Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Biglang-Awa vs. Judge Bacalla

    Uploaded by

    ace042363
    The petitioners owned land that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners and filed expropriation cases when they did not voluntarily relinquish the land. The trial court issued writs of possession allowing the government to seize the land after depositing the assessed value of the properties. The petitioners appealed on grounds that the government did not follow the proper expropriation procedures. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writs of possession, as the government had met the only two requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure by filing a sufficient expropriation complaint and depositing the full assessed value of the properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Biglang-Awa vs. Judge Bacalla

    Uploaded by

    ace042363
    34 views2 pages
    The petitioners owned land that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners and filed expropriation cases when they did not voluntarily relinquish the land. The trial court issued writs of possession allowing the government to seize the land after depositing the assessed value of the properties. The petitioners appealed on grounds that the government did not follow the proper expropriation procedures. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writs of possession, as the government had met the only two requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure by filing a sufficient expropriation complaint and depositing the full assessed value of the properties.

    Original Title

    Biglang-awa vs. Judge Bacalla

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners owned land that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners and filed expropriation cases when they did not voluntarily relinquish the land. The trial court issued writs of possession allowing the government to seize the land after depositing the assessed value of the properties. The petitioners appealed on grounds that the government did not follow the proper expropriation procedures. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writs of possession, as the government had met the only two requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure by filing a sufficient expropriation complaint and depositing the full assessed value of the properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views2 pages

    Biglang-Awa vs. Judge Bacalla

    Uploaded by

    ace042363
    The petitioners owned land that the government needed to expropriate for a road construction project. The government notified the petitioners and filed expropriation cases when they did not voluntarily relinquish the land. The trial court issued writs of possession allowing the government to seize the land after depositing the assessed value of the properties. The petitioners appealed on grounds that the government did not follow the proper expropriation procedures. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writs of possession, as the government had met the only two requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure by filing a sufficient expropriation complaint and depositing the full assessed value of the properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TITLE WITH Biglang-awa vs, Judge Bacalla

    CITATION 354 scra 562

    DATE

    PONENTE

    TOPIC

    FACTS Petitioners Remedios Biglang-awa and Salvador Biglang-awa are the registered owners of certain
    parcels of land situated in Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City. The parcel of land owned by
    petitioner Remedios Biglang-awa has an area of 769 sq.m., while that owned by Salvador Biglang-
    awa has an area of 2,151 sq.m.

    The government needed to expropriate 558 sq.m. of the aforesaid property of petitioner Remedios
    Biglang-awa, and 881 sq. m. of that belonging to petitioner Salvador Biglang-awa for the
    construction of the Mindanao Avenue Extension, Stages II-Band II-C.

    On October 15, 1996, Final Notices, signed by Project Director Cresencio M. Rocamora, were
    given by the DPWH to the petitioners to submit within five (5) days the pertinent documents,
    otherwise, expropriation proceedings would be filed against their properties. As the petitioners
    failed to comply with these final notices, the respondent Republic, through the DPWH, filed
    with the respondent Regional Trial Court of Quezon City separate cases for expropriation against
    the petitioners.
    On July 10, 1997, the petitioners received summons from the respondent court, and were ordered
    to file their respective Answers to the Complaints for expropriation.

    The petitioners filed their Answers on August 11, 1997.Subsequently, the respondent Republic,
    through the DPWH, deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines the amounts of P3,964,500.00
    and P2,511,000.00 for the properties.

    On April 24, 1998, respondent Republic filed separate Motions for the Issuance of Writs of
    Possession of the properties of the petitioners with the respondent court. The court issued Orders
    giving the petitioners, through counsel Atty. Jose Felix Lucero, ten (10) days within which to submit
    their opposition to the said motions, to which they failed. Court granted the motions, and issued.
    September 11, petitioners received notice to vacate property.

    Petitioners filed a motion to retain a law firm, in lieu of Atty. Lucero who they terminated for
    abandonment of case. Filed MR for a recall of writs of possession issued on the grounds that
    respondent failed to comply with EO 1035 provisions prior to the expropriation of the property.
    Respondent court issued an order denying the MR

    ISSUES WON there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction of
    respondent court

    RULING None. Expropriation proceedings are governed by revised Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
    Procedure. Specifically,(1) an answer, not a motion to dismiss, is the responsive pleading to a
    complaint in eminent domain; (2) the trial court may issue a writ of possession once the plaintiff
    deposits an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, pursuant to Section 2 of said
    Rule, without need of a hearing to determine the provisional sum to be deposited; and (3) a final
    order of expropriation may not be issued prior to a full hearing and resolution of the objections and
    defenses of the property owner. Thus, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules
    ofCivil 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.

    It is the ruling of this Court that there is no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
    of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent court in issuing the orders and the writs of possession
    herein questioned

    QUICK BIGLANG-AWA VS. JUDGE BACALLA, 354 SCRA 562 (The requisites in order to be entitled to
    RECIT AID a writ of possession in ordinary expropriation are: [1] Filing of a petition for expropriation sufficient
    OR NOTES in form and in substance; and [2] Deposit 100% of the assessed value of the property based on
    the latest tax declaration.

    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2, RULE 67 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE
    DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THE ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CASE, THE ONLY REQUISITES
    FOR THE IMMEDIATE ENTRY BY THE GOVERNMENT IN EXPROPRIATION CASES ARE:

    a. the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; and

    b. the making of a deposit equivalent to the ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT
    TO EXPROPRIATION.

    The owners of the expropriated land are entitled to legal interest on the compensation eventually
    adjudged from the date the condemnor takes possession of the land until the full compensation is
    paid to them or deposited in court.

    You might also like