Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

competent court" means that the disposition
of the funds deposited in favor of Antonio
C. Oppen is subject only to the disposition
of the court and not of the petitioner.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Gregory G. Perez & Gladys N. Nalda for petitioner.

recommend to the Court the just compensation for the affected property sought to be expropriated.

That facts as quoted from the petition5 submitted before this Court are as follows:

Petitioner LRTA is a government owned and controlled corporation created by virtue of Executive Order No. 603 (EO 603), Series of 1980, as amended. While public respondent Brigido Artemon M. Luna II is impleaded herein in his capacity as Manuel Albano for private respondent. Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch GAERLAN, S.H., J.:

196, Parañaque City who issued the questioned Order in Civil Case no. 08-0287.

Under EO 603, petitioner LRTA is mandated to be primarily responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance and/or lease of LRT Systems in the Philippines. Pursuant to its mission to provide quality mass transport and related services in the metropolitan areas of the country,

Before Us is a petition for certiorari1 filed by the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) pursuant to Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to annul and set aside the Order2 dated 25 June 2009 of herein public respondent Hon. Judge Brigido Artemon M. Luna II (Judge), Presiding the LRT 1 South Extension Project (hereinafter

Judge of Branch 196 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC of Parañaque City in Civil Case No. 08-0287. The public respondent in his assailed Order denied petitioner's Manifestation with Motion3 dated 11 March 2009 for lack of merit and also dismissed the petition filed by LRTA for violation of RA 8974 (The Act Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location for the National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes) and failure to comply with an order of the same court.

[blocks in formation]

referred to as the “Project”) was conceived in order to expand the existing LRT service southward to the cities of Parañaque and Las Piñas as well as the adjoining municipalities of Bacoor, Imus and Dasmariñas, in the Cavite Province through an 11.7 kilometer extension of the existing LRT Line 1.

The Project is intended not only to alleviate the worsening traffic and transportation situation in the Metropolitan Manila but also to enhance economic growth, stability and security by providing fast, efficient, adequate, economical, safe, convenient and dependable transportation system that shall be truly responsive to the demand of the populace, with due consideration to the public good and the least private injury.

In the course of the implementation of the Project, a parcel of land with a total land area of 4,389 sq. m. situated at Bonifacio Extension, Brgy. San Dionisio, Parañaque City, was identified as among the properties that would be affected by the project.

The aforesaid parcel of land (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property") is registered under the name of private respondent Antonio C. Oppen under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 40969 of the Registry of Parañaque City and covered by Tax Declaration No. E-010-2966.

[blocks in formation]

On 08 July 2008, herein petitioner initiated the filing of a Complaint for Eminent Domain against private respondent Oppen before the RTC of Parañaque City which was raffled to Branch 196 thereof and docketed as Civil Case No. 08-0287.

Subsequently, LRTA opened a savings. account with the Land Bank of the Philippines Baclaran Branch with account name LRTA FAO ANTONIO C. OPPEN and number SA No. 0271-1220-47. It deposited Twenty-Two Million Four Hundred SeventyFive Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P22,475,400.00) representing the total or full value of the affected property based on the zonal valuation thereof as determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which is expressly stated that it is held in abeyance subject to the orders, and final disposition of a competent court.7

On 28 October 2008, private respondent filed his Answer to the Complaint. Thereafter, issues having been joined, the case was set for pre-trial on 04 December 2008.8

During the pre-trial hearing on 04 December 2008 in connection with petitioner's application for Writ of Possession, the RTC issued an order directing herein petitioner to comply with the provision of Section 4 of R.A. 8794 in connection with the application for the issuance of a writ of possession covering infrastructure project for an agency of government. Pursuant to the said Order, petitioner filed its Compliance10 on 12 February 2009 attaching as an annex thereto is a Certification from the Landbank of the Philippines.11

On 16 March 2009, petitioner filed as Manifestation with Motion 12 for the issuance of a Writ of Possession stating therein that

[blocks in formation]

a deposit was made as certified by the Land Bank of the Philippines in compliance with Section 4 of RA 8974.

