Biglang-awa vs. Bacalla

The issuance of a writ of possession under Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is a ministerial duty of the trial court upon the condemnor's filing of a sufficient complaint for expropriation and deposit of an amount equivalent to the full assessed value of the property for taxation purposes, without need of prior hearing to determine the provisional value; compliance with the preparatory activities enumerated in Executive Order No. 1035—feasibility studies, information campaign, detailed engineering/surveys, and negotiation—is not a prerequisite to the issuance of the writ.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), required portions of two parcels of land in Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City, for the construction of the Mindanao Avenue Extension, Stages II-B and II-C. The properties were owned by petitioners Remedios Biglang-awa and Salvador Biglang-awa. Remedios owned a 769-square-meter parcel covered by T.C.T. No. RT-101389, of which 558 square meters were needed. Salvador owned a 2,151-square-meter parcel covered by T.C.T. No. RT-101390, of which 881 square meters were needed. On August 29, 1996, the DPWH sent a notice to Remedios requesting submission of documents necessary to determine just compensation. Final notices were issued to both petitioners on October 15, 1996, warning that expropriation proceedings would follow non-compliance. Petitioners did not submit the required documents.

• The Properties and the Project: Petitioner Remedios Biglang-awa owned a 769-square-meter property (T.C.T. No. RT-101389) and petitioner Salvador Biglang-awa owned a 2,151-square-meter property (T.C.T. No. RT-101390), both in Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City. The government needed to acquire 558 square meters from Remedios and 881 square meters from Salvador for the Mindanao Avenue Extension, Stages II-B and II-C.

• Notices from DPWH: On August 29, 1996, DPWH Project Manager Patrick G. Gatan sent a notice to Remedios requesting submission of documents (Tax Declaration, Tax Clearance, Barangay Certification, photographs, Tax Receipt, TCT, and Subdivision Plan) for determination of just compensation. On October 15, 1996, DPWH Project Director Cresencio M. Rocamora sent Final Notices to both petitioners, directing submission of documents within five days and warning that expropriation proceedings would otherwise be filed. Petitioners failed to comply.

• Filing of Expropriation Cases: The Republic, through DPWH, filed Civil Cases Nos. Q-97-31368 and Q-97-31369 before RTC Quezon City, Branch 216, presided by Judge Marciano I. Bacalla. Summons was served on July 10, 1997; petitioners filed their Answers on August 11, 1997.

• Deposit and Motion for Writs of Possession: The Republic deposited P3,964,500.00 (for Salvador's property) and P2,511,000.00 (for Remedios' property) with Land Bank, representing the assessed values per the Quezon City Appraisal Committee. On April 24, 1998, the Republic filed Motions for Issuance of Writs of Possession. The trial court granted petitioners ten days to oppose; their then-counsel Atty. Jose Felix Lucero filed no opposition.

• Issuance of Orders and Writs: On August 5, 1998, the trial court issued separate Orders granting the motions. Writs of Possession were issued on August 12, 1998. Notices to Vacate were served on petitioners in September 1998.

• Change of Counsel and Reconsideration: In January 1999, petitioners retained the law firm Gumpal and Valenzuela, terminating Atty. Lucero for alleged inaction and abandonment. On May 10, 1999, new counsel moved for reconsideration of the August 5, 1998 Orders and recall of the writs, citing the Republic's failure to comply with E.O. 1035—specifically feasibility studies, information campaign, detailed engineering/surveys, and negotiation. The motion was denied on July 7, 1999.

• Non-Compliance with Executive Order No. 1035 as Condition Precedent: Petitioners argued that Sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 of E.O. 1035 constitute substantive requirements that must be complied with prior to and as a condition precedent to the application of Section 2, Rule 67. They contended that a writ of possession may issue only upon showing that feasibility studies, information campaign, detailed engineering/surveys, and negotiation have been conducted. The Republic allegedly failed to furnish any feasibility study or approved parcellary survey despite petitioners' formal request.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners contended that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writs of possession without the Republic having demonstrated prior compliance with E.O. 1035.

• Negligence of Former Counsel: Petitioners argued that they should not be bound by the gross and inexcusable negligence of Atty. Lucero, whose failure to file an opposition resulted in the issuance of the writs. They invoked the exception recognized in Aguilar v. Court of Appeals to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

• Compliance with Rule 67 Alone Sufficient: Respondent Republic maintained that the requisites for a writ of possession are governed exclusively by Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure—filing of a sufficient complaint and deposit of the full assessed value. Both were satisfied.

• Proper Deposit Made: The Republic deposited P3,964,500.00 and P2,511,000.00, equivalent to the assessed values of the properties, with Land Bank, conformably with Rule 67.

• Negotiation Attempted: The Republic asserted that negotiation was attempted through the notices sent to petitioners, which they ignored, justifying the filing of expropriation proceedings under Section 7 of E.O. 1035.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Condition Precedent: Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writs of possession despite the Republic's alleged non-compliance with the preparatory requirements of Executive Order No. 1035 (feasibility studies, information campaign, detailed engineering/surveys, and negotiation) prior to the filing of the expropriation complaints.

