BARDILLON V MASILI
issuing the Orders
Doctrine
An expropriation suit is within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the
value of the land, because the subject of the action is the government’s
exercise of eminent domain -- a matter that is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
FACTS
 2 Complaints for eminent domain were filed by Brgy. Masili of
Calamba, Laguna for the purpose of expropriating 144 sq. mtrs.
(Lot 4381-D) in Brgy. Masili, Calamba, Laguna owned by Devorah
Bardillon under TCT 383605
 Bardillon acquired from Makiling Consolidated Credit Corporation
the lot pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on Oct 7,
1996
 Complaint #1 for eminent domain (Brgy. Masili v Emelita
Reblara, Eugenia Almazan and Devorah Bardillon)
o Filed in the MTC of Calamba Laguna on Feb 23, 1998 due to
failure of Brgy. Masili to reach an agreement with Bardillon
on the purchase offer of P200k
o Expropriation of the Lot 4381-D was pursued to build a
multi-purpose hall for the use and benefit of its
constitutents
o March 5 1999: MTC ordered dismissal of the case for
lack of interest for failure of Brgy. Masili and counsel to
appear the pre-trial
o May 3, 1999: MR was denied by MTC
 Complaint #2 for eminent domain (Brgy. Masili v Devorah
Bardillon)
o Filed in RTC of Calamba, Laguna on Oct 18, 1999
o Complaint sought to expropriate Lot 4381-D to build the
multi-purpose hall of Brgy Masili
o Bardillon opposed the complaint by MTD alleging that cause
of action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata)
o Jan 21, 2000: Order denying MTD, the MTC has no
jurisdiction over the expropriation proceeding
o With the approval of Municipal Ordinance No. 2000-261
on July 10 2000 and submission in compliance with Judge’s
Order on June 9, 2000 requiring Brgy. Masili to produce
authority for the expropriation via the Municipal Council of
Calamba, Laguna, the Order of Aug 4, 2000 was issued in
favor of BRGY MASILI
o Aug 16 2000: order for writ of possession
 CA dismissed the petition
o Held RTC of Calamba Laguna did not commit GAD in
o Complaint #2 for eminent domain was not barred by
res judicata
o MTC which dismissed Complaint #1 had no jurisdiction over
the action
 Brought to SC via Petition for Review (Rule 45)
1. W/N the MTC had jurisdiction over the expropriation case – NO,
RTC had jurisdiction.
 Bardillon: since the value of the land is only P11, 448, MTC had
jurisdiction
 CA: held that the assessed value of the land was P28,960, MTC had
NO jurisdiction because it exceeds P20k jurisdictional amount
 SC: expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum
of money. It deals with the exercise by the government of
its authority and right to take property for public use. As
such, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be
filed with the RTC.
 Brgy San Roque v Heirs of Francisco Pastor: primary
consideration in expropriation suit is whether the
government has complied with the requisites for taking of
private property.
 Determination of the value of property to be expropriated in
monetary terms is merely incidental to the expropriation suit. The
amount is determined only after the court is satisfied with the
propriety of expropriation
o Cited Republic of the PH v Zurbano: condemnation
proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the CFI. Judiciary
Act of 1948 like BP 129 provided that CFI (now RTC) has
original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject
of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation
2. W/N the dismissal of the case before MTC constituted Res
Judicata – NO, MTC had no jur, RJ does not apply
 Bardillon: MTC’s dismissal of Complaint #1 was with prejudice
because there was no indication to the contrary in the Order of
Dismissal. Complaint #2 in RTC should be dismissed on ground of
res judicata
 SC: Since the MTC had no jurisdiction over expropriation
proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata finds no application
even if the Order of dismissal may have been an adjudication
on the merits.
3. W/N CA erred in ignoring the issue of entry upon the premises – NO
 Bardillon: CA erred when it ignored the RTC’s Writ of Possession
over her property, issued pending the MR of the ruling dismissing
the case
 SC: Requirements for issuance of writ of possession in
expropriation case are governed by Rule 67.2
o On part of LGUs: expropriation is also governed by Local
Govt Code Sec 19
o Requisites for authorizing immediate entry in expropriation
proceedings:
1. Filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and
substance
2. Deposit of amount equivalent to 15% of fair market value of
the property to be expropriated based on current tax
declaration
 Issuance of Writ of Possession is proper because Brgy. Masili
complied with the requisites
 Issue of necessity of expropriation is a matter properly addressed
to the RTC in the course of expropriation proceedings. If Bardillon
objects, she should say so in her Answer to the Complaint
 RTC has power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the
right of eminent domain and determine whether there is genuine
necessity for it

4. W/N Brgy. Masili was guilty of forum shopping – NO

 Bardillon: Brgy Masili is guilty of forum shopping because it scouted
another forum after it failed in the MTC
 SC: Test for determining presence of forum shopping: whether the
elements of litis pendentia are present in two or more pending
cases, such that a final judgment in one case will amount to res
judicata in another.
 Case in MTC was already dismissed when the complaint was filed in
the RTC
 Even assuming arguendo that both cases were pending, final
judgment in MTC will not constitute Res Judicata in RTC because
MTC had no jurisdiction
