Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    2biglang Awa V Bacalla - Concepts

    Uploaded by

    Ian
    The petitioners owned land in Quezon City that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners that it would begin expropriation proceedings if they did not provide documents within five days. When the petitioners did not comply, the government filed expropriation cases against them in court. The court granted the government's motions for writs of possession after the required payments were deposited. The petitioners filed motions to recall the writs of possession, which the court denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in its rulings, as the expropriation proceedings followed the proper legal process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2biglang Awa V Bacalla - Concepts

    Uploaded by

    Ian
    130 views1 page
    The petitioners owned land in Quezon City that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners that it would begin expropriation proceedings if they did not provide documents within five days. When the petitioners did not comply, the government filed expropriation cases against them in court. The court granted the government's motions for writs of possession after the required payments were deposited. The petitioners filed motions to recall the writs of possession, which the court denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in its rulings, as the expropriation proceedings followed the proper legal process.

    Original Title

    2Biglang Awa v Bacalla - Concepts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners owned land in Quezon City that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners that it would begin expropriation proceedings if they did not provide documents within five days. When the petitioners did not comply, the government filed expropriation cases against them in court. The court granted the government's motions for writs of possession after the required payments were deposited. The petitioners filed motions to recall the writs of possession, which the court denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in its rulings, as the expropriation proceedings followed the proper legal process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    130 views1 page

    2biglang Awa V Bacalla - Concepts

    Uploaded by

    Ian
    The petitioners owned land in Quezon City that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners that it would begin expropriation proceedings if they did not provide documents within five days. When the petitioners did not comply, the government filed expropriation cases against them in court. The court granted the government's motions for writs of possession after the required payments were deposited. The petitioners filed motions to recall the writs of possession, which the court denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in its rulings, as the expropriation proceedings followed the proper legal process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    2Biglang-awa v Bacalla

    FACTS

    Petitioners Remedios Biglang-awa and Salvador Biglang-awa are the registered owners of certain parcels of land
    situated in Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City. The parcel of land owned by petitioner Remedios Biglang-awa has an
    area of 769 sq.m., while that owned by Salvador Biglang-awa has an area of 2,151 sq.m. The government needed
    to expropriate 558 sq.m. of the aforesaid property of petitioner Remedios Biglang-awa, and 881 sq. m. of that
    belonging to petitioner Salvador Biglang-awa for the construction of the Mindanao Avenue Extension, Stages II-B
    and II-C.

    On October 15, 1996, Final Notices, signed by Project Director Cresencio M. Rocamora, were given by the DPWH to
    the petitioners to submit within five (5) days the pertinent documents, otherwise, expropriation proceedings
    would be filed against their properties. As the petitioners failed to comply with these final notices, the respondent
    Republic, through the DPWH, filed with the respondent Regional Trial Court of Quezon City separate cases for
    expropriation against the petitioners. On July 10, 1997, the petitioners received summons from the respondent
    court, and were ordered to file their respective Answers to the Complaints for expropriation. The petitioners filed
    their Answers on August 11, 1997.

    Subsequently, the respondent Republic, through the DPWH, deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines the
    amounts of P3,964,500.00 and P2,511,000.00 for the properties. On April 24, 1998, respondent Republic filed
    separate Motions for the Issuance of Writs of Possession of the properties of the petitioners with the respondent
    court. The court issued Orders giving the petitioners, through counsel Atty. Jose Felix Lucero, ten (10) days within
    which to submit their opposition to the said motions, to which they failed.

    Court granted the motions, and issued. September 11, petitioners received notice to vacate property. Petitioners
    filed a motion to retain a law firm, in lieu of Atty. Lucero who they terminated for abandonment of case. Filed MR
    for a recall of writs of possession issued on the grounds that respondent failed to comply with EO 1035 provisions
    prior to the expropriation of the property. Respondent court issued an order denying the MR.

    ISSUE: WON there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction of respondent court

    RULING

    None. Expropriation proceedings are governed by revised Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically,
    (1) an answer, not a motion to dismiss, is the responsive pleading to a complaint in eminent domain; (2) 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; and (3) 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. Thus, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
    Civil Procedure and the Robern Development Corporation case, the only requisites for authorizing immediate entry
    in expropriation proceedings are: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance;
    and (2) the making of a deposit equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject to expropriation. Upon
    compliance with the requirements the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial.

    It is the ruling of this Court that there is no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
    the part of the respondent court in issuing the orders and the writs of possession herein questioned.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy