Haguisan vs. Emilia, et al., G. R. No.

L-40108 August 31, 1984 Facts: Private complaint for respondent, which on is a mining 1975 corporation, with the RTC filed a expropriation Jan.6, against

petitioner whose lot is deemed needed for the construction of pier for copper shipments by the private respondents. The latter alleged among others that it is imbued with power of eminent domain to acquire properties for mining purposes under PD No. 463 or the Mineral Resources Decree of 1974. On Jan. 16, 1975, the trial court ordered the provisional value of the property based on its assessed value at Php17,500 and required respondents to deposit such amount with the PNB. After the respondents have complied such requirement, the trial court ordered the Provincial Sheriff to place respondents in actual possession of the property. Petitioner filed Motion to Dismiss this order but the same was denied. Petitioner then filed petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court on the ground that the trial court judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when the said orders were issued even without hearing and before the expiration of time to plead. Issue: Whether or not the trial court judge, in issuing those orders, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Held: No. The action is governed by P.D. No. 42 which is the decree AUTHORIZING THE PLAINTIFF IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE THE POSSESSIONS OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED UPON DEPOSITING THE ASSESSED VALUE, FOR PURPOSE OF TAXATION Rule 67 on the Rules of Court This decree repealed Section 2 of that requires a hearing for the

ascertaining and fixing the provisional value of the property to be expropriated. This being the case, the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion and indeed the orders were from any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court further held that the the other contention of the petitioner as to the genuineness of the necessity of the expropriation and its public purpose could well be threshed out in the trial on the merits before the lower court.