Bardillon v
Barangau Masili GR. 146886 April
30, 2003
Nature: Petition for
Review. An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Accordingly, it falls within the jurisdiction of regional trial courts,
regardless of the value of the subject property.
Keywords:
Jurisdiction, Expropriation, barangay hall, Barangay Masili
PANGANIBAN J.
Facts:
Two lots measuring 144 square meters was to be expropriated by
Brgy. Masili for the purpose of constructing a barangay hall. However, the barangay and the lot
owners could not agree with the purchase price of Php 200,000.The first
complaint was filed before the MTC.
Whereas, the second complaint was filed before the RTC.The MTC dismissed
the complaint for lack of interest of the petitioner lot owners. The RTC stated
that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case. It also ruled in favor of Brgy Masili.
Issues:
1. WON
the MTC has jurisdiction over the case of expropriation;
2. WON
the State is barred from expropriating the property by reason of res judicata;
and
3. Legality
of entry into the premises subject of expropriation
Ratio:a
Ruling:
The SC held that the
expropriation proceedings is within
the jurisdiction of the RTC because it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
As discussed:
“xx 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. As such, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be
filed with the regional trial courts. xx”
As regards to the second issue, the principle of res judicata
does not apply against the inherent powers of the State.
The SC has this to say:
“xx 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 is conclusive as to the rights of the parties
and their privies; and 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. xx”
The entry in the premises of the expropriated property was
held to be justified by the SC. It ruled that:
“xx 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. xx”
No comments:
Post a Comment