Rule 67: Expropriation

TWO STAGES IN EVERY ACTION

FOR EXPROPRIATION
Determination of the authority of the plaintiff

to exercise the power of eminent domain and,

Determination of the just compensation
through the court-appointed commissioners

Section 1

(d) The following must be clearly stated in the

complaint , if applicable:
(1) If the title to any property sought to be
expropriated appears to be in the Republic of
the Philippines, although occupied by private
individuals;
(2) If the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so
that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or
certainty specify who are the real owners.
[Rule 67, Sec. 1]

Eminent Domain
Or the power of expropriation is the authority

and the right of the state as sovereign, to take

private property for public use upon
observance of due process of law and
payment of just compensation

Where

private property is needed for

conversion to some public use, the first thing
obviously that the government should do is to
offer to buy it.(Noble V City of Manila, 67 Phil
1). If the owner is willing to sell and the
parties can agree on the price and the other
conditions on the sale, a voluntary transaction
can then be concluded and the transfer
effected without the necessity of judicial
action.

But if the owner of the private property is

unwilling to part with it, or , being willing,

cannot agree on the conditions of the transfer,
then it will be necessary for the government
to use its coercive authority. By its power of
eminent domain, it can then, upon payment of
just compensation, forcibly acquire the
needed property in order to devote it to the
intended public use.

Section 9 Article III of the

Constitution
That private property shall not be taken for public

use without just compensation. This provision is

not a grant but indeed a limitation of the power as
its negative and restrictive language clearly
suggests. This limiting function is in keeping with
the philosophy of the Bill of Rights against the
arbitrary exercise of governmental powers to the
detriment of individual rights. Given this function,
the provision should therefor be strictly interpreted
against the expropriator and liberally in favor of
the property owner.

Who may exercise the

power
General Rule: The power of Eminent Domain is lodged

primarily in the national legislature.( Congress)

Exception: Its exercise may be validly delegated to other
governmental entities and in fact , even to private
corporations, like the so-called quasi public corporations
serving essential public needs or operating public utilities.
a. President of the Philippines
b. Various local legislative bodies
c. Certain public corporations, like the Land Authority
and the NHA.
d. Quasi-public corporations like the PNR, PLDT and the
MERALCO

Requisites of taking in Eminent

Domain
1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. The entry must be more than a momentary period.
3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal
authority.
4. The property must be devoted to public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or unjustly affected.
5. The utilization of the property for public use must
be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive
him of the beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Requisites to exercise Eminent

Domain:
Necessity/Private property:
THE CITY OF MANILA vs CHINESE COMMUNITY OF
MANILA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-14355 October 31, 1919
Facts:
The city of Manila presented a petition in the
Court of First Instance of said city, praying that
certain lands, therein particularly described, be
expropriated for the purpose of constructing a
public improvement. The petitioner, in the second
paragraph of the petition, alleged:

That for the purpose of constructing a public improvement, namely, the

extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila, it is necessary for the plaintiff to
acquire ownership of certain parcels of land situated in the district of
Binondo of said city within Block 83 of said district, and within the
jurisdiction of this court.
One of the defendants answering the petition, denied each and every
allegation of the complaint, and alleged that said expropriation was not
a public improvement; that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to
acquire the parcels of land in question; that a portion of the lands in
question was used as a cemetery in which were the graves of his
ancestors; that monuments and tombstones of great value were found
thereon; that the land had become quasi-public property of a
benevolent association, dedicated and used for the burial of the dead
and that many dead were buried there; that if the plaintiff deemed it
necessary to extend Rizal Avenue, he had offered and still offers to grant
a right of way for the said extension over other land, without cost to the
plaintiff, in order that the sepulchers, chapels and graves of his
ancestors may not be disturbed; that the land so offered, free of charge,
would answer every public necessity on the part of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the expropriation was

necessary. The defendants each alleged (a) that no
necessity existed for said expropriation and (b) that
the land in question was a cemetery, which had
been used as such for many years, and was
covered with sepulchres and monuments, and that
the same should not be converted into a street for
public purposes.
The trial court decided that there was no necessity
for the expropriation of the particular strip of land
in question, and absolved each and all of the
defendants from all liability under the complaint.
Issue: Whether or not there is a necessity for the
taking of the property.

