ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. JUDGE JESUS V.

QUITAIN,
Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Br. 15; and NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION

FACTS:
1. Robern Development is the registered owner of a parcel of land (about
17K sqm) which the National Power Corporation is seeking to expropriate.
2. The property forms part of a proposed low-cost housing project in Davao
City.
3. On June 6, 1997, NPC filed a Complaint for Eminent Domain against
Robern.
4. Instead of filing an answer, Robern countered with a Motion to Dismiss,
alleging:
i. Jurisdictional defect of the Complaint
ii. Choice of property was improper and arbitrary
5. Before the Motion is resolved, NPC filed a Motion for the Issuance of Writ
of Possession. NPC then deposited P 6,121.20 as provisional deposit.
6. The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss, and a Pre-Trial was
scheduled. Since, the issues raised are matters that should be dealt with
during the trial proper.
7. Robern filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Pointing out that the issues
raised in the Motion to Dismiss could be resolved without trial.
8. Without awaiting the outcome of the MR, NPC filed a Motion to
Implement the Writ of Possession.
9. On September 19, 1997, despite Robern’s opposition, the trial court
issued a Writ of Possession. The Order commanded to place NPC in
possession and control of the affected property.
10. Robern assailed the Writ of Possession before the CA.
11. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision.
12. Hence, this Petition.

ISSUE and RULING:

1. Whether or not the filing of the motion to dismiss instead of an answer

was proper? – An answer, not a motion to dismiss, is the responsive
pleading to a complaint in eminent domain
Robern’s contention is based in the old rule. When petitioner filed its Motion to
Dismiss, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure had already taken effect.

Section 3 of Rule 67 provides that if a defendant has any objection to the filing
of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking
of his property, he should include them in his answer. Naturally, these issues
will have to be fully ventilated in a full-blown trial and hearing.

The Court ruled that although the revised rules has just taken effect, the
petitioner should be given an opportunity to file its answer in accordance with
Section 3 of Rule 67.

2. Whether or not the issuance of the Writ of Possession was irregular

because there was no hearing on the correct amount of just
compensation for the taking of the disputed property? – The trial court
may issue a writ of possession once the plaintiff deposits an amount
equivalent to the assessed value of the property, pursuant to Section 2 of
said Rule, without need of a hearing to determine the provisional sum to
be deposited.

Under Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules, the provisional deposit should be in
an amount equivalent to the full assessed value of the property to be condemned,
not merely ten percent of it.

Therefore, the provisional deposit of NPC (P6K+) is insufficient. Since it seeks to

expropriate portions, not the whole, of four parcels of land owned by Robern,
the provisional deposit should be computed based on the Tax Declarations of
the property.

The issue of the writ will be merely ministerial once the deposit has been made.

3. Whether or not the order of condemnation was proper? - A final order of

expropriation may not be issued prior to a full hearing and resolution of
the objections and defenses of the property owner.
Implied in Section 4, Rule 67, if there are objections and defenses that require
the presentation of evidence and the hearing of arguments, the trial court
should not immediately issue an order of expropriation.
In this case, the trial court should not have issued the assailed Order of
Expropriation which foreclosed any further objection to the NPCs right to
expropriate and to the public purpose of the expropriation, leaving the latter of
just compensation as the only remaining substantial issue.

First Stage of Expropriation -

Second Stage: Just Compensation -

4. Whether or not NPC has no legal standing because the Board of NPC did
not authorize its filing? – NPC has legal standing.
Section 1, Rule 67 does not require that the Complaint be expressly approved by
the board of directors of a corporation. And, such authorization is a factual issue
that can be threshed out during the trial.

5. Whether or not there is a jurisdictional defect in the verification and

certification of non-forum shopping of the Complaint. – There is no
jurisdictional defect.
The Court found the disputed verification and certification to be sufficient in form.
Atty. Caete, as regional legal counsel for the Mindanao area, was the officer who
was in the best position to verify the truthfulness and the correctness of the
allegations in the Complaint for expropriation in Davao City. Generally, lack of
verification is merely a formal defect that is neither jurisdictional nor fatal. Its
absence does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction.

DISPO:
The Court ruled that:
1) Robern is granted a 10-day period to file his answer
2) NPC to deposit the full amount for the provisional value deposit in favor
of Robern
3) Fix the rate of rental from the date of NPC’s entry until the deposit of the
full amount.