Abad, Et. Al. vs. Filhomes Realty-Digested Case

 

1

6) G.R. No. 189239

ABAD, ET. AL. VS. FILHOMES REALTY and DEVELOMENT !OR. and MAGDI"ANG REALTY !OR.

FA!TS OF THE !ASE#

Filil-Homes Realty lty and Development Corporation ion and Magdiwang Realty Corporation (respondents), co-owners of two lots situated in Sucat, ara!a"ue City and covered #y $ransfer Certificates of $itle %os& '' and '*, filed a complaint for unla lawf wfu ul det detainer iner on May , '++* again ins st a#oveve-named petitioners #efore te ara!a"ue Metropolitan $rial Court (Me$C)& (Me$C)&

Respondents alleged tat petitioners, troug tolerance, ad occupied te su#ect lots since ./+ #ut ignored teir repeated demands to vacate tem&

etiti titio one ners rs coun counttered ered t tat at te ere re is no po poss sses essi sio on #y tole lerrance for tey a av ve #een in adver verse, cont ntin inuo uous us and uninterrupted possession of te lots for more tan *+ years0 and tat respondents1 predecessor-in-interest, ilipinas Development Corporation, ad no title to te lots& 2n any event, tey contend tat te "uestion of ownersip must first #e settled #efore te issue of possession may #e resolved&

 

2

3n 4une *+, '++5, wile te case is still pending, te City of  ara a ra!a" !a"ue ue fi filed led e6pro e6propr priat iatio ion n proce proceed eding ings s cove coveri ring ng te te lo lots ts #efore te Regional $rial Court of ara!a"ue wit te intention of  esta#lising a sociali7ed ousing proect terein for distri#ution to te t e oc occu cupa pant nts s inc includ ludin ing g petit petitio ioner ners& s& 8 wr writ it of poss posses essi sion on wa was s conse"uently issued and a Certificate of $urn-over given to te City&

$e Me$C rendered udgment in favor of te respondents& 9ut since no payment ad #een made yet to respondents for te lots, te Me$C eld tat tey still maintain ownersip tereon& 2t added tat petitioners cannot claim a #etter rigt #y virtue of te issuance of a :rit of ossession for te proect #eneficiaries ave yet to #e named&

etitioners appealed to te Regional $rial $rial Court (R$C (R$C)) and on Sept Se ptem em#er #er 5, '++/ '++/,, te te R$C R$C rever reverse sed d t te e Me$ Me$C decis decisio ion n and and dismissed respondents complaint on te ground tat te issuance of a writ of possession in favor of te City #ars te continuation of  te unlawful detainer proceedings, and since te udgment ad already alr eady #een ren rendere dered d in te e6prop e6propria riatio tion n procee proceeding dings s wic wic effec eff ecti tive vely ly tu turn rned ed over over te te lots lots to te te City City, te te Me$ Me$C as as no  urisdiction to disregard di sregard te final udgme udgment nt and writ of possession due to non-payment of ust compensation&

$e respondents respondents appealed to te C8 and te appellate appellate court ruled in favor of respondents& 2t also eld tat te issuance of a writ wr it of po poss sses essi sion on in te te e6pro e6propr priat iatio ion n pr proc ocee eedin dings gs does does not not signify te completion of te e6propriation proceedings&

 

3

etition etit ioners ers motion motion for recons reconsider iderati ation on was den denied, ied, ence, ence, te filing of te present petition for review&

ISS$ES#

) :eter te e6propr e6propriation iation proceedings proceedings initiated initiated #y te City of ara!a"ue #ars te continuation of te unlawful detainer case; ') :eter te issuance of a writ of possession in te e6propriation proceedings does not signify te completion of  te e6propriation proceedings&

R$LING OF THE S!#

) 8s a gen gener era al rule, le, eectmen ment procee eed dings ngs, due to its its summary nature, are not suspended or teir resolution eld in a#eyance despite te pendency of a civil action regarding ownersip&

Section  of Commonwealt 8ct %o& s to ac"uire, troug purcase or e6pr e6 prop opria riati tion on proce proceed eding ings, s, land lands s #e #elon longi ging ng to an any y es esta tate te or capla ca plainc incy y (cappe (cappellan llania) ia),, any action action for ee eectm ctment ent aga against inst te tenants occupying said lands sall #e automatically suspended, for

suc

time

as

may

#e

re"uired

#y

te

e6propriation

 

4

proceedings or te necessary negotiations for te purcase of te lands, in wic latter case, te period of suspension sall not e6ceed one year&

') ?6propriation of lands consists of two stages@

$e first is concerned wit te determination of te autority of  te plaintiff to e6ercise te power of eminent domain and te propriety of its e6ercise in te conte6t of te facts involved in te suit& 2t ends wit an order, if not of dismissal of te action, Aof  condemnation declaring tat te plaintiff as a lawful rigt to ta>e te t e pr prop oper erty ty soug sougt t to #e co cond ndem emne ned, d, fo forr t te e pu pu#l #lic ic use use or purpose descri#ed in te complaint, upon te payment of ust compensation to #e determined as of te date of te filing of te complaint 6 6 6&

$e second pase of te eminent domain action is concerned wit te determination #y te court of Ate ust compensation for te property sougt to #e ta>en&A $is is done #y te court wit te assistance of not more tan tree (*) commissioners 6 6 6 &

2t is onl nly y up upo on te co comp mple leti tio on of tes tese e tw two o st sta age ges s tat at e6propriation is said to ave #een completed& $e process is not complete until payment of ust compensation& 8ccordingly, te issuance of te writ of possession in tis case does not write finis to te e6pr e6propr opriat iation ion pro proceed ceedings ings&& $o effe effectu ctuate ate te transf transfer er of  ownersip, it is necessary for te %C to pay te property owners te final ust compensation&

 

5

2n te present case, te mere issuance of a writ of possession in te e6propriation proceedings did not transfer ownersip of te lots in favor of te City& Suc issuance was only te first stage in e6propriation& $ere is even no evidence tat udicial deposit ad #een made in favor of respondents prior to te Citys possession of te lots, contrary to Section . of te B=C&