Held:

The Supreme court held that aside from

insisting that there exists no necessity for the
alleged improvements, the defendants further
contend that the street in question should not
be opened through the cemetery. One of the
defendants alleges that said cemetery is
public property. If that allegations is true,
then, of course, the city of Manila cannot
appropriate it for public use. The city of Manila
can only expropriate private property.

In such an appropriation, what, we may ask, would be the measure of

damages at law, for the wounded sensibilities of the living, in having
the graves of kindred and loved ones blotted out and desecrated by a
common highway or street for public travel? The impossibility of
measuring the damage and inadequacy of a remedy at law is too
apparent to admit of argument. To disturb the mortal remains of those
endeared to us in life sometimes becomes the sad duty of the living;
but, except in cases of necessity, or for laudable purposes, the sanctity
of the grave, the last resting place of our friends, should be
maintained, and the preventative aid of the courts should be invoked
for that object. (Railroad Company vs. Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn., 400;
Evergreen Cemetery Association vs. The City of New Haven, 43 Conn.,
234; Anderson vs. Acheson, 132 Iowa, 744; Beatty vs. Kurtz, 2 Peters,
566.)
In the present case, even granting that a necessity exists for the
opening of the street in question, the record contains no proof of the
necessity of opening the same through the cemetery. The record
shows that adjoining and adjacent lands have been offered to the city
free of charge, which will answer every purpose of the plaintiff.

Republic v Castellvi Gr No. L-20620

August 15, 1974
Facts:
The government had rented and started occupying a
parcel of land in 1947, and when the owner refused to
continue extending the lease, commenced expropriation
proceedings in 1959. As the property supposed to be
assessed for the purpose of just compensation from the
time of the taking , the government argued that it should
be deemed to have taken the same in 1947, when the
lease commenced, and not in 1959 when the proceedings
was initiated.
Issue: Whether or not the taking was under the concept of
eminent domain and if it should commenced from 1947.

Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that, it is clear therefore, that the
taking of Castellvis property for purpose of eminent domain
cannot be considered to have taken place in 1947 when the
Republic commenced to occupy the property as lessee
thereof. We find merit in the contention of Castellvi that the
two essential elements in the taking of property under the
power of imminent domain namely (1) that the entrance and
occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent or
indefinite period (2) that in devoting the property to public
use the owner was ousted from the property and deprived of
its beneficial use, were not present when the Republic entered
and occupied the Castellvis property in 1947.

Amigable v Cuenca GR No. L-26400

February 29, 1972
Facts:
Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the
government used a portion of the property of Amigable for
the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenue in Cebu
City.
Amigables counsel wrote the President of the Philippines
requesting payment of the portion of the lot which had been
appropriated by bthe government. The claim was indorsed
to the Auditor General who disallowed it in his indorsement.
Amigable filed a complaint in the court against the
Republic for the recovery of ownership and possession of
the land traversed by the Mango and Gerardo Avenues.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant

may properly sue the government.
Held:

..If the constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated properly

for the property taken for public use were to be respected, as it should,
then a suit of this character should not be summarily dismissed. The
doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Had the government
followed the procedure indicated by the governing law at the time, a
complaint would have been filed by it, and only upon payment of the
compensation fixed by the judgment or after tender to the party entitled
to such payment of the amount fixed, may it have the right to enter in
and upon the land so condemned, to appropriate the same to the public
use defined in the judgment. If there were observance of procedural
regularity petitioners would not be in the sad plaint they are now.
Amigable may immediately file a complaint with the proper court for
payment of his property as the arbitrary action of the government shall be
deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit.

