposit to the assessed value for taxation and bears on whether the values fixed were excessive.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the provisional values fixed on 25 June 1990 were not arbitrary, since they were drawn from the market values in the tax declarations and the notices of assessment. The provisional value is only tentative and is subject to the final determination of just compensation.

On the second issue, the Court held that the judge gravely abused his discretion in increasing the provisional values on reconsideration without giving the Corporation any opportunity to be heard, and in relying on considerations outside the record.

On the third issue, the Court held that once the deposit was made, the issuance of the writ of possession became a ministerial duty. The rule is plain:

After such deposit is made, the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved.

The judge could not make the writ depend on the landowners' acceptance of the deposit.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the order requiring the landowners to accept the deposited amounts as full and final satisfaction, and the order directing payment through the court, short-circuited the procedure for determining just compensation and effectively preempted the final judgment. The provisional deposit is held subject to the orders and final disposition of the court, not as final payment.

Doctrine

First, the expropriator's right to possession arises upon deposit of the provisional value, and thereafter the issuance of the writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court. Second, the provisional value is provisional indeed: it is ascertained promptly, held subject to the final disposition of the court, and does not fix just compensation. Third, the court may not increase the provisional value without notice and hearing to the expropriator. Fourth, the deposit may not be converted into full and final payment by the landowners' acceptance, for that would bypass the judicial determination of just compensation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the questioned orders of 12 July, 16 July and 18 July 1990, and upheld the order of 25 June 1990, with the writ of possession to issue in favor of the National Power Corporation upon its deposit of the provisional values.

Remember This

Memorize the line: deposit the provisional value, and possession follows as a matter of ministerial duty, for the provisional value is never the final price. Examiners use this case on Rule 67 and Presidential Decree Number 42 to test the distinction between provisional value and just compensation, and the requirement of notice and hearing before any increase.