RULE 67 – EXPROPRIATION

Section 1. The Complaint – The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of
verified complaint which shall state with certainty:

a) The right and purpose of expropriation;

b) Describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and
c) 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.
d) 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 owners, averment to that effect shall be made in the complaint

- Expropriation or the exercise of the power of eminent domain is the inherent right of
the state and of those entities, to which the power has been delegated to condemn
private property to public use upon payment of just compensation.

II. It is the power of the nation or a sovereign state:

1) To take or authorize the taking of, private property for a public use;
2) Without the owner’s consent;
3) Conditioned upon payment of just compensation.

Public use – is one which confers some benefit or advantage to the public; it is confined to
actual use by public; as long as public has right to use, whether exercised by one
or many members of public, a public advantage or public benefit accrues sufficient
to constitute a public use.

“The concept of socialized housing is within the expanded definition of public use or purpose.”
(City of Manila vs. Te, G.R. No. 169264, September 21, 2011)

Urban renewal or development of low-cost housing are recognized as a public purpose, not
only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in
the Constitution.

Circumstances that must be present in the “taking” of property for purposes of eminent
domain: (Republic vs. de Castellvi)

1. The expropriator must enter a private property;

2. The entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period;
3. The entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority;
4. The property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected;
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.

In this case of Republic of the Philippines vs. de Castellvi, the Supreme Court ruled that:
“It is clear therefore, that the taking of Castellvi’s property for purposes of eminent domain
cannot be considered to have taken place in 1947 when the Republic commenced to occupy
the property as lessee thereof. There is merit in the contention of Castellvi that the two (2)
essential elements in the “taking” of property under the power of eminent domain, namely:

1. That the entrance or occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent or

indefinite period;
2. That in devoting the property to public use the owner was ousted from the property
and deprived of its beneficial use;

were not present when the Republic entered and occupied the Castellvi property in 1947.

- There must be a genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a public character.
- Necessity must precede or accompany, and not follow, the taking of the property.

Two pronged proceeding in Expropriation:

1. The determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power and the
propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts which terminates in an order of
dismissal or an order of condemnation affirming the plaintiff’s lawful right to take the
property for the public use or purpose described in the complaint;

2. The determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to be
expropriated.

The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the government.

 It delegates the exercise thereof to local government units, other public entities and
public utility corporations subject only to constitutional limitation or control and
restraints of Congress.
 Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and may exercise
only when expressly authorized by statute.
 Section 19, Republic Act 7160 (the Local Government Code) which delegates to LGU’s
the power of eminent domain that lay down the parameters for its exercise.

Essential requisites that must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent
domain:

1. An ordinance enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings over a particular property;

2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the
benefit of the poor and the landless;

3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article of the

Constitution, and other pertinent laws;
 4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property
sought to be expropriated, but the said offer was not accepted.

See: Section 19 of RA 7160- which delegates to LGUs the power of eminent domain,
also lays down the parameters for its exercise.

Municipality of Paranaque vs. V. M. Realty Corporation

Petitioner relies on Art. 36, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules, which requires only a
resolution to authorize an LGC to exercise eminent domain. The local chief executive sought to
exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to a RESOLUTION of the Municipal Council.
Thus, there was no compliance with the first requisite that the mayor be authorized through
an ORDINANCE.

Resolution and Ordinance are not synonymous. They are different from each other.

An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or

opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. Ordinance is permanent in character;
Resolution is temporary.

The letter of the law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule
issued for its implementation.

Eminent Domain not barred by Res Judicata. (Municipality of Paranaque vs. V. M.

Realty Corporation)

If there was compliance with the requirements of its exercise, the same action for
expropriation can be filed again before the Court.

Jurisdiction on Complaint for Eminent Domain.

Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu versus Heirs of Francisco Pastor:

- Private respondent argue that the complaint for Eminent Domain affects the title to or
possession of real property; that the case be brought before the MTC pursuant to Sec.
3 (3) of RA 7691; the assessed value of which does not exceed P20,000.00 (P50,000.00
in Metro Manila)

- Ruling: condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance, then now RTC

Reiterate – expropriation suit is within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the value of
the lance, because the subject of the action is the government’s exercise of eminent domain
– a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
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 property for public use.

Judicial Review is limited to some areas of concern:

a) The adequacy of the compensation;

b) The necessity of taking;
c) The public use character of the purpose of the taking;

Constitutional provisions on the limitations on power of eminent domain.

a) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Art. III, Section 1, 1987
Constitution)

b) Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. (Art. III,
Sec. 9)

Execution pending appeal is not applicable to expropriation proceedings.

 It is a doctrine that government funds and properties cannot be seized under a writ of
execution.
 Disbursement of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as
required by law.

MIAA vs. CA

MIAA is not a government owned and controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the
National Government and thus, exempt from Local Taxation, and that is real properties are
owned by the Republic of the Philippines. MIAA is a mere trustee thereof. It is neither stock
or non-stock corporation.