Taking in the constitutional sense

CANORECO V CA
GR No. 109338
November 20, 2000
Facts:

Conrad L. Leviste filed with the RTC, Daet, Camarines Norte, a complaint for
collection of a sum of money and foreclosure of mortgage against Philippine
Smelter Corporation (PSC)
For failure to file an answer to the complaint, the trial court declared PSC in
default and allowed plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte and rendered its
decision in favour of the plaintiff.
When the decision became final and executory, the trial court issued a writ of
execution and respondent sheriff levied upon two (2) parcels of land which were
sold at public auction in favor of Vines Realty Corporation (Vines Realty). The Clerk
of Court, as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, issued a Certificate of Sale which was
approved by the executive judge. Copy of the writ of possession was served on
petitioner as owner of the power lines standing on certain portions of the subject
property. Later, Vines Realty filed an amended motion for an order of demolition
and removal of improvements on the subject land. Among the improvements for
removal were the power lines and electric posts belonging to petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not there is an exercise of the power of eminent

domain.
Held:
The trial court failed to appreciate the nature of electric cooperatives
as public utilities. Among the powers granted to electric cooperatives
by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 26936 are:
"Section 16 Powers(j) To construct, maintain and operate electric transmission and
distribution lines along, upon, under and across publicly owned lands
and public thoroughfares, including, without limitation, all roads,
highways, streets, alleys, bridges and causeways; Provided, that such
shall not prevent or unduly impair the primary public uses to which
such lands and thoroughfares are otherwise devoted;
"(k) To exercise the power of eminent domain in the manner provided
by law for the exercise of such power by other corporations
constructing or operating electric generating plants and electric
transmission and distribution lines or systems."
Electric cooperatives, like CANORECO, are vested with the power of
eminent domain.

"Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the

taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the
expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why said
power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the
owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession.
It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation,
be subjected to an easement of right-of-way."
However, a simple right-of-way easement transmits no rights,
except the easement. Vines Realty retains full ownership and it is
not totally deprived of the use of the land. It can continue doing
what it wants to do with the land, except those that would result in
contact with the wires.
The acquisition of this easement, nevertheless, is not gratis.
Considering the nature and effect of the installation power lines, the
limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives
private respondents of its ordinary use. For these reasons, Vines
Realty is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be
neither more nor less than the money equivalent of the property.

Just Compensation
In expropriation proceedings, it is defined as the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain, but the
owners loss. The word just is used to intensify the meaning
of the word compensation and to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall
be real, substantial, full and ample. The constitutional
limitation of just compensation is considered to be the sum
equivalent to the market value of the property broadly defined
as the price fixed by the seller in in open market in the usual
and ordinary course of legal action and competitions or the
fair value of the property; as between one who receives and
of the actual taking by the Government.(Republic v Rural Bank
of Kabacan, GR No. 185124 January 25, 2012)

If the compensation is not paid when the

property is taken, but is postponed to a later
date, the interest awarded is actually part of
just compensation which take into account such
delay.
It is settled that in determining how much
just compensation should be given to the
landowner the nature and character of the land
be principally considered. (Tinio Jr V NAPOCOR,
640 SCRA 287,293 January 24, 2011)

Forms of compensation
1.Cash
2.Bonds
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC V
Secretary of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989
It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium
for the payment of just compensation is money and no other. And so,
conformably, has just compensation been paid in the past solely in
that medium. However, we do not deal here with the traditional
exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary
expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area
is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and
perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind
of expropriation.

The

expropriation before us affects all private

agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind
as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention
limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is
intended for the benefit not only of a particular
community or of a small segment of the population but
of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society,
from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner.
Its purpose does not cover only the whole territory of
this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable
future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the vision
and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos.

Generations yet to come are as involved in this

program as we are today, although hopefully only

as beneficiaries of a richer and more fulfilling life
we will guarantee to them tomorrow through our
thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be
forgotten that it is no less than the Constitution
itself that has ordained this revolution in the farms,
calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers
of lands that have heretofore been the prison of
their dreams but can now become the key at least
to their deliverance.

The Supreme Court allowed the payment of

just compensation in bonds. CARP do not deal

with the traditional exercise of Eminent
Domain it is revolutionary and it involves
billions of pesos.

