03 - Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna

DEVORAH E. BARDILLON vs.
BARANGAY MASILI OF CALAMBA, LAGUNA

G.R. No. 146886 April 30, 2003
PANGANIBAN, J. KEYWORD/S: Court jurisdiction in expropriation suits /
requirements for the issuance of a writ of possession in an
expropriation case / issue of necessity of the expropriation
FACTS:
Two complaints for eminent domain were filed by herein respondent for the purpose of expropriating a 144 square meter-
parcel of land, otherwise known as Lot 4381-D situated in Barangay Masili, Calamba, Laguna and owned by herein
petitioner under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 383605 of the Registry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna. The expropriation
of Lot 4381-D was being pursued in view of providing Barangay Masili a multi-purpose hall for the use and benefit of its
constituents.
The first complaint for eminent domain, docketed as Civil Case No. 3648, was filed before the Municipal Trial Court of
Calamba, Laguna (MTC) on February 23, 1998, following the failure of Barangay Masili to reach an agreement with herein
petitioner on the purchase offer of P200,000.00. On March 5, 1999, the MTC issued an order dismissing Civil Case No.
3648 “for lack of interest” for failure of the respondent and its counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The MTC, in its Order
dated May 3, 1999, denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
The second complaint for eminent domain, docketed as Civil Case No. 2845-99-C was filed before Branch 37 of the
Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna (RTC) on October 18, 1999. Petitioner, by way of a Motion to Dismiss, opposed
this complaint by alleging in the main that it violated Section 19(f) of Rule 16 in that respondent’s cause of action is barred
by prior judgment, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. Petitioner claims that the MTC's dismissal of the first Complaint
for eminent domain was with prejudice, since there was no indication to the contrary in the Order of dismissal. She
contends that the filing of the second Complaint before the RTC should therefore be dismissed on account of res judicata.
On January 21, 2000, the Judge issued an order denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, holding that the MTC which
ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3648 has no jurisdiction over the said expropriation proceeding. August 16, 2000,
the Judge also issued an order for the issuance of the Writ of Possession over Lot 4381-D.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals: Ruled that the second Complaint for eminent domain was not barred by res judicata. The
reason is that the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), which dismissed the first Complaint for eminent domain, had no jurisdiction
over the action.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the MTC had jurisdiction over the expropriation case
2. Whether or not the dismissal of that case before the MTC constituted res judicata
3. Whether or not the CA erred when it ignored the issue of entry upon the premises
4. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of forum shopping
DOCTRINES | HELD:
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. The subject of an expropriation suit is the
government's exercise of eminent domain. As such, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the
regional trial courts.
The requirements for the issuance of a writ of possession in an expropriation case are expressly and specifically governed
by Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the part of local government units, expropriation is also
governed by Section 19 of the Local Government Code. Accordingly, in expropriation proceedings, the requisites for
authorizing immediate entry are as follows: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance;
and (2) the deposit of the amount equivalent to 15 percent of the fair market value of the property to be expropriated
based on its current tax declaration.
The issue of the necessity of the expropriation is a matter properly addressed to the RTC in the course of the
expropriation proceedings. The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent
domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it.
1. No. An expropriation suit is within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the value of the land.
The Court held in Republic of the Philippines v. Zurbano that “condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of
Courts of First Instance,” the forerunners of the regional trial courts. The said case was decided during the effectivity of
the Judiciary Act of 1948 which, like BP 129 in respect to RTCs, provided that courts of first instance had original
jurisdiction over “all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation.” The 1997
1
amendments to the Rules of Court were not intended to change these jurisprudential precedents.
Petitioner claims that, since the value of the land is only P11,448, the MTC had jurisdiction over the case. On the other
hand, the appellate court held that the assessed value of the property was P28,960. Thus, the MTC did not have
jurisdiction over the expropriation proceedings, because the amount involved was beyond the P20,000 jurisdictional
amount cognizable by MTCs.
The value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the
just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined
only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation.
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. The subject of an expropriation suit is the
government's exercise of eminent domain. As such, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the
regional trial courts.
2. No. Res judicata literally means a matter adjudged, judicially acted upon or decided, or settled by judgment. It provides
that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent
actions involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. The following are the requisites of res judicata: (1) the
former judgment must be final; (2) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it
is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is — between the first and the second actions — an identity of parties, subject
matter and cause of action.
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. No. The Court is not persuaded on the argument of Petitioner that the CA erred when it ignored the RTC's Writ of
Possession over her property, issued despite the pending Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling dismissing the
Complaint.
The requirements for the issuance of a writ of possession in an expropriation case are expressly and specifically governed
by Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the part of local government units, expropriation is also
governed by Section 19 of the Local Government Code. Accordingly, in expropriation proceedings, the requisites for
authorizing immediate entry are as follows: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance;
and (2) the deposit of the amount equivalent to 15 percent of the fair market value of the property to be expropriated
based on its current tax declaration.
In the instant case, the issuance of the Writ of Possession in favor of respondent after it had filed the Complaint for
expropriation and deposited the amount required was proper, because it had complied with the foregoing requisites.
The issue of the necessity of the expropriation is a matter properly addressed to the RTC in the course of the
expropriation proceedings. If petitioner objects to the necessity of the takeover of her property, she should say so in her
Answer to the Complaint. The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain
and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it.
4. No. Petitioner claims that respondent is guilty of forum shopping, because it scouted for another forum after obtaining
an unfavorable Decision from the MTC.
The test for determining the presence of forum shopping is 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.
Be it noted that the earlier case lodged with the MTC had already been dismissed when the Complaint was filed before
the RTC. Even granting arguendo that both cases were still pending, a final judgment in the MTC case will not
constitute res judicata in the RTC, since the former had no jurisdiction over the expropriation case.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

03 - Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 - Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03 - Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVORAH E. BARDILLON vs.

BARANGAY MASILI OF CALAMBA, LAGUNA

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.