Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 185237 : December 08, 2010] SPS. EDMUNDO EVIO AND ZIMMA ZABANAL, ANSELMA ADION, MINDA EVIO, EVANGELINE ZABALO, ROMEO ZABANAL, SPS. TITA DELA CRUZ AND WILMOR DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO ZABANAL, DIOSDADO ZABANAL, NICOLAS ZABANAL, ROSA BACONGCOL, AND LOLITA CAMINONG V. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, PRESIDING JUDGE, PALAWAN, RTC BRANCH 95, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEANDRO MENDOZA, AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN VICENTE, PROVINCE OF PALAWAN, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR ANTONIO V. GONZALES :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 December 2010 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 185237 (Sps. Edmundo Evio and Zimma Zabanal, Anselma Adion, Minda Evio, Evangeline Zabalo, Romeo Zabanal, Sps. Tita Dela Cruz and Wilmor Dela Cruz, Rolando Zabanal, Diosdado Zabanal, Nicolas Zabanal, Rosa Bacongcol, and Lolita Caminong v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Bienvenido C. Blancaflor, Presiding Judge, Palawan, RTC Branch 95, The Republic of the Philippines, as represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, the Department of Transportation and Communications, as represented by Secretary Leandro Mendoza, and the Municipality of San Vicente, Province of Palawan, as represented by Mayor Antonio V. Gonzales).-

This case is about the trial court's issuance of writs of possession covering the lands subject of expropriation before it has resolved the land owners' basic objections to the expropriation.

In August 2008 respondent Republic of the Philippines filed various expropriation actions^[1] against petitioner spouses Edmundo and Zimma Evio, Anselma Adion, Minda Evio, Evangeline Zabalo, Romeo Zabanal, spouses Wilmor and Tita dela Cruz, Rolando Zabanal, Diosdado Zabanal, Nicolas Zabanal, Rosa Bacongcol, and Lolita Caminong before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan^[2] to acquire their lands for the Palawan Airport Project.

Petitioners opposed the Project, claiming that: 1) the government did not get their free and prior informed consent as indigenous people, the lands involved being ancestral lands of the Tagbanua-Agutaynen tribe;^[3] 2) the lands are agricultural and have not been converted before expropriation pursuant to the agrarian laws and the Local Government Code; 3) the airport project has not been included in the zoning ordinance and land use plan of San Vicente municipality where the project sits; 4) the Memorandum of Agreement between San Vicente municipality and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) contravenes the Local Government Code since the provincial board has not enacted an ordinance approving the expropriation; and 5) there is no genuine necessity for the taking of the lands involved or their portions.

On October 15, 2007, following the Republic's deposit in court of the full current or zonal value of the lands, the RTC issued an Order, granting writs of possession in favor of the government covering the lands. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order but the RTC denied it on November 16, 2007.

After pre-trial proceedings, the RTC appointed commissioners to ascertain and report to it the market value of the expropriated lands. Meantime, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 101719 a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the RTC orders based on the same grounds they raised before it. On August 29, 2008 the CA rendered a Decision,^[4] dismissing the petition. On October 22, 2008 it issued a Resolution,^[5] denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The CA held that since the complaints for expropriation were sufficient in form and substance and since the government has complied with the rules governing the issuance of writs of possession, the RTC had a ministerial duty to issue such writs. The CA held that the other issues petitioners raised in their opposition have not been precluded by the issuance of the writs and are best ventilated in the hearings of the main action before the RTC.

Petitioners are before this Court on a petition for review of the CA decision.

The Issue Presented

The sole issue presented before the Court is whether or not the CA erred in not enjoining the RTC from issuing and enforcing its writs of possession in favor of the State prior to its resolution of the issues that petitioners raised against the expropriation of their lands.

The Court's Ruling

Expropriation proceedings have two stages: first, the determination of the validity of the expropriation, and second, the determination of just compensation. Both determinations require a hearing.

But, pending such determinations, Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the trial court, upon the filing of the complaint and after due notice to the defendant, to let the plaintiff take possession of the subject land provided he deposits with the court the equivalent of the assessed value of the property. If, as in this case, expropriation is made pursuant to Republic Act 8974,^[6] the plaintiff is required to immediately pay the owner the amount equivalent to 100% of the current Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal value of the property, using the replacement cost method.^[7]

While the exercise of the power of eminent domain affects a person's right to property, which right the Constitution protects,^[8] this should not hamstrung the State's power of eminent domain. When the State makes the required deposit or payment, it is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to promptly issue the writ of possession.^[9]

The grant of the writs of possession in the government's favor does not preclude petitioners from pursuing the resolution of their opposition. They can take the payment prescribed under the rules and, should the expropriation be later disallowed, they can get back their lands or recover damages as equity and justice dictates. The issues petitioners raise, like their claim that the land is ancestral domain of the Tagbanua-Agutaynen tribe, require the presentation of evidence.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 101719 dated August 29, 2008 and its resolution dated October 22, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Civil Cases 4314 to 4325.

^[2] 2 Branch 95.

^[3] Sections 3(g) and 7, Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), Republic Act 8371, or "An Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People, Creating a National Commission of Indigenous People, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds therefor, and for Other Purposes":

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean:

g) Free and Prior Informed Consent - as used in this Act shall mean the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to; be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community;

Sec. 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. - The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/iPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include:

c.    Right to Stay in the Territories - The right to stay in the territory and not be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than eminent domain. Where relocation is considered necessary as an exceptional measure, such relocation shall take place only with the free and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned and whenever possible, they shall be guaranteed the right to return to their ancestral domains, as soon as the grounds for relocation cease to exist. When such return is not possible, as determined by agreement or through appropriate procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be provided in all possible cases with lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that of the land previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. Persons thus relocated shall likewise be fully compensated for any resulting loss or injury: x x x.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 73-82; penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.

^[5] Id. at 84-85.

^[6] "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes."

^[7] Id., Section 4(a).

^[8] National Power Corp. v. Co, G.R. No. 166973, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 235, 240.

^[9] Metropolitan Cebu Water District v. J. King and Sons Company, Inc., G.R. No. 175983, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 484, 497.