Determination of just compensation

This is done with the assistance of not more
than
three (3) commissioners.
The order fixing just compensation is also final
and appealable . Just compensation is to be
determined as of the date of the taking of the
propriety or the filing of the complaint, whichever
comes first.

Exercise of Eminent Domain by the

local Government Unit
Section 19 of RA 7160
SEC. 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit
may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant
to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent
domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the
benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of
just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however,
That the power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner, and such offer was not
accepted:

Provided, further, That the local government unit

may immediately take possession of the property

upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings
and upon making a deposit with the proper court
of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market
value of the property based on the current tax
declaration of the property to be expropriated:
Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for
the expropriated property shall be determined by
the proper court, based on the fair market value at
the time of the taking of the property.

a. An ordinance is enacted by the local council to

exercise the power of eminent domain, or pursue
expropriation proceedings over a particular private
property through its chief executive.
b. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public
use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor
and the landless.
c. There is payment of just compensation, as required
under the constitution, and under pertinent laws; and
d. A valid and definite offer has been previously made
to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated,
but said offer was not accepted.

This stage is terminated by either an order

of dismissal of the action or order of the
condemnation declaring that expropriation is
proper and legal. These orders are final and
therefore appealable. [Municipality of Bian v.
Garcia (1989)]
It includes an inquiry into the propriety of the
expropriation its necessity and public purpose.

Defendants shall be serve with summons.

Defendants-applies to all those who have

lawful interest in the property to be

condemned including a mortgagee, lessee
and vendee in possession under an executory
contract.
If a person claiming an interest in the land
sought to be condemned is not made a party,
he is given the right to intervene and lay
claim to the compensation.

Under both Rule 67 and RA 8974, the law

governing expropriation of private property for
national government infrastructure projects, the
government commences expropriation
proceedings through the filling of the complaint.
Under the local government there must be
an authorizing ordinance before expropriation
may be accomplished.

Sec. 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value

with authorized government depositary. -Upon
the filing of the complaint or at any time
thereafter and after due notice to the
defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to
take or enter upon the possession of the real
property involved if he deposits with the
authorized government depositary an amount
equivalent to the assessed value of the
property for purposes of taxation to be held by
such bank subject to the orders of the court.

Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the

court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of
a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines
payable on demand to the authorized government
depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be
provisionally ascertained and the amount to be deposited
shall be promptly fixed by the court. After such deposit is
made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper
officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the
property involved and promptly submit a report thereof to
the court with service of copies to the parties.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8974

November 7, 2000
AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings.

- Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the
right-of-way or location for any national government
infrastructure project through expropriation, the appropriate
implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation proceedings
before the proper court under the following guidelines:
(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to
the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay
the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of
(1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property
based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the
improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7
hereof;

When plaintiffs entry to property

be made
Rule 67

RA 8974

Before issuance of writ of

possession

Upon filing of the

complaint

Expropriation
proceedings initiated by
the national government

Right-of-way, site or
location of national
government
infrastructure projects

Initial deposit with an

authorized government
depositary

Immediate payment to
the property owner

Amount for deposit

equivalent to 100%
assessed value of the
property for purposes of
taxation.

Amount to be paid is:

100% of the value of
the land as stated in
the tax declaration or
current zonal
valuation, whichever

Under the local government Code Sec 19 RA

7160, the local government unit may
immediately take possession of the property
upon the filling of the expropriation proceedings
and making with the deposit with the proper
court of at least 15% of the fair market value of
the property based on the current tax
declaration of the property to be expropriated.

A hearing is not required in order for the

plaintiff to enter or be granted immediate
possession of the property. All that is required is
notice to the owner and the deposit.

SALVADOR BIGLANG-AWA, REMEDIOS

BIGLANG-AWA, petitioners, vs HON. JUDGE
MARCIANO I. BACALLA in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of Branch 216 - Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND HIGHWAYS), respondents.
G.R. Nos. 139927 and 139936
November 22, 2000

Facts:
Petitioners are the registered owners of certain
parcels of land situated in Talipapa, Novaliches,
Quezon City. The government needed to expropriate
property of petitioners for the construction of the
Mindanao Avenue Extension, Stages II-B and II-C.
The petitioner received a Notice from the
respondent Republic, through the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Project Manager
requiring her to submit the documents necessary to
determine the just compensation for her property.