• Effect of Former Counsel's Negligence: Whether petitioners were prejudiced by their former counsel's failure to file an opposition to the motion for issuance of writs of possession.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Condition Precedent: The writs of possession were properly issued. The provisions of Executive Order No. 1035—Sections 2 (feasibility studies), 3 (information campaign), 4 (detailed engineering/surveys), and 6 (negotiated sale)—do not constitute conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession under Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The requisites for the issuance of a writ of possession are exclusively and specifically governed by Rule 67: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and (2) the deposit of an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property. Upon satisfaction of these two requisites, the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial duty of the trial court, consistent with the ruling in Robern Development Corporation v. Judge Jesus Quitain (G.R. No. 135042, September 23, 1999). While the preparatory activities under E.O. 1035 should be undertaken prior to the decision to expropriate, their non-compliance does not bar the issuance of a writ of possession once expropriation proceedings are properly commenced. The deposit requirement itself serves as an adequate constitutional safeguard: it constitutes advance payment if expropriation proceeds and indemnity for damages if the proceedings fail. Owners are further entitled to legal interest on the compensation from the date of taking until full payment.

• Attempted Negotiation: There was substantial compliance with Section 6 of E.O. 1035. The Republic sent a notice dated August 29, 1996 to Remedios and Final Notices dated October 15, 1996 to both petitioners, requesting documents for just compensation determination. Petitioners ignored these notices, prompting the Republic to file expropriation proceedings pursuant to Section 7 of E.O. 1035.

• Effect of Former Counsel's Negligence: The failure of former counsel Atty. Lucero to file an opposition caused no prejudice to petitioners. Given that compliance with Rule 67 rendered the issuance of the writ ministerial, no opposition—on whatever ground—could have prevented its issuance. The exception in Aguilar v. Court of Appeals was therefore inapplicable.

• Ministerial Issuance of Writ of Possession under Rule 67 (1997 Rules) — Under Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court's issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty upon the condemnor's satisfaction of two requisites: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and (2) the deposit of an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for taxation purposes. No hearing is required to determine the provisional value; the 1997 Rules reverted to the rulings in San Diego v. Valdellon, Municipality of Daet v. Court of Appeals, and Haguisan v. Emilia, superseding the requirement of prior judicial determination of provisional value imposed under Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay and Panes v. Visayas State College of Agriculture for pre-1997 Rule 67. The deposit must be in the full assessed value, not merely ten percent thereof; PD 1533 was not thereby revived.

• Deposit as Constitutional Safeguard — The deposit requirement under Section 2, Rule 67 satisfies the just compensation guarantee of the Constitution by serving dual purposes: (1) advance payment in the event expropriation succeeds, and (2) indemnity for damages should the proceedings fail. Additionally, property owners are entitled to legal interest on the compensation eventually adjudged from the date of taking until full payment or deposit in court.

• E.O. 1035 Preparatory Activities Not Conditions Precedent to Writ — The activities enumerated in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 of Executive Order No. 1035 (1985)—feasibility studies, information campaign, detailed engineering/surveys, and negotiated sale—are not conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession under Rule 67. Although these activities should precede the decision to expropriate, the issuance of the writ is governed solely by Rule 67 once the complaint is filed and deposit made.

• "Nothing in the foregoing provisions supports the contention of the petitioners. A careful perusal of the provisions cited do not yield the conclusion that the conduct of feasibility studies, information campaign and detailed engineering/surveys are conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession against the property being expropriated."

• "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.'"

• "With the revision of the Rules, the trial court's issuance of the Writ of Possession becomes ministerial, once the provisional compensation mentioned in the 1997 Rule is deposited."

• "Under Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules, the provisional deposit should be in an amount equivalent to the full assessed value of the property to be condemned, not merely ten percent of it. xxx PD 1533 is not being revived."

• Robern Development Corporation v. Judge Jesus Quitain, G.R. No. 135042, September 23, 1999 — Controlling precedent. Established that under the 1997 Rules, the issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial upon deposit of assessed value, without need of hearing; that an answer, not a motion to dismiss, is the proper responsive pleading; and that a final expropriation order requires full hearing. Extensively quoted for the historical evolution of Rule 67 and the reversion to San Diego and Daet rulings.

• Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987) — Distinguished. Declared unconstitutional the executive determination of just compensation under PD Nos. 76, 1533, and 42. The 1997 Rules partially departed from Dulay by eliminating the hearing requirement for provisional deposit while safeguarding the judicial function of final just compensation determination.

• Panes v. Visayas State College of Agriculture, 264 SCRA 708 (1996) — Distinguished. Invalidated a writ of possession for lack of hearing on provisional deposit under pre-1997 Rule 67. Superseded by the 1997 revision.

• Section 2, Rule 67, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs entry upon depositing assessed value with an authorized government depositary. Applied as the controlling provision for issuance of writs of possession; the deposit of full assessed value and filing of a sufficient complaint rendered issuance ministerial.

• Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, Executive Order No. 1035 (1985) — Provide procedures for government acquisition of private property for infrastructure projects. Section 2 requires feasibility studies; Section 3 requires information campaign; Section 4 requires detailed engineering and parcellary surveys; Section 6 requires negotiation; Section 7 authorizes expropriation upon failed negotiation. Construed as not constituting conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession under Rule 67.

• Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Satisfied by the deposit requirement as advance payment and indemnity, coupled with the right to legal interest from date of taking.

Justices Jose A.R. Melo (Chairman), Jose C. Vitug, and Artemio V. Panganiban concurred.

None. The decision was unanimous.