1. What are the matters that must be alleged in a complaint for expropriation?

The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of a verified complaint,
which shall:

1. State with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation;

2. Describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated;

3. Join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part
thereof or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate
interest of each defendant;

4. If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the

Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or if
the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with
accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to that effect
shall be made in the complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 67).

NOTE: Expropriation by the local government requires an authorizing ordinance

before it may be accomplished. Under Rule 67 and RA 8974 there is no need for
legislative authorization before the Government may proceed with a particular
exercise of eminent domain (Riano, 2012).

2. Define expropriation.

It is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain.

NOTE: Expropriation is proper only when:

1. The owner refuses to sell; or

2. If the latter agrees, agreement as to the price cannot be reached.

NOTE: It is the actual filing of complaint for expropriation which binds the land,
and not a mere notice of the intent to expropriate. However, the owner of the land
may still dispose of said property, despite the filing of the action, as the grantee
would merely be substituted in his place and holds the land subject to the results of
the action (Regalado, 2010).

By reason of expediency, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall

be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.
 3. What are the requisites for the exercise of the power of expropriation?

a. Due process of law;

b. Payment of just compensation; and

c. Taking must be for public use.

4. Are there private corporations which has the power to exercise power of
expropriation? Give examples.

Yes, private corporations has power to exercise power of expropriation.

Just like its two companion fundamental powers of the State, the power of eminent
domain is exercised by the Legislature. However, it may be delegated by Congress to
the President, administrative bodies, local government units, and even to private
enterprises performing public services. Under existing laws, quasi-public
corporations such as the Philippine National Railways, the PLDT and Meralco have
been granted the power of expropriation. (Manapat vs CA, G.R. No. 110478, Oct.
15, 2007)

5. What is the expanded concept of Public Use?

Public use is synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare and
public convenience. Whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
satisfies the requirement of public use. (Reyes vs NHA)

6. Which court has jurisdiction over expropriation cases? Why?

An action for expropriation is filed with the Regional Trial Court because it is an
action incapable of pecuniary estimation regardless of the value of the subject
property. The primary consideration of an expropriation suit is whether the
government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the
taking of private property.

7. What are the two stages in every action for expropriation?

Stage 1: Determination of the plaintiff’s authority to exercise the power of

eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts
involved in the suit. REMEDY: Appeal by notice of appeal and record on
appeal with 30 days from receipt of court order.

Stage 2: Determination by the court of the just compensation for the

property sought to be taken. REMEDY: Appeal by notice of appeal with 15
days from receipt of court order.
 8. What is the remedy of an aggrieved party against an order of expropriation?

The final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed
from by any party aggrieved by such ordeif Sec. 4, Rule 67, Rules of Court).

9. Can a plaintiff in an action for expropriation immediately enter into possession of

the real property? What are the requisites thereof?

Yes, plaintiff can immediately enter into possession of the real property.

Prior hearing is not required before the Republic of the Philippines can be granted
immediate possession of the property. The defenses by the owner against immediate
possession can be considered on the trial on the merits. All that is required is notice
to the owner and the deposit (San Diego vs Valdellon)

The Requisites for authorizing immediate entry:

1. The filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance;
and
2. The deposit of the amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property to
be expropriated based on its current tax declaration. (Bardillon vs Brgy
Masili)

Under RA 8974, whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-
way or location for any national government infrastructure project through
expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation
proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines:

1. Upon filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the
implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the
amount equivalent to the sum of 100% of the value of the property based on
the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR, and the value of the
improvements and/or structures;
2. In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal
valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of 60 days from the
date of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said
area; and
3. In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is utmost
urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area
concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the
property is proffered value taking into consideration the standards
prescribed by the law.
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately
issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and
start the implementation of the project. (Sec. 4, RA 8974)

Note: An act to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way, site, or location for national
government infrastructure projects and for other purposes.

10. What are the requisites for valid issuance of writ of possession?

The government is required to make an initial deposit with an authorized

government depositary. Rule 67 prescribes the initial deposit be equivalent to the
assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation.

11. Distinguish the expropriation proceedings under R.A. No. 10752, Section 19,
R.A. No. 7160, and Rule 67 of the ROC.

There are crucial differences between R.A. 8974 amended by R.A. 10752and Rule
67.

