Posted By: Jan Placido III on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
FACTS:
NAPOCOR filed a complaint for eminent domain and expropriation of an easement of right-of-way against against sps. De la cruz as owner of land sought to be expropriated.
The trial court issued a Writ of Possession over the lots owned by respondents spouses de la Cruz and respondent Ferrer. However, the trial court dropped the Dela Cruz spouses and their mortgagee, Metrobank, as parties-defendants in its May 11, 1999 Order, in view of the Motion to Intervene filed by respondent/intervenor Virgilio M. Saulog, who claimed ownership of the land sought to be expropriated from respondents spouses Dela Cruz.
On June 24, 1999, the trial court terminated the pre-trial in so far as respondent Ferrer was concerned, considering that the sole issue was the amount of just compensation, and issued an Order directing the constitution of a Board of Commissioners with respect to the property of respondent S.K. Dynamics. The trial court designated Mr. Lamberto C. Parra, Cavite Provincial Assessor, as chairman, while petitioner nominated the Municipal Assessor of Dasmarias, Mr. Regalado T. Andaya, as member. Respondent S.K. Dynamics did not nominate any commissioner
As to the just compensation for the property of Saulog, successor-in-interest of the Dela Cruz spouses, the trial court ordered the latter and petitioner to submit their compromise agreement. S.K. Dynamics filed a motion informing the trial court that in addition to the portion of its property covered by TCT No. T-454278 sought to be expropriated by petitioner, the latter also took possession of an 8.55-square meter portion of S.K. Dynamics property covered by TCT No. 503484 for the same purposeto acquire an easement of right-of-way for the construction and maintenance of the proposed Dasmarias-Zapote 230 kV Transmission Line Project. Respondent S.K. Dynamics prayed that said portion be included in the computation of the just compensation to be paid by petitioner.
The RTC ruled that the just compensation to be paid by petitioner at PhP 10,000.00 per square meter. Unsatisfied with the amount of just compensation, petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, the c.a dismissed the petition. They filed a petition with the SUPREME COURT with issue that petitioner was denied due process when it was not allowed to present evidence on the reasonable value of the expropriated property before the board of commissioners.
ISSUE:
The trial court issued a Writ of Possession over the lots owned by respondents spouses de la Cruz and respondent Ferrer. However, the trial court dropped the Dela Cruz spouses and their mortgagee, Metrobank, as parties-defendants in its May 11, 1999 Order, in view of the Motion to Intervene filed by respondent/intervenor Virgilio M. Saulog, who claimed ownership of the land sought to be expropriated from respondents spouses Dela Cruz.
On June 24, 1999, the trial court terminated the pre-trial in so far as respondent Ferrer was concerned, considering that the sole issue was the amount of just compensation, and issued an Order directing the constitution of a Board of Commissioners with respect to the property of respondent S.K. Dynamics. The trial court designated Mr. Lamberto C. Parra, Cavite Provincial Assessor, as chairman, while petitioner nominated the Municipal Assessor of Dasmarias, Mr. Regalado T. Andaya, as member. Respondent S.K. Dynamics did not nominate any commissioner
As to the just compensation for the property of Saulog, successor-in-interest of the Dela Cruz spouses, the trial court ordered the latter and petitioner to submit their compromise agreement. S.K. Dynamics filed a motion informing the trial court that in addition to the portion of its property covered by TCT No. T-454278 sought to be expropriated by petitioner, the latter also took possession of an 8.55-square meter portion of S.K. Dynamics property covered by TCT No. 503484 for the same purposeto acquire an easement of right-of-way for the construction and maintenance of the proposed Dasmarias-Zapote 230 kV Transmission Line Project. Respondent S.K. Dynamics prayed that said portion be included in the computation of the just compensation to be paid by petitioner.
The RTC ruled that the just compensation to be paid by petitioner at PhP 10,000.00 per square meter. Unsatisfied with the amount of just compensation, petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, the c.a dismissed the petition. They filed a petition with the SUPREME COURT with issue that petitioner was denied due process when it was not allowed to present evidence on the reasonable value of the expropriated property before the board of commissioners.
ISSUE:
Whether or not it is a question of law or fact.
HELD: We find this petition meritorious.
It is beyond question that petitions for review may only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth; thus, this Court is mandated to only consider purely legal questions in this petition, unless called for by extraordinary circumstances.
In this case, petitioner raises the issue of denial of due process because it was allegedly deprived of the opportunity to present its evidence on the just compensation of properties it wanted to expropriate, and the sufficiency of the legal basis or bases for the trial courts Order on the matter of just compensation. Unquestionably, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the proper vehicle to raise the issues in question before this Court.
In view of the significance of the issues raised in this petition, because this case involves the expenditure of public funds for a clear public purpose, this Court will overlook the fact that petitioner did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA November 18, 2002 Decision, and brush aside this technicality in favor of resolving this case on the merits.
HELD: We find this petition meritorious.
It is beyond question that petitions for review may only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth; thus, this Court is mandated to only consider purely legal questions in this petition, unless called for by extraordinary circumstances.
In this case, petitioner raises the issue of denial of due process because it was allegedly deprived of the opportunity to present its evidence on the just compensation of properties it wanted to expropriate, and the sufficiency of the legal basis or bases for the trial courts Order on the matter of just compensation. Unquestionably, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the proper vehicle to raise the issues in question before this Court.
In view of the significance of the issues raised in this petition, because this case involves the expenditure of public funds for a clear public purpose, this Court will overlook the fact that petitioner did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA November 18, 2002 Decision, and brush aside this technicality in favor of resolving this case on the merits.
