You are on page 1of 1

Philippine Veterans Bank v BCDA (G.R. No.

173085)
FACTS:
BCDA filed several expropriation actions before the branches of the RTC of Angeles City for the acquisition of lands needed to
construct the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX). The defendants in this case are the registered owners of the expropriated lands
that they acquired as beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Ten of these cases were raffled off to
Branch 58 of the RTC of Angeles City.

Upon learning of the expropriation cases filed, PVB filed a motion to intervene and alleged that the properties actually belonged to
Belmonte Agro-Industrial Development Corp. which mortgaged the lands to PVB in 1976. PVB bought the land upon foreclosure but
was not able to consolidate ownership in its name. PVB's motion was denied on the ground that the intervention amounted to a
third-party complaint that is not allowed in expropriation cases and that it will only serve to delay the proceedings. PVB's motion for
reconsideration was also denied by the CA.

ISSUE:
Whether or not PVB is entitled to intervene in expropriation cases.

HELD:
No. Sec 9, Rule 67 of the Rules of Civil Procedure empowers the court to order payment to itself of the proceeds of the
expropriation whenever questions of ownership are yet to be settled. At the time PVB tried to intervene, its conflict with the farmer
beneficiaries were already pending before another branch of RTC Angeles City. Branch 58 had no authority to pre-empt the other
branch of its power to hear and adjudicate claims before it.

PVB's withdrawal of its actions in the other branch because it was found that jurisdiction lies with the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) will still leave Branch 58 with no power to adjudicate the issues of ownership presented by
PVB's intervention. PVB's remedy is to secure an order from Branch 58 to have the proceeds of the expropriation deposited with
that branch, pending the adjudication of ownership by the DARAB.