On 25 June 2009, public respondent issued the assailed Order denying both the Manifestation and Motion filed by the petitioner for lack of merit and at the same time outrightly dismissing the Complaint. The decretal portion of the Order reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises conside.ed, petitioner's Manifestation and Motion dated March 11, 2009 is herewith DENIED for lack of merit, and, the Petition dated July 7, 2008 is herewith DISMISSED for violation of R.A. 8974 and for petitioner's failure to comply with an order of this Court.

[blocks in formation]

COURT'S RULING

The petition is meritorious.

As to the first assigned error, the public respondent ruled that

Browsing through a certification issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines on October 9, 2008 it certified to a purported deposit of about "PhP22,475,400.00 only to SA#0271120-47 in the name of LRTA FAO Antonio C. Oppen..***....which is held in abeyance subject of the orders and final disposition of a competent court." Significantly, for a deposit which was undertaken before a savings account referring to the name of a depositor for "LRTA FAO ANTONIO C. OPPEN" would only mean that the same savings deposit is undertaken petition of name and would never be considered as a trust deposit in favor of an owner of a property Antonio C. Oppen, which is a gross violation of Sec. 4 of R.A. 8794. Moreover, considering the bank through its own certification has "held in abeyance subject of an order of final disposition of a competent court" indicates that a deposit is too conditional in favor of the petitioner, for good reason that the certification reveal the impropriety to the deposit of a savings account exclusively for the benefit of a petitioner in clear violation of the law. Considering petitioner has persistently failed to forward to this Court neither to explain the nature of the deposit which however is too clearly apparent in the certification itself, it is only indicative of petitioner to persistently failed to comply with the mandate of the law, for which the application must fail. (Emphasis Ours.)

We disagree.

Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides

SECTION 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government depositary.-Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government deposatory an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a government bank of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government depositary.

If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.

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 and promptly submit a report thereof to the court with service of copies to the parties.

While Section 4 of RA 8974 provides

Section 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines:

(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures and/or structures as determined under Section 7 thereof;

(b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of sixty (60) days from the date of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said area; and

(c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof.

Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.

Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession. the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned.

In the event that the owner of the property contests the implementing agency's proffered value, the court shall determine the just compensation to be paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, implementing agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined by the court.

To enlighten both parties, We find significance in citing the well-settled rule enunciated in the case of Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) vs. Holy Trinity Realty Development Corp.17 citing the case of Republic vs. Gingoyon18 where the Supreme Court ruled that there is a difference between the expropriation procedures under Republic Act No. 8974 and Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.

There are at least two crucial differences between the respective procedures under Rep. Act No. 8974 and Rule 67. Under the statute, the Government is required to make immediate payment to the property owner upon the filing of the complaint to be entitled to writ of possession, whereas in Rule 67, the Government is required only to make an initial deposit with an authorized government depositary. Moreover, Rule 67 prescribes that the initial deposit be equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation, unlike Rep. Act No. which provides as the relevant standard for initial compensation, the market value of the property as stated in the tax declaration or the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), whichever is higher, and the value of the improvements and/or structures using the replacement cost method.

Rule 67 outlines the procedure under which eminent domain may be exercised by the Government. Yet by no means does it serve at present as the solitary guideline through which the state may expropriate private property. For example, Section 19 of the Local Government Code governs as to the exercise by local government units of the power of eminent domain through an enabling ordinance. And then there is Rep. Act No. 8974, which covers expropriation proceedings intended for national government infrastructure projects.

Rep. Act No. 8974, which provides for a procedure eminently more favorable to the property owner than Rule 67, in capably applies in instances when the national government expropriates property "for national government infrastructure projects." Thus, if expropriation is engaged in by the national government for purposes other than national infrastructure projects, the assessed value standard and the deposit mode prescribed in Rule 67

continues to apply. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of TRB that the RTC correctly applied the procedure laid out in Republic Act No. 8974, by requiring the deposit of the amount equivalent to 100% of the zonal value of the properties sought to be expropriated before the

issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the Republic. (Emphasis Ours.)

