You are on page 1of 10

Rule 67.

Section 11-14

Reported by Ruhiel Ty Manuel


SECTION 11. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal. — 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. But if the appellate court determines that plaintiff has no right of
expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court to
forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the possession of the
property, and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and
may recover by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff.
It is only after judgment, not mere filing, that a plaintiff be granted a
writ of possession by the court where the expropriation proceedings was
initiated, after the immediate payment to the landowner of 100% of the value of
the property (must be in money) based on the current relevant zonal valuation
(as to infrastructure projects) as determined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
not the court, (Sec.4 R.A. 8974) without such direct payment, no writ of
possession may be obtained, as discussed in the case of Nat’l Corp. vs. Posada
g.r. no.191945 – March 11, 2015. Only then may plaintiff enter the property or
to retain possession for the purpose defined in the judgment. Notice is still
required to be sent to the defendant before placing the plaintiff in possession of
the property.
The Rights of plaintiff upon judgment and payment are as follows:
(1) After payment of the just compensation as determined in the judgment, the
plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property expropriated and to
appropriate the same for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment
or to retain possession already previously made in accordance with Sec. 2,
Rule 67.
(2) Title to the property expropriated passes from the owner to the expropriator
upon full payment of just compensation (Federated Realty Corp. vs. CA, 477
SCRA 707) .
After deposit is made, the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to
place the plaintiff in possession of the property and to promptly submit a
report to the court. Copies of the report are to be served to the parties. (sec. 2.
Rule 67, Rules of Court)
The deposit requirement serves as an advanced payment to the owner of the
property should the court decide in favor of the plaintiff, and should it be
otherwise the deposit shall serve as indemnity against any damage which the
owner may have sustained.
When immediate payment cannot be made
On the instances where the implementing agency cannot immediately
pay even if willing to do so. The owner of the property is not precluded from
contesting the power of the implementing agency to exercise eminent domain,
but the necessity of the taking, the public character of its use, or the proferred
value by the implementing agency. In these instances, the implementing
agency may deposit the proferred value with the trial court having jurisdiction
over the expropriation proceedings. (g.r.no. 191945)
The court may also authorize a deposit in the form of a certificate of
deposit of a government bank of the Philippines payable on demand to the
authorized depositary. If personal property is involved, its value shall be
provisionally ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly
fixed by the court.
Illustrative case. As to the filing of an expropriation proceeding.
Brnggy. Sindalan vs CA G.R. No. 150640.
By virtue of a resolution passed by the barangay council, on April 8, 1983
Barangay Sindalan, represented by Barangay Captain Gutierrez filed a complaint
for eminent domain, against spouses Sindayan, seeking to convert a portion of
respondent’s parcel of land into Barangay Sindalan’s feeder road. Alleged public
purpose sought to be served by expropriation were contained in Barangay
Resolution No. 6. Claiming respondent’s property was the most practical and
nearest way to the municipal road, pending the resolution of the case, petitioner
deposited an amount equivalent to the fair market value of the property.
Absent the filing of a complaint in the taking of private property
The general rule, is that the taking of private property without filing any
complaint before a court of law under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court or existing
laws is patently felonius, confiscatory and unconstitutional. Judicial notice can be
taken of some instances wherein some government agencies or corporations pre-
emptorily took possession of private properties and usurped the owners real rights
for their immediate use without first instituting the required court action, in
violation of the property rights of individuals is a clear and gross breach of the
constitutional guarantee of due process (g.r.no. 150640.)
This however must be questioned timely, otherwise the owner runs the
risk of a waiver of his right to gain back possession.

An expropriation proceeding may be heard in an ordinary civil action.


In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 494 SCRA 494 (2005),
the Court affirmed the RTC’s power to award just compensation even in the
absence of proper expropriation proceeding. It held that the RTC can determine
just compensation based on the evidence presented before it in an ordinary civil
action for recovery of possession of property or its value and damages. As to the
time when just compensation should be fixed, it is settled that where property was
taken without the benefit of expropriation proceedings and its owner filed an
action for recovery of possession before the commencement of expropriation
proceedings, it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling.
An owner still has a remedy when he has failed to question the lack of an
expropriation proceeding.
In Eusebio v. Luis, G.R. No. 162474, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA 576, the failure
for a long time of the owner to question the lack of expropriation proceeding
covering a property that the government had taken constitutes a waiver of his
right to gain back possession. The owners’ remedy is an action for the payment
of just compensation, not ejectment.

When plaintiff/instrumental agency fails to pay just compensation

Non payment of just compensation does not entitle the private land owner 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. (g.r. no. 147511 Jan
20, 2003.)
SECTION 12. COSTS, BY WHOM PAID. — THE FEES OF THE
COMMISSIONERS SHALL BE TAXED AS A PART OF THE COSTS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS. ALL COSTS, EXCEPT THOSE OF RIVAL CLAIMANTS
LITIGATING THEIR CLAIMS, SHALL BE PAID BY THE PLAINTIFF, UNLESS
AN APPEAL IS TAKEN BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED, IN WHICH EVENT THE COSTS OF THE APPEAL
SHALL BE PAID BY THE OWNER.

The order of expropriation merely declares that the plaintiff has the lawful
right to expropriate the property but contains no ascertainment of the
compensation to be paid to the owner of the property. So upon the
rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more
than three commissioners to ascertain the just compensation for the
property. Objections to the appointment maybe made within 10 days from
services of the order of appointment. The commissioners are entitled to
fees and their fees shall be taxed as part of the costs of the proceedings
and all costs shall be paid by the plaintiff except those costs of rival
claimants litigating their claims.
SECTION 13. Recording judgment, and its effect. — The judgment entered
in expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an adequate description,
the particular property or interest therein expropriated, and the nature of the
public use or purpose for which it is expropriated. 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.

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.

Under the expropriation judgment the payment of just compensation is not


subject to any condition. Second, it is a recognized rule that although the right to
enter upon and appropriate land to public use is completed prior to payment, title
to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only
upon full payment of just compensation. Association of Small landowners vs Sec.
Agrarian Reform. (175 SCRA 343 (1989)
• SECTION 14. Power of guardian in such proceedings. — The guardian or
guardian ad litem of a minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent
may, with the approval of the court first had, do and perform on behalf of
his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting the expropriation for public use
or purpose of property belonging to such minor or person judicially declared
to be incompetent, which such minor or person judicially declared to be
incompetent could do in such proceedings if he were of age or competent.

The court’s approval must first be secured before a guardian in


representation of his ward a minor or a person judicially declared
to be incompetent, to do and perform in behalf of his ward any
act, matter or thing respecting the expropriation for public use or
purpose of property which specifically belongs to such minor or
person judicially declared to be incompetent, if they had been
competent.