Barangay San Roque vs.

Heirs of Pastor

GR 138896 20 June 2000

FACTS:

In 1997, Brgy. San Roque of Talisay, Cebu filed for an expropriation suit before the MTC of
Talisay against the heirs of Franco Pastor. The MTC denied the suit because apparently under
BP 129, MTCs do not have jurisdiction over expropriation cases as it is the RTCs that are
lodged with the power to try such cases. So Brgy. San Roque filed it before RTC Talisay but
then Judge Jose Soberano, Jr. denied the suit as he ruled that the action for eminent domain
affected title to real property; hence, the value of the property to be expropriated would
determine whether the case should be filed before the MTC or the RTC. The judge also
concluded that the action should have been filed before the MTC since the value of the
subject property was less than P20,000.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC should take cognizance of the expropriation case.

HELD: Yes. Under Section 19 (1) of BP 129, which provides that RTCs shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation; . . . . . The present action involves the exercise of the right to
eminent domain, and that such right is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

If the nature of the principal action/remedy sought is other than the right to recover a sum of
money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to or a consequence of where the
subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, they are cognizable
exclusively by CFI.

In the present case, an expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money.
Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private
property for public use.

What are the two phases of expropriation cases?

(a) The first is concerned with the 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. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action,
of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property
sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint,
upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing
of the complaint.

An order of dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a final one, since it finally disposes
of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by the Court on the merits. So, too,
would an order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter as the Rules expressly
state, in the proceedings before the Trial Court, no objection to the exercise of the
right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or heard.
(b) The second phase of the 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.

The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and
findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of the
second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the Court regarding
the issue.

The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the government or any

of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of private
property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government entity, the
necessity of the expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the main, the
subject of an expropriation suit is the governments exercise of eminent domain, a
matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.