BRGY SAN ROQUE vs HEIRS OF PASTOR

Political Law – Municipal Corporation – Eminent Domain – Expropriation – BP 129

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.

What are the two phases of expropriation cases?

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,
of course, 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.”

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. . . .

It should be stressed that 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 government’s exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.