To apply the same in the case at bar, RA 8974 must be complied with before a writ of possession be issued in favor of the petitioner. We agree with the petitioner that its submission of the Certification issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines which contain as follows:

'This is to certify that LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (LRTA) has deposited the amount of PESOS: Twenty two million four hundred seventy five thousand four hundred pesos (P22,475,400.00) only to SA#02711220-47 in the name of LRTA FAO ANTONIO C. OPPEN (Deposit in Trust for Expropriation of Private Property), which is held in abeyance subject to the orders and final disposition of a competent court"

is sufficient compliance to the provisions of RA 8974 for the issuance of a Writ of Possession. It is noteworthy at this juncture that the law19 explicitly provides that before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned. The certificate issued by the Land Bank shows nothing but the availability of funds deposited in the name of LRTA FAO ANTONIO C. OPPEN for the compensation of the property owner as expressly provided in the same certificate.

Also, We observed that public respondent ruled that the deposit was too conditional in favor of herein petitioner. Let it be given emphasis that the phrase "held in abeyance subject of an order of final disposition of a competent court" means that the disposition of the funds deposited in favor of Antonio C. Oppen is subject only to the disposition of the court and not of the petitioner.

17 G.R. No. 172410, April 14, 2008.

18 G.R. No. 166429, December 19, 2005.

19 Section 4, RA 8974.

In the similar case20 earlier cited, it is noted that the Supreme Court also mentioned its ruling in the case of Union Motor Corporation vs. Court of Appeals21, to wit:

The critical factor in the modes of effecting modes of delivery which gives legal effect to the act is the actual intention to deliver on the part of the party making such delivery. The intention of the TRB in depositing such amount through DPWH was clearly to comply with the requirement of immediate payment in Republic Act No. 8974, so that it could already secure a writ of possession over the properties subject of the expropriation and commence implementation of the project. In fact, TRB did not object to HTRDC's Motion to Withdraw Deposit with the RTC, for as long as HTRDC shows (1) that the property is free from any lien or encumbrance and (2) that respondent is the absolute owner thereof.

As a final note, TRB does not object to HTRDC's withdrawal of the amount of P22,968,000.00 from the expropriation account, provided that it is able to shall (1) that the property is free from any lien or encumbrance and (2) that it is the absolute owner thereof. The said conditions do not put in abeyance the constructive delivery of the said amount to HTRDC pending the latter's compliance therewith.

The petitioner, aside from the fact of deposit, in its Manifestation with Motion22 filed with the same court also moved for the issuance of an appropriate Order by the Honorable Court, directing the Landbank of the Philippines to convey, discharge, release or otherwise transfer the deposited amount in favor of private respondent if only to conform with whatever form of payment is being required by RA 8974, for purposes of the issuance of the Writ of Possession.

LRTA's aforementioned acts of depositing the amount of P22,475,400.00 in a the name of the property owner at an authorized government depositary and manifesting before the lower court for the issuance of an order directing the Landbank to convey, discharge, release or otherwise transfer the deposited amount if such is necessary for

20 Supra note 17.

21 414 Phil. 33, 43 431 (2001). 22 Supra note 11.

the issuance of a Writ of Possession show its actual intention to deliver the compensation due to the property owner. We believe that this is the actual intention properly referred to in the case of Union Motor Corporation. Therefore, We now hold that the certification issued by the Landbank is a sufficient compliance to the order of the lower court to show availability of funds representing the full or total value of the property based on the zonal valuation determined by the BIR and also to the provisions of RA 8974.

Most significant as an interpretation of the guidelines provided by RA 8974 is the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Capitol Steel Corporation vs. PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority23, to wit:

Under R.A. 8974, the requirements for authorizing immediate entry in expropriation proceedings involving real property are: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; (2) due notice to the defendant; (3) payment of an amount equivalent to 100% of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR including payment of the value of the improvements and/or structures if any, or if no such valuation is available and in cases of utmost urgency, the payment of the proffered value of the property to be seized; and (4) presentation to the court of a certificate of availability of funds from the proper officials. (Emphasis Ours)

Upon compliance with the requirements, a

petitioner in an expropriation case, in this case respondent, is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to forthwith issue the writ of possession.

After an examination of the pleadings and documents submitted by the parties before this Court, We are convinced that all of the above requirements for the issuance of a writ of possession were satisfied. Thus, there has been sufficient compliance not only to the law but also to the lower court's order to comply.

23 G.R. No. 169453, December 6, 2006

« AnteriorContinuar »