Scribd
Upload
527 views

Robern Development Corporation

The case involved an eminent domain lawsuit filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC) to expropriate land owned by Robern Development Corporation. Robern filed a motion to dismiss arguing defects in NPC's complaint. The court denied the motion. Robern appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decisions but allowed Robern to respond to ensure substantial fairness. It also required NPC to deposit the full amount required and for the court to determine rent owed by NPC for occupying the land before depositing the full amount.

Uploaded by

keithnavalta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
527 views

Robern Development Corporation

The case involved an eminent domain lawsuit filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC) to expropriate land owned by Robern Development Corporation. Robern filed a motion to dismiss arguing defects in NPC's complaint. The court denied the motion. Robern appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decisions but allowed Robern to respond to ensure substantial fairness. It also required NPC to deposit the full amount required and for the court to determine rent owed by NPC for occupying the land before depositing the full amount.

Uploaded by

keithnavalta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 

vs.
JUDGE JESUS V. QUITAIN, Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Br. 15;
and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

G.R. No. 135042 : September 23, 1999

Facts: The expropriation process is regulated by the updated Rule 67 of


the Rules of Civil Procedure of 1997 which entered into force on 1 July
1997. Previous teachings conflicting with this Law shall be considered to
have been overturned or changed. Specifically,

(1) the response, not the motion to dismiss is the sensitive pleading of a
case in an eminent domain;

(2) The court may grant a writ of possession until the complainant has
deposited an amount equal to the valuation of the property calculated
according to Section 2 of that Law, without the requirement for a hearing to
decide the provisional amount to be deposited; and

(3) a final expropriation order may not be given until the full hearing and
settlement of the objections and defenses of the owner of the land.

Robern is the licensed owner of a tract of land with an area of roughly


17,746,50 square metres, which the National Power Corporation (NPC) is
trying to expropriate. The property is part of the planned low-cost housing
project in Inawayan, Binugao Toril, Davao City.

On 6 June 1997, NPC filed an Eminent Domain Lawsuit against Robern.


Instead of filing a response, the plaintiff countered the Motion to Dismiss
arguing

(a) that the case suffered a legal defect because it did not prove that the
action lead to the approval of the NPC Board of Directors;

(b) that Nemesio S. Cañete, who had signed the verification and
certification in the Lawsuit, was not the Chief, the General Manager or an
officer expressly approved under the NPC Charter (RA6395);
(c) that the choice of property to be expropriated was improper, as it was
already meant for use in a low-cost housing scheme, to a public function
beyond the scope of the law; and that the choice was also unreasonable,
as alternative properties were available within the city.  Before this petition
could be settled, NPC submitted a motion for the issuance of a writ of
possession based on Presidential Decree No. 42. On 9 July 1997, NPC
deposited P6,121.20 at the Philippine National Bank, Davao Branch, as
evidenced by GNP Savings Account No.385-560728-9. In its order of 13
August 1997, the Court of First Instance dismissed the petitioner's request
for dismissal as follows: "This applies to the motion for dismissal. The
concerns presented are issues that can be dealt with in the due course of
the proceedings. It suffices to assume that [NPC] has the luxury of having
the power of an eminent domain as a utility.  "The motion is denied for lack
of merit. The pre-trial conference shall be on August 27, 1997 at 2:30
P.M." On 2 September 1997, the petitioner filed a Motion for re-
examination, arguing that

(a) the problems posed in the Motion for Dismissal should be settled
without trial, as they could be readily understood in the face of the Case
itself in relation to the relevant... provisions of the law on the matter; and

(b) the reasons for dismissal of the Complaint did not ask for testimony.  On
11 September 1997, the Court of Justice rejected the request as follows:
"For lack of substance, the xxx motion [of the petitioner] for reconsideration
is denied. Having a xxx motion [of NPC] that it is meritorious to have the
writ of possession given."  On 22 September 1997, the complainant filed a
motion for re-examination of the Order of 11 September 1997, alleging,
among other items, that Section 15-A of RA 6395 was virtually "amended"
when Cañete was permitted to validate and sign the non-forum shopping
certificate in support of the expropriation lawsuit filed by NPC.  Without
waiting for the result of the Petition for Reconsideration, NPC requested a
Motion to Enforce the Write of Ownership. On 19 September 1997, despite
the resistance of the petitioner, the Court of Justice granted a writ of
possession. On 5 November 1997, the NPC occupied the contested
property before the petitioner's counsel received any order from the trial
court requiring the execution of the Writ of Possession.  In a motion for
Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), Robern indicted the Writ on the
following grounds:
 (a) the patent in the face of the lawsuit was a fault in its authority,
prematurity and non-compliance with RA 6395; and

(b) the question of the Writ of Ownership was irregular, unfair and unlawful,
as the court has yet to decide the "reasonable value for the purpose of
taking or entering the land to be expropriated."

Issues: The petitioner's memorandum poses the following issues

I.             WHETHER OR NOT THE Issue OF THE RESPONDENT JUDGE


DATE SEPTEMBER 11, 1997 Ordering THE Issuing OF THE
WRITE OF THE POSSESSION IS UNCONSTITIONAL, Extremely
Unusual, Unconstitutional, AND DESPOTIC.

II.           WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT FILED IN THE INSTANT


CASE IS DISMISSIBLE ON ITS FACE FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION, BEING FLAWED WITH PREMATURITY, AND
VIOLATIVE OF RA 6395.

III.          WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS Rendered AND


Found NOT BORNE OUT THE COMPLAINT, So IT EXCEEDED
THE Authority AMOUNTING THE Loss OF JURISDICTION.

IV.         WHETHER OR NOT THE CHOICE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE


EXPROPRIATED IS ARBITRARY.

If there were legitimate reasons for withdrawing the case,

Is the Writ of Possession validly provided, given that the Court of Justice
had not held a hearing on the sum to be deposited?

Ruling:
The Court of Appeals was right in its decisions, but it was in the interests
of substantial fairness that the petitioner should be granted the
opportunity to respond.

WHEREFORE, the decision assailed and the decision made by the


Court of Appeal in CA-GR SP-46002 was Upheld with the following
MODIFICATIONS.

(1) The claimant shall be given a maximum of ten days from the date of
finality of this Decision, within which to file a reply pursuant to Rule 67 of
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of 1997;

(2) NPC shall also, within ten days from the date of finality of this
Decision, deposit the full amount needed pursuant to that Rule; and

(3) In its final ruling, the court shall set the rent for the use and
occupancy of the... contested property from the date of admission of the
NPC to its deposit of the full sum required by the 1997 Rules of
Procedure. No cost. No cost.

You might also like