National Power Corporation vs Judge Jocson

Facts:
The petitioner filed 7 eminent domain cases in the acquisition of right of way/easement over
7 parcels of land in relation to the necessity of building towers and transmission line for the
common good. Initially, the values of lands concerned were based on tax declarations
which the petitioner paid. Land owners concerned asserted that the amounts were low and
that their lands value is more than what is being offered. The following day respondent
Judge Jocson increased provisional values of sugar land without hearing and directed
petitioner to deposit the differential amounts to which the petitioner also complied with.
Jocson then ordered NPC to pay in full the amounts to the landowners 5 days after the 2nd
order was complied with. He also refused to issue a writ of possession until full payment.
Petitioners allege that respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction, in violation of laws
and indereliction of the duty to afford respondents due process when he issued said orders.
They assert that orders were not valid and the payment required for the lands specified
therein were excessive and unconscionable amounts. Additionally they state that his refusal
to issue a writ of possession until full payment, even when they had already deposited the
provisional values, was a violation of the Rules of Court and of PD 42.
Issue:
Whether respondent judge Jocson committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction when he issued the said orders.
Held:
The court ruled that PD No. 42 provides that upon filing in court complaints on eminent
domain proceeding and after due notice to the defendants, plaintiff will have the right to take
possession of the real property upon deposit of the amount of the assessed value of the
land. The respondent judge failed to observe this procedure by his failure to issue the writ
of possession to the petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent judge erred in increasing the
provisional value of properties without holding any hearing for both parties. The instant
petition was granted by the court setting aside the temporary restraining order and directing
respondent judge to cease and desist from enforcing his orders.
There are 2 stages in the action of expropriation:
1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and
the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit; and
2. Eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the Court of the "just
compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the Court with the
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners whose findings are deemed to be final.