MIAA and PPA are clearly a government instrumentality, an agency of the government vested
with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental function.

Government properties are exempt from execution.

Entry of plaintiff on the property upon depositing the assessed value with authorized
depository.

When plaintiff to take or enter upon the possession of the real property?

Upon filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the
defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the
property involved IF he deposits with the authorized government depository an amount
equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such
bank subject to the orders of the court.
What constitute the deposit?

Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of
a Certificate of Deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on
demand to the authorized government depository.

If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the
amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.

After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to
forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved, Sheriff shall submit a report
thereof.

Expropriation procedures under RA No. 8974 and Rule 67 DISTINGUISHED”

(National Government Infrastructure Project)

Republic of the Philippines vs. Holy Trinity Realty Development Corporation

 Under RA 8974 – the government is required to make immediate payment to the

property owner upon filing of the complaint to be entitled to a writ of possession;

 Whereas under Rule 67, the government is required only to make an initial deposit with
an authorized government depository.

 RA 8974 – the government is required that for initial compensation to pay: the market
value of the property stated in the tax declaration or current relevant zonal valuation of
the BIR.

 Rule 67 – the initial deposit be equivalent to the assessed value of the property for
purposes of taxation.

 RA 8974 – the national government expropriates property for “national infrastructure

projects”.

 Rule 67 – the national government expropriates property for purposes “other than
national infrastructure projects.”

In this case: Republic vs. Holy Trinity Realty Development Corp.

The SC ruled that the RTC has correctly applied the procedure aid out in Rep. Act No. 8974 by
requiring the deposit of the amount equivalent to 100% of the zonal value of the properties
sought to be expropriated before the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the
government.

CITY OF ILOILO vs. LEGASPI- When the insurance of a Writ of Possession is ministerial.

Issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial – no hearing is required. However, there are two
(2) requirements to be followed:
 a) The filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and in substance;
b) The deposit of the amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value of the property to
be expropriated.

The rule on issuance of a writ of possession government by Section 2, Rule 67:

The only requisite for authorizing immediate entry in expropriation proceedings are:

1) The filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and in substance;

2) The making of a deposit equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject of
expropriation.

The determination of “just compensation in eminent domain is a judicial function. Sec 19, LGC

Requisites of Expropriation under Section 19 of the Local Government Code:

1) The filing of the complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance;
2) The deposit of the amount equivalent to 15% of the Fair Market Value of the property
to be expropriated based on its Current Tax Declaration.

Purpose of Preliminary Deposit

- As a condition precedent to its right to take possession of said lots, pursuant to Rule
69, Section 3 (now Rule 67, Section 2) (Republic vs. Pasicolan, 2 SCRA 626).

- Serves double purposes:

a) a prepayment upon the value of the property, if finally expropriated, and as

b) indemnity against damage in the eventuality that the proceeding should fail of
consummation. (Visayan Refining Co. vs Camus, et. Al., 40 Phil 550)
EFFECT if the defendant has no objection or defense:

He may file and serve notice of appearance and a manifestation to specifically designating or
identifying the property in which he claims to be interested, within the time stated in the
summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same.

EFFECT if a defendant has objection or defense: (Sec. 3, Rule 67)

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 serve his answer within the time
stated in the summons.

Contents of the Answer:

The answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an
interest, state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and
defenses to the taking of the property.
Pleadings not allowed:

No counterclaims, cross-claims or third party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the

answer or any subsequent pleading. (Sec. 3, Rule 67)

Effect of failing to allege defenses or objections – a defendant waives all defenses and
objections not so alleged.

When that defendant may present evidence as compensation?

At the trial of the issue of just compensation whether or not the 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.

As to when the Order of Expropriation is issued by the Court:

If the objection to and defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are
overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by the Rule, the Court may issue an
Order of Expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property
sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the Complaint; upon the
payment of just compensation (Sec. 4, Rule 67).

The date to be reckoned with in determining just compensation:

As of the date of taking of the property or the filing of the complaint whichever came first.

Final Order is appealable:

A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appeated by any party
aggrieved thereby.

Effect of Appeal:

Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to
be paid. (Sec. 4, Rule 67)

Effect after the rendition of the Order:

After the rendition of such an Order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to discuss or
discontinue the proceedings except on such terms as the court may deem just and equitable.

Hearing is necessary before the issuance of an Order of Expropriation. (Republic vs. Phil-Villr
Development and Housing Corporation)

An Order of Expropriation puts an end to any ambiguity regarding the right of petitioner to
condemn the respondent’s property. Because an Order of Expropriation merely determines
the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of such exercise. Its
issuance does not hinge on the payment of just compensation.

To stress, the payment of just compensation is not a condition sine qua non to the issuance
of an Order of Expropriation. In expropriation proceedings, it is the transfer of title to the
land expropriated that must await under the indemnity is actually paid.