Final Notices, signed by Project Director

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.

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 of Salvador and Remedios
Biglang-awa, respectively, based on the appraisal
report of the Quezon City Appraisal Committee.

Issue: Whether or not plaintiff has the right to enter

the property without compliance to EO 1035
Held:
Nothing in the foregoing provisions supports the contention
of the petitioners. A careful perusal of the provisions cited
do not yield the conclusion that the conduct of feasibility
studies,
information
campaign
and
detailed
engineering/surveys are conditions precedent to the
issuance of a writ of possession against the property being
expropriated. Although compliance with these activities
should indeed be made prior to the decision to expropriate
private property, the requirements for issuance of a writ of
possession once the expropriation case is filed, are
expressly and specifically governed by Section 2 of Rule 67
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:

Rule 67 Sec.2. Entry of the plaintiff upon depositing

value with authorized government depositary.Upon the filing of the complaint or at anytime
thereafter, and after due notice to the defendant,
the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter
upon the possession of the real property involved if he
deposits with the authorized government depositary an
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property
for the purposes of taxation to be held by such bank
subject to the orders of the court

If such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or

other proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in
possession of the property involved and promptly submit a
report thereof to the court with service of copies to the
parties.
"Expropriation proceedings are governed by revised Rule 67 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect on July 1,
1997. Previous doctrines inconsistent with this Rule are
deemed reversed or modified. 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."

Section 3. Defenses and objections. If a defendant has no objection

or defense to the action or the taking of his property, he may file and
serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation to that effect,
specifically designating or identifying the property in which he claims
to be interested, within the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he
shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same. If a
defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the
complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he
shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The
answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he
claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest
claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of
his property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall
be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading .A
defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the
court, in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer
to be made not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof.
However, at the trial of the issue of just compensation whether or not
a defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may present
evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his
property, and he may share in the distribution of the award.

IF THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO

OBJECTION OR
DEFENSE TO THE
EXPROPRIATION OR
TAKING OF THE PROPERTY

IF THE PLAINTIFF HAS

OBJECTION OR
DEFENSE TO THE
EXPROPRIATION OR
TAKING OF THE PROPERTY

Defendant may file and serve

notice of
appearance and a manifestation
that he has no objection or
defense, specifically designating
or identifying the property in
which he claims to be interested
within the time stated in the
summons. Thereafter, the
defendant shall be entitled to
notice of all proceedings affecting
the same.

Defendant shall serve his

ANSWER within the time
stated in the summons.

All objections and defenses

to the complaint or any
allegation

GENERAL RULE: All defenses or objections not

alleged in the answer are deemed waived.
EXCEPTION: The court, in the interest of justice,
may allow the answer to be amended not later
than 10 days from filing. At the trial of the
issue of compensation, whether or not the
defendant has previously appeared or
answered, he may present evidence as to the
amount of the compensation to be paid for his
property, and he may share in the distribution
of the award.

The answer to the complaint for expropriation

shall:
1. Specifically designate or identify the property
in which he claims to have an interest;
2. State the nature and extent of the interest
claimed; and
3. Adduce all of defendants objections or
defenses to the taking of his property
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the
answer or any subsequent pleading.

Available defenses-any relevant

and material facts
1.The exercise of power to condemn was
unauthorized.
2.That there was cause for not taking
defendants property for the purpose alleged
in the petition.
3.That the purpose for the taking was not public
in character.

Section 4. Order of expropriation. If the objections to

and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to

expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party
appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may
issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff
has a lawful right to take the property sought to be
expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in
the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to
be determined as of the date of the taking of the property
or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. A final
order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may
be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal,
however, shall not prevent the court from determining the
just compensation to be paid. After the rendition of such
an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or
discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the
court deems just and equitable.

