7/23/2019 Issuance of Writ of Possession

1/2

Petitioner has the irrefutable right to exercise its power of eminent domain. It being a local

government unit, the basis for its exercise is granted under Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 7160, to

wit:

Sec. 19. Eminent omain. ! " local government unit ma#, 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 pa#ment of $ust

compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the %onstitution and pertinent laws:

Provided, however, &hat the power of eminent domain ma# not be exercised unless a

valid and definite offer has been previousl# made to the owner, and such offer was not

accepted: Provided, further, &hat the local government unit ma# immediatel# ta'e

possession of the propert# upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon

ma'ing a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair

market vale of the propert# based on the current tax declaration of the propert# to be

expropriated: Provided, finall#, &hat the amount to be paid for the expropriated propert#

shall be determined b# the proper court, based on the fair mar'et value at the time of theta'ing of the propert#.

&here!i"ite" for athori#in$ immediate entrare as follows:

(1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance* and

(+) the deposit of the amount euivalent to fifteen percent (1-) of the fair mar'et value of the

propert# to be expropriated based on its current tax declaration./10pon compliance with these

reuirements, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial./+

In the case at bar, petitioner avers that the "mended %omplaint it filed complies with both

reuisites, thus entitling it to a writ of possession as a matter of right and the issuance thereof

becoming ministerial on the part of the lower court even without an# hearing. n the other hand,

private respondents allege that the "mended %omplaint is not sufficient in form and substancesince it failed to allege compliance with the mandator# reuirements for the exercise of the

power of eminent domain for purposes of sociali2ed housing.

Section 1 of Rle 67 of the Revi"ed Rle" of &ivil 'rocedre reads:

Section 1. &he complaint. 3 &he right of eminent domain shall be exercised b# the filing

of a verified complaint which shall state with certaint# the right and purpose of

expropriation, describe the real or personal propert# sought to be expropriated, and $oin

as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occup#ing, an# part hereof or

interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of each defendant.

If the title to an# propert# sought to be expropriated appears to be in the 4epublic of the

Philippines, although occupied b# private individuals, or if the title is otherwise obscureor doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with accurac# or certaint# specif# who are the real

owners, averment to that effect shall be made in the complaint.

xxx

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_154614_2004.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_154614_2004.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_154614_2004.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_154614_2004.html#fnt31

7/23/2019 Issuance of Writ of Possession

2/2

In %it# of 5anila v. Serrano,/6this %ourt ruled that 7hearing is still to be held to determine

whether or not petitioner indeed complied with the reuirements provided in 4ep. "ct 8o. +9.

x x x &he determination of this uestion must await the hearing on the complaint for

expropriation, particularl# the hearing for the condemnation of the properties sought to be

expropriated.7 rom the foregoing, it is clear that an evidentiar# hearing must be conducted if

compliance with the reuirements for sociali2ed housing has been made. &his hearing,

however, is not a hearing to determine if a writ of possession is to be issued, but whether there

was compliance with the reuirements for sociali2ed housing.

or arit of po""e""ion to issue, onl# two reuirements are reuired:

1)the "fficienc in form and ""tance of the complaint and

*)the re!ired provi"ional depo"it.

In fact, no hearin$ i" re!ired for the i""ance of a rit of po""e""ion.&he sufficienc# in

form and substance of the complaint for expropriation can be determined b# the mere

examination of the allegations of the complaint. In this case, the sufficienc# of the "mended

%omplaint was further confirmed b# public respondent when he set the case for pre!trial andhearing.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_154614_2004.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_154614_2004.html#fnt36