Period to appeal in an action for expropriation:

The period for appeal from an order of condemnation is thirty (30) days counted from notice
thereof; and not the ordinary period of 15 days prescribed for actions in general.

There are two (2) states in an action for expropriation:

First: 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.

Second: determination by the court of the “just compensation for the property to be taken”.

From the foregoing doctrinal rule, it is clear that in an action for expropriation, no less than
two (2) appeals are allowed by law:

1. from the Order of Expropriation;

2. determining the just compensation.

The appeal from an Order of Expropriation is by record on appeal and the period is thirty (30)
days counted from notice of the order and not the ordinary period of 15 days.

When to appoint commissioners?

What is the qualification of commissioners?

Upon rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3)
competent and disinterest persons as commissioner to ascertain and report to the Court the
just compensation for the property sought to be taken.

Contents of the Order of Appointment of the commissioners:

The order of appointment shall designated the time and placeof first session of the hearing to
be held by the commissioners, and

Specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the court. (Sec. 5/Rule 67)

When to file and resolve objections to the appointment of commissioners?

Objections to the appointment of any of the commissioners should be filed withthe court
within 10 days from service, and shall be resolved within 30 days after all the commissioners
shall have received copies of the objection.
Determination of just compensation in eminent domain is a judicial function.

The determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is a judicial function

and no statute, decree or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall
prevail over the court’s findings. (NPC vs. Bongbong, 520 SCRA 290, 307)

Any valuation for just compensation laid down in the statutes may serve only as a GUIDING
PRINCIPLE or one of the factors in determining just compensation, but it may not be substitute
the court’s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such
amount.

Define “Just Compensation”.

The full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the “expropriator,” and
that the gauge for compensation is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. In order for the
payment to be “just”, it must be real, substantial full and ample.

Not only must the payment be fair and correctly determined the said payment should be
made within a “reasonable time” from the taking of the property.

The remedies of landowner when property taken for public use:

a) may recover the property if its return is feasible;

b) if not, the aggrieved owner may demand payment of just compensation.
Market value of the property is the price that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but
not compelled to enter into a sale.

-the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and
competition or the fair value of the property.

Factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value:

a) cost of acquisition;
b) the current value of like properties;
c) its size, shape, location as well as the tax declaration.

Proceeding by Commissioners
(Section 6, Rule 62)

Evidence may be introduced by either party before the commissioners who are authorized to
administer oaths.

When to the report?

Except as otherwise expressly ordered by the court, said report shall be filed within 60 days
from the date the commissioners were notified of their appointment, which time may be
extended in the discretion of the court.
When to serve copies of the report to interested persons:

Upon filing of such report, the clerk of the court shall serve copies thereof on all interested
parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days within which to file objections to the
findings of the report, if they so desire.

- Upon expiration of the 10 days or after all the interested parties have filed their
objections to the report or their statement of arguments therewith, the trial court may
accept or reject, whether in who or in part, the commissioner’s report on just
compensation which is merely advisory and recommendatory in character.

After all, the just compensation should be computed based on the fair market value of the
subject property at the time of the taking or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.

Due process is required before the commissioners.

- A hearing before the commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present

evidence on the issue of just compensation.

Uncertain ownership’ conflicting claims:

If the ownership of the property taken is uncertain or there are conflicting claims to any part
thereof, the court may order:

1. Any sum or sums awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the court
for the benefit of the persons adjudged in the same proceedings to be entitled
thereto.

2. But the judgment should require the payment of the sum or sums awarded to either
the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can enter the property, or retain it for
the public use or purpose if entry has already been made.

What are the rights of the plaintiff after judgment and payment?

After payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment,
with legal interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender
to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right:

1. To enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or
purpose defined in the judgment;

2. Or to retain it should he had taken immediate possession thereof under the provisions
of Section 2 hereof.
Effect of appeal from judgment

The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the same
for public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from the judgment. (Section 11,
Rule 67)

Effect if appellate court determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation.

1. Ordering the RTC to forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the
possession of the property; and

2. To determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason
of the possession taken by the plaintiff.

Factor to consider in the determination of Damages:

1. The loss resulting from the dispossession of the land;

2. The loss resulting from the deprivation of the use and occupation of the land;
3. The expenses incurred during the pendency this action;
4. The destruction of the building, canals and growing crops at the time of the
occupation of the land by the petitioner;
5. All of the damages of whatever kind or character which the defendants may be able
to prove and which have been occasioned by virtue of the institution of the present
action.

When the former owner may seek the reversion of the property?

That the taking of private property, consequent to the government’s exercise of its power of
eminent domain is always subject to the condition that the property be devoted to the specific
public purpose for which it is taken.

Corollarily, if this particular purpose or intent is not initiated or not all pursued, and is
peremptorily/abandoned, then the former owners, if they so desire, may seek reversion of the
property subject to the return of the amount of just compensation received. In such a case,
the exercise of the power of eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required
factual justification. (Mactan-0Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Lozada)