It declares that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take

the property sought to be expropriated for the public
use or purpose described in the complaint, upon
payment of just compensation to be determined as of
the date of the taking of the property or the filing of
the complaint whichever is earlier.
It is issued by the court in which the complaint for
expropriation is filed when:
objections or defenses of the defendant
have been overruled, or
the defendant raised no such defense or objection, or
no party appears to defend

The order of expropriation is appealable. The

final order sustaining the right to expropriate

the property may be appealed from by any
party aggrieved by such order.

Sec. 5. Ascertainment of compensation. Upon the

rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall
appoint not more than three (3) competent and
disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain
and report to the court the just compensation for the
property sought to be taken. The order of
appointment shall designate the time and place of the
first session of the hearing to be held by the
commissioners and specify the time within which their
report shall be submitted to the court.
Copies of the order shall be served on the parties.
Objections to the appointment of any of the
commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten
(10) days from service, and shall be resolved within
thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall have
received copies of the objections.

Sec. 6. Proceedings by commissioners. Before entering upon the

performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take and
subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as
commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other
proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either
party before the commissioners who are authorized to administer
oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall,
unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the
parties to attend, view and examine the property sought to be
expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same,
after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the
case. The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages
to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential
damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner
from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the
operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of
the business of the corporation or person taking the property. But
in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the
consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the
actual value of his property so taken.

Sec. 7. Report by commissioners and judgment thereupon. The

court may order the commissioners to report when any
particular portion of the real estate shall have been passed
upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partial
report, and direct the commissioners to proceed with their
work as to subsequent portions of the property sought to be
expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such
property. The commissioners shall make a full and accurate
report to the court of all their proceedings, and such
proceedings shall not be effectual until the court shall have
accepted their report and rendered judgment in accordance
with their recommendations. Except as otherwise expressly
ordered by the court, such report shall be filed within sixty (60)
days from the date the commissioners were notified of their
appointment, which time may be extended in the discretion of
the court. Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of the court
shall serve copies thereof on all interested parties, with notice
that they are allowed ten (10) days within which to file
objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire.

Sec. 8. Action upon commissioners report. Upon the

expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in
the preceding section, or even before the expiration
of such period but after all the interested parties
have filed their objections to the report or their
statement of agreement therewith, the court may,
after hearing, accept the report and render judgment
in accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may
recommit the same to the commissioners for further
report of facts; or it may set aside the report and
appoint new commissioners; or it may accept the
report in part and reject it in part; and it may make
such order or render such judgment as shall secure
to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise
of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant
just compensation for the property so taken.

Sec. 9. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims.

If the ownership of the property taken is
uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to
any part thereof, the court may order any sum
or sums awarded as compensation for the
property to be paid to the court for the benefit
of the person adjudged in the same
proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the
judgment shall require the payment of the
sum or sums awarded to either the defendant
or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon
the property, or retain it for the public use or
purpose if entry has already been made.

Sec. 12. Costs, by whom paid. The fees of the

commissioners shall be taxed as a part of the
costs of the proceedings. All costs, except
those of rival claimants litigating their claims,
shall be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal
is taken by the owner of the property and the
judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs
of the appeal shall be paid by the owner.

Upon the rendition of the order of

expropriation, the court shall appoint not more
than 3 competent and disinterested persons
as commissioners to ascertain and report to
the court the just compensation for the
property sought to be taken.

Powers and duties of

commissioners
1. Parties can present evidence before the
commissioners and the latter have the power
to administer oaths or hearings before them;
2. They can, after due notice to the parties to
attend, view and examine the property sought
to be expropriated and its surroundings and
may measure the same;
EXCEPTION: when the parties agrees
otherwise, the commissioners cannot view
and examine the property

3. The commissioners shall assess the

consequential damages to the property taken
and deduct from such consequential damages
the consequential benefits derived by the
property taken, the operation of its franchise
by the corporation or person taking the
property. In no case shall the consequential
benefits assessed exceed the consequential
damages assessed, or the owner be deprived
of the actual value of his property so taken.
4. The commissioners shall make full and
accurate report to the court of all their
proceedings.

 The report shall be filed within 60 days from

the date the commissioners were notified of

their appointment.
Upon filing of the report, the clerk of court
shall serve copies thereof on all interested
parties, with notice that they are allowed ten
(10) days within which to file objections to the
findings of the report, if the parties desire.

 After the 10-day period for objecting to the

commissioners report, the court, after hearing,

may:
1. ACCEPT the report and render JUDGMENT in
accordance therewith;
2. RECOMMIT the report to the commissioners for
further report of facts;
3. SET ASIDE the report and APPOINT new
commissioners;
4. ACCEPT the report IN PART and REJECT it IN PART;
5. Make such order or render judgment s shall
secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the
exercise of his right of expropriation and to the
defendant just compensation for the property so
taken.

The findings of the commissioners may be

disregarded and the trial court may substitute
its own estimate of the value but it may only
do so for valid reasons,
.where the commissioners applied illegal
principles to the evidence submitted to them
.where they have disregarded a clear
preponderance of evidence.
.where the amount allowed is either grossly
inadequate or excessive.

JUDGMENT
The judgment entered in expropriation
proceedings shall state definitely, by an
adequate description, the particular property
or interest therein expropriated, and the
nature of the public use or purpose for which
it is expropriated. When real estate is
expropriated, a certified copy of such
judgment shall be recorded in the registry of
deeds of the place in which the property is
situated, and its effect shall be to vest in the
plaintiff the title to the real estate so
described for such public use or purpose.

Cases on Commissioner and Just

Compensation
FORFOM Development Corporation v PNR
GR No. 124795 December 10, 2008
Yujuico v Atienza Jr
GR No. 164282, October 12, 2005

Sec. 10. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment.

Upon payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the
compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest
thereon from the taking of the possession of the
property, or after tender to him of the amount so fixed
and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the
right to enter upon the property expropriated and to
appropriate it for the public use or purpose defined in
the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken
immediate possession thereof under the provisions of
section 2 hereof. If the defendant and his counsel absent
themselves from the court, or decline to receive the
amount tendered, the same shall be ordered to be
deposited in court and such deposit shall have the same
effect as actual payment thereof to the defendant or the
person ultimately adjudged entitled thereto.

Upon

payment by the plaintiff to the

defendant of the compensation fixed by the
judgment, with legal interest thereon from the
taking of the possession of the property, or
after tender to him of the amount so fixed and
payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have
the right to enter upon the property
expropriated and to appropriate it for the
public use or purpose defined in the
judgment, or to retain it should he have taken
immediate possession thereof.

 The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the

property of the defendant and appropriate the
same for public use or purpose shall not be
delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But
if the appellate court determines that plaintiff
has no right of expropriation, judgment shall
be rendered ordering the RTC to forthwith
enforce the restoration to the defendant of the
possession of the property, and to determine
the damages which the defendant sustained
and may recover by reason of the possession
taken by the plaintiff.

Sec. 11. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of

reversal. The right of the plaintiff to enter upon
the property of the defendant and appropriate
the same for public use or purpose shall not be
delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But if
the appellate court determines that plaintiff
has no right of expropriation, judgment shall
be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court
to forthwith enforce the restoration to the
defendant of the possession of the property,
and to determine the damages which the
defendant sustained and may recover by
reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff.

Sec. 13. Recording judgment, and its effect. The

judgment
entered
in
expropriation
proceedings shall state definitely, by an
adequate description, the particular property
or interest therein expropriated, and the
nature of the public use or purpose for which
it is expropriated. When real estate is
expropriated, a certified copy of such
judgment shall be recorded in the registry of
deeds of the place in which the property is
situated, and its effect shall be to vest in the
plaintiff the title to the real estate so
described for such public use or purpose.

Sec. 14. Power of guardian in such proceedings.

The guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor
or of a person judicially declared to be
incompetent may, with the approval of the
court first had, do and perform on behalf of
his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting
the expropriation for public use or purpose of
property belonging to such minor or person
judicially declared to be incompetent, which
such minor or person judicially declared to be
incompetent could do in such proceedings if
he were of age or competent.