BARDILLON V BRGY MASILI, CALAMBA

FACTS: Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna filed for expropriation proceeding against
petitioner Bardillon over Lot 4381-D in view of providing the barangay a multi-purpose hall for
the use and benefit of the constituents. The MTC issued an order dismissing the case for lack of
interest for failure of the respondents and its counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The RTC ruled in
favor of the expropriation holding that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the said expropriation
proceeding. It issued the writ of possession over the lot. The CA affirmed the RTC, it ruled that it
was not barred by res judicata since the MTC, which dismissed the first complaint had no
jurisdiction over the action.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred when it ignored the issue of entry upon the premise.
RULING: 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.

SPS YUSAY V CA
FACTS: The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaluyong City adopted Resolution No. 552, Series
of 1997, to authorize then City Mayor to take the necessary legal steps for the expropriation of the
land of the spouses Yusay for the purpose of developing it for low cost housing for the less
privileged but deserving city inhabitants. The spouses Yusay became alarmed, and filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition in the RTC, praying for the annulment of Resolution No. 552 due to
its being unconstitutional, confiscatory, improper, and without force and effect.

ISSUE: WON certiorari and prohibition are available to the petitioners under the circumstances.

RULING: Certiorari and Prohibition does not lie to assail the issuance of a resolution by the
Sanggunian Panglungsod because it was not a part of the Judiciary settling an actual controversy
involving legally demandable and enforceable rights when it adopted Resolution No. 552, but a
legislative and policy-making body declaring its sentiment or opinion. In view of the absence of
the proper expropriation ordinance authorizing and providing for the expropriation, the petition
for certiorari filed in the RTC was dismissible for lack of cause of action.

Only when the landowners are not given their just compensation for the taking of their property or
when there has been no agreement on the amount of just compensation may the remedy of
prohibition become available. Here, however, the remedy of prohibition was not called for,
considering that only a resolution expressing the desire of the Sangguniang Panglungsod to
expropriate the petitioner’s property was issued. As of then, it was premature for the petitioners to
mount any judicial challenge, for the power of eminent domain could be exercised by the City only
through the filing of a verified complaint in the proper court. Before the City as the expropriating
authority filed such verified complaint, no expropriation proceeding could be said to exist. Until
then, the petitioners as the owners could not also be deprived of their property under the power of
eminent domain.

CEBU CITY V SPS DEDAMO

FACTS: The petitioner, City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against the spouses
Dedamo for the construction of a public road. Petitioner deposited with Philippine National Bank
the amount representing 15% of the fair market value of the property to enable the petitioner to
take immediate possession of the property pursuant to Section 19 of RA No. 7160. The parties
executed and submitted to the court an agreement wherein they declared that they have partially
settled the case. Part of the said agreement is the court will appoint three commissioners to
determine the just compensation of the lots sought to be expropriated. However, after the
determination, the petitioner contends that the just compensation should be based on the prevailing
market price of the property at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.

ISSUE: WON the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint.
RULING: In the case at bar, the applicable law as to the point of reckoning for the determination
of just compensation is Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just
compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking. The petitioner has misread the
ruling of the SC in the case of National Power Corp. vs. CA in which they did not categorically
ruled in that case that just compensation should be determined as of the filing of the complaint.
They explicitly stated therein that although the general rule in determining just compensation in
eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of the filing of the complaint, the rule
admits of an exception: where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date it was taken
and not at the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
Finally, while Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that just compensation shall be
determined at the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation, such law cannot prevail
over R.A. 7160, which is a substantive law.
ILOILO CITY V LOLITA CONTRERAS-BESANA
FACTS: The petitioner, the City of Iloilo filed a complaint for eminent domain against private
respondent Javellana to be used as school site. The petitioner filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ
of Possession, alleging that it had deposited the amount with PNB an amount equivalent to 10%
of the amount of compensation. Sixteen years later, Javella filed an Ex Parte
Motion/Manifestation, where he alleged that when he finally sought to withdraw the amount
allegedly deposited, he discovered that no such deposit was ever made. Javellana, filed a complaint
against the City for Recovery of Possession, Fixing and Recovery of Rental and Damages.
ISSUE: Does an order of expropriation become final and what is the correct reckoning point for
the determination of just compensation.
RULING: First, Javellana did not bother to file an appeal from the May 17, 1983 Order which
granted petitioners Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession and which authorized petitioner to
take immediate possession of the Subject Property. Thus, it has become final, and the petitioner’s
right to expropriate the property for a public use is no longer subject to review.
Second, just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking, which usually coincides
with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Where the institution of the action
precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the
filing of the complaint.
Lastly, non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowners to recover
possession of their expropriated lot. The SC stress, however, that the City of Iloilo should be held
liable for damages for taking private respondents property without payment of just compensation.
In this case, the City of Iloilo should pay with interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the time of filing until full payment is made plus exemplary damages.