ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139927. March 7, 2001]

strong>SALVADOR BIGLANG-AWA vs. JUDGE BACALLA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 7 2001 .

G.R. Nos. 139927 and 139936 (em>Salvador Biglang-Awa, Remedios Biglang-Awa, vs. Hon Judge Marciano I. Bacalla, et. al.)

Before us is the petitioner�s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of this Court, dated November 22, 2000, which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit.

The sole ground raised in the motion for reconsideration is that [t]he decision did not deal squarely with the sole issue in this case". The issue, according to the movants is "[w]hether or not the complete disregard by the respondent Department of Public Works and Highways to follow the explicit mandate of the law on expropriation, particularly Executive Order No. 1035 (1985), renders the expropriation proceedings illegal and violates the due process clause of the Constitution". ¹ Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2.The movants contend that the Court failed to rule on their contentions in the petition, to wit:

1. �That Executive Order No. 1035 (1985) embodies the substantial due process requirements of the law on expropriation and therefore, failure to comply with the same violates the due process requirements of the law.

2. That failure to comply and allege compliance with the mandatory requirements of Executive Order No. 1035 (1985) in the body of the Complaint itself will render the Complaint for expropriation premature under Section 1, Rule 16.

We ruled in the Decision dated November 22, 2000 that the requirements of feasibility studies, information campaign and detailed engineering/surveys under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of E.O. 1035 (1985) should be conducted prior to the decision to expropriate private property. Compliance with these requirements must be proven before the trial court may issue an order of expropriation. However, such requirements of E.O. 1035 are not conditions precedent to the filing of a complaint for expropriation, nor to the issuance of a writ of possession warranting the entry into the condemned property. Non-compliance therewith by the expropriator may be raised as an objection or defense to the complaint for expropriation by the property owner. ² Rule 67, Sec. 3, par. 2 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the petitioners alleged grave abuse of discretion� on the part of the respondent judge in issuing writs of possession against the properties subject of expropriation. The issuance of a writ of possession is governed by Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to this provision, we have previously ruled that the only requisites for authorizing immediate entry in expropriation proceedings are: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; and (2) the making of a deposit equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject to expropriation. ³ Robern Development Corporation vs. Judge Jesus Quitain, G.R. No. 135042, En Banc decision, September 23, 1999, 315 SCRA 150.Upon compliance by the expropriator with the foregoing requirements, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes "ministerial. ⁴ Ibid. See also Republic vs. Tagle, 299 SCRA 549, at p. 552.

Thus, we ruled that the issuance of writs of possession by the respondent court upon the filing by the DPWH of the complaints for expropriation and the deposits equivalent to the assessed value of the properties of the petitioners is proper, and there had been no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent court in issuing the orders and the writs of possession.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE