NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO et.

al
G.R. No. 154411 | June 19, 2003
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Doctrine: Once an order of condemnation has already become final and no appeal thereto is
taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can no longer be questioned.

FACTS
The petitioner in this case filed an Amended Complaint for eminent domain against
respondents who are owners/claimants of several lands located in both Banilad Estate and
Carreta, Mabolo Cebu on the ground that said lands form part of an urban center that is to be
transformed into a socialized housing project. Following this, the heirs of Guivelondo filed their
manifestation that they would not be objecting to the expropriation hence the decision of the trial
court to appoint commissioners to ascertain the amount of just compensation. The said
commissioners recommended that the price be fixed at 11,200 pesos per square meter and this
was adopted by the trail court. Both parties assailed the amount of just compensation. However,
the Court denied the motions for reconsideration on the ground that the recommendation had
adequate basis and support. Still not satisfied, the petitioner elevated the case to the Court of
Appeals which dismissed the petition on the ground that the judgment and omnibus order had
already attained its finality. A motion for reconsideration was filed but was likewise denied by
the Court of Appeals.
Prior to this denial of the motion of reconsideration, the petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss because the socialized housing project was rendered impossible because the beneficiaries
cannot afford the amount the value of the lands. The same was dismissed by the appellate court.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the state can be compelled and coerced by the Courts to exercise and continue with
the exercise of its inherent power of eminent domain- During the pendency, NO.
The Court recognized that the power of eminent domain should be for a public
use. Hence, if it was proven at any stage of the proceeding including pendency of appeal
that the expropriation is not for public use, then the action should be out rightly
dismissed. However, the said rule is not applicable when the case had already been
decided and judgment became final and executory.
There are two stages in expropriation proceedings- first, the determination of the
power of the government to exercise the power of eminent domain and second, the
determination of just compensation. Once an order of condemnation has already become
final and no appeal thereto is taken, the authority to expropriate and its public use can no
longer be questioned.
In the case at bar, the petitioner did not appeal the order of the trail court whch
declared that they have the lawful right to expropriate the said properties hence, the order
became final and executory. As to their contention that it already became impossible to
continue with the socialized housing project because of the amount of just compensation,
the Court held that the need to provide decent housing to the urban poor was not lost just
because of the amount of the land. It is important to take note that it is only when all their
appeals and petitions were dismissed that they adopted the said view. More importantly,

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 respondents had already been prejudiced by the expropriation case. It would be unjust if
the government is to be allowed to ignore the decision of the expropriation proceedings
and not to pay the respondents.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review

is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68670, affirming the trial
courts Order denying petitioners Motion to Dismiss the expropriation proceedings in Civil Case
No. CEB-23386, is AFFIRMED. Petitioners prayer for injunctive relief against the levy and
garnishment of its funds and personal properties is DENIED. The Temporary Restraining Order
dated January 22, 2003 is LIFTED.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2