Under the statute, the Government is required to make immediate payment to the
property owner upon the filing of the complaint to be entitled to a writ of
possession, whereas in Rule 67, the Government is required only to make an initial
deposit with an authorized government depositary. Moreover, Rule 67 prescribes
that the initial deposit be equivalent to the assessed value of the property for
purposes of taxation, unlike Rep. Act No. 8974 amended by RA 10752 which
provides, as the relevant standard for initial compensation, in the amount
equivalent to the sum of 100% of the value of the property based on the the current
relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

While Rule 67 merely requires the Government to deposit with an authorized

government depositary the assessed value of the property for expropriation for it to
be en- titled to a writ of possession, Rep. Act No. 10752 requires that the
Government make a direct payment to the property owner before the writ may
issue. Moreover, such payment is based on the zonal valuation of the BIR in the case
of land, the value of the improvements or structures under the replacement cost
method, or if no such valuation is available and in cases of utmost urgency, the
proffered value of the property to be seized.

R.A. No. 10752 provides for a procedure eminently more favorable to the property
owner than Rule 67. The intent of R.A. No. 10752 is to supersede the system of
deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of immediate payment in cases involving
national government infrastructure projects is indeed very clear. (Republic vs
Gingoyon).

On the other hand, Sec. 19 of the Local Government requires to the amount of
deposit to be at least 15% of the fair market value of the property based on the
current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated.
 12. What is the effect if the defendant fails to raise his defense/s in his answer? What
is the remedy thereto?

While it is the rule that the failure to answer or to allege defenses and objections will
have the effect of the waiver of the defenses of the defendant to the complaint for
expropriation, the defendant in an expropriation proceeding who does not file an
answer will not totally lose his standing in court unlike the defendant in an ordinary
civil action who cannot appear in the trial if he is declared in default for failure to
file his answer.

By contrast, in expropriation proceedings, whether or not a defendant has

previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount of the
compensation to be paid for his property, and he may share in the distribution of
the award (Sec. 3, Rule 67, Rules of Court).

13. Define just compensation

Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to
be expropriated. The measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. The
compensation, to be just, must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker.
Even as undervaluation would deprive the owner of his property without due
process, so too would its overvaluation unduly favor him to the prejudice of the
public (National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2,
2007).

14. When is just compensation determined?

The trial court should first ascertain the market value of the property, to which
should be added the consequential damages after deducting therefrom the
consequential benefits which may arise from the expropriation. If the consequential
benefits exceed the consequential damages, these items should be disregarded
altogether as the basic value of the property should be paid in every case.

The market value of the property is the price that may be agreed upon by parties
willing but not compelled to enter into the contract of sale. Not unlikely, a buyer
desperate to acquire a piece of property would agree to pay more, and a seller in
urgent need of funds would agree to accept less, than what it is actually worth.

Among the factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value of the
property are the cost of acquisition, the current value of like properties, its actual or
potential uses, and in the particular case of lands, their size, shape, location, and the
tax declarations thereon (National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz, G.R. No.
156093, February 2, 2007).
 15. What are the matters subject of judicial review in an action for expropriation?

Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas of
concern:
1. The adequacy of the compensation;
2. The necessity of the taking; and
3. The public use character of the purpose of the taking (Masikip vs City of
Pasig)

16. What are the rights of plaintiff upon judgment and payment?

After payment of just compensation, as determined in the judgment, the plaintiff

shall have the right to:

1. Enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate the same for the
public use or purpose defined in the judgment; or

2. To retain possession already previously made in accordance with Sec. 2

(Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government
depositary) (Sec. 10, Rule 67).

17. What is the effect of recording of judgment?

When real estate is expropriated, a certified copy of such judgment shall be

recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated, and
its effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so described for
such public use or purpose (Sec. 13, Rule 67).

The judgment shall state:

1. An adequate description of the particular property or interest therein
expropriated; and
2. The nature of the public use or purpose for which it is expropriated.

18. Does the owner have to recover possession of the expropriated property in case of
non-payment?

Non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover
possession of the expropriated lots. However, in cases where the government failed
to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the finality of judgment in the
expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover
possession of their property. This is in consonance with the principle that the
government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment. To be sure, the
five-year limitation will encourage the government to pay just compensation
punctually. This is in keeping with justice and equity. (Yujuico vs Atienza)

19. Does the owner have the right to recover the property if the public purpose is
abandoned?
Yes, the owner has right to recover property.
The remedy is an action for reconveyance or recovery of possession, if payment of
just compensation has not been made after the lapse of 5 years from finality of the
judgment fixing just compensation, under special circumstances, including the fact
that the property taken is no longer devoted to public use.