Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

NPC vs JOCSON

G.R. No. 94193-99


Feb. 25, 1992
Art III, Sec. 9 Elements of Taking
FACTS:
This case involves 7 eminent domain cases concerning the acquisition of land (sugarland) by the National
Power Corporation (NPC) for right-of-way easement related to the construction of a tower and
transmission lines for public good (Bacolod- Tomonton Transmission Line). Initially, the values of lands
concerned were based on tax declarations which the petitioner paid. Land owners concerned asserted that
the amounts were low and that their lands are worth more. The following day respondent Judge Jocson
increased provisional values of sugarland without hearing and directed petitioner to deposit the
differential amounts to which the petitioner also complied with. Jocson then ordered NPC to pay in full
the amounts to the landowners 5 days after the 2nd order was complied with. He also refused to issue a
writ of possession until full payment.
Petitioners allege that respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction, in violation of laws and in
dereliction of the duty to afford respondents due process when he issued said orders. They assert that
orders were not valid and the payment required for the lands specified therein were excessive and
unconscionable amounts. Additionally they state that his refusal to issue a writ of possession until full
payment, even when they had already deposited the provisional values, was a violation of the Rules of
Court1 and of PD 422.
ISSUE:
1. Whether respondent judge Jocson committee grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when he issued the said orders.
HELD:
Yes
Respondent Judge did not comply with the procedure provided for in the Rules of Court. Judges
must apply the law; they are not at liberty to legislate.
Petitioner deposited the provisional values fixed by court and was entitled to be placed in
possession of the property pursuant to the Rules of Court (Sec 2 Rule 67) and PD 42.
Finally, no pre-trial was conducted; the provisional value was yet to be determined in the
proceedings; and the parties made no agreement on just compensation. Hence, the order
requiring full payment has no legal basis as it unjustly compels the petitioner to accept the
Judge's decision of the provisional value as the just compensation.
**Petition is granted and orders by respondent judge Jocson are set aside. TRO made permanent.

Sec 2 Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff shall have the right to
take or enter upon the possession of the real or personal property involved if he deposits with the National or Provincial Treasurer its value, as
provisionally and promptly ascertained and fixed by the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings, to be held by such treasurer subject to the
orders and final disposition of the court; and that after such deposit to made, the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to forthwith
place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved
2
PD 42 states that: . . . upon filing in the proper court of the complaint in eminent domain proceedings or at anytime thereafter, and after due
notice to the defendant, plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with
the Philippine National Bank, in its main office or any of its branches or agencies, an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the
property for purposes of taxation, to be held by said bank subject to the orders and final disposition of the court.

Prepared by: Kristine Joyce Alegre