City of Manila vs. Serrano

The issuance of a writ of possession in an expropriation proceeding is a ministerial duty of the trial court upon the filing of a sufficient complaint and deposit of the assessed value of the property, and compliance with the prior negotiation/exhaustion requirements of RA 7279 is a matter for evidentiary hearing during the condemnation stage, not a ground to enjoin the writ's issuance.

The City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7833, authorizing the expropriation of certain properties in Manila's First District in Tondo to be sold and distributed to qualified occupants under the City's Land Use Development Program. One property, Lot 1-C, consisting of 343.10 square meters, was originally owned by Feliza De Guia, passed to her heirs, and eventually acquired by Demetria De Guia, the mother of the respondents Serrano.

• Ordinance and Expropriation Plan: On December 21, 1993, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7833, authorizing the expropriation of properties in Manila's First District in Tondo, covered by TCT Nos. 70869, 105201, 105202, and 138273, to be sold and distributed to qualified occupants under the City's Land Use Development Program.
• Subject Property: Lot 1-C, consisting of 343.10 square meters and covered by TCT No. 226048 issued in the name of Demetria De Guia, was among the properties targeted for expropriation. The respondents Serrano are the heirs of Demetria De Guia.
• Amended Complaint: On September 26, 1997, the City of Manila filed an amended complaint for expropriation against the supposed owners, including the Serranos.
• Respondents' Claim: The Serranos alleged they had been bona fide occupants of Lot 1-C for over 40 years and that expropriation would render them landless. They claimed the lot was exempt from expropriation as a "small property" under RA 7279, as partitioning it among the heirs would result in each receiving only about 49 to 50 square meters.
• Writ of Possession: Upon motion by the City and after it deposited the assessed value of P1,825,241.00, the RTC issued an order on December 15, 1998, directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the City.

• Proper Remedy: Petitioner argued that respondents improperly availed of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 45, which should have been filed with the Supreme Court.
• Premature Application of Filstream: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the Filstream doctrine, as the RTC merely issued a writ of possession and had not yet condemned the property; thus, it was premature to require a showing of compliance with the prior modes of acquisition under Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279.
• Propriety of Injunction: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in perpetually enjoining the trial court from proceeding with the expropriation complaint.

• Exemption from Expropriation: Respondents countered that Lot 1-C is exempt from expropriation under RA 7279 because it qualifies as a "small property" in a highly urbanized city, and its expropriation would render the actual occupants landless.
• Exhaustion of Modes of Acquisition: Respondents argued that RA 7279 was not meant to deprive an owner of entire residential land but only that in excess of 300 square meters, and that expropriation may only be resorted to after other modes of acquisition have been exhausted, which the City failed to prove.
• Equal Protection: Respondents asserted that the expropriation violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, as they are landless actual occupants.

• Proper Remedy: Whether respondents properly availed of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 45 to challenge the issuance of a writ of possession.
• Premature Determination of Compliance: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the Filstream doctrine and requiring proof of compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279 at the writ of possession stage.
• Propriety of Injunction: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in perpetually enjoining the trial court from proceeding with the expropriation complaint.

• Proper Remedy: Certiorari under Rule 65 was proper. A petition for review under Rule 45 applies only to final judgments or orders. The order granting a writ of possession is merely interlocutory and not appealable; thus, certiorari is the suitable remedy to challenge grave abuse of discretion.
• Premature Determination of Compliance: The appellate court erred in applying Filstream. The issuance of a writ of possession under Rule 67, §2 is ministerial upon the filing of a sufficient complaint and the deposit of the assessed value. In Filstream, an order of condemnation had already been issued, making the determination of compliance with RA 7279 proper. Here, only a writ of possession had been issued, and no evidentiary hearing on the condemnation had yet been conducted. Compliance with the priority modes and exhaustion requirements of RA 7279 requires the presentation of evidence and must be determined during the hearing for the condemnation of the properties.
• Propriety of Injunction: The permanent injunction was improperly issued. Because the determination of compliance with RA 7279 is premature at the writ of possession stage, the trial court must be allowed to conduct further proceedings to receive evidence on whether the City complied with the law's requirements.

• Two Stages of Eminent Domain — Expropriation proceedings consist of two stages: (1) condemnation of the property after determining that its acquisition is for a public purpose or public use, and (2) determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of the private property. Compliance with the requirements of RA 7279 is assessed during the first stage.
• Ministerial Duty to Issue Writ of Possession — Upon the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and upon deposit by the government of an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court.

• "Thus, a writ of execution may be issued by a court upon the filing by the government of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance and upon deposit made by the government of the amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject to expropriation. Upon compliance with these requirements, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes ministerial."
• "Expropriation proceedings consist of two stages: first, condemnation of the property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a public purpose or public use and, second, the determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of the private property to be made by the court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners."

• Filstream International Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 716 (1998) — Distinguished. In Filstream, the trial court had already issued an order of condemnation, justifying the requirement of proving exhaustion of other modes of acquisition under RA 7279. In the present case, only a writ of possession had been issued, rendering such determination premature.
• Biglang-awa v. Bacalla, G.R. Nos. 139927 and 139936, Nov. 22, 2000 — Followed. Cited to support the rule that the issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial upon compliance with the requirements of Rule 67, §2.
• Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, G.R. No. 138896, June 20, 2000 — Followed. Cited to support the two-stage nature of expropriation proceedings.

• Rule 65, §1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides the remedy of certiorari when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Applied to justify respondents' recourse to the Court of Appeals against the interlocutory order issuing a writ of possession.
• Rule 67, §2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the right to take possession of real property in expropriation cases upon deposit of the assessed value. Applied to establish the ministerial duty of the trial court to issue a writ of possession upon compliance with these requirements.
• Sections 9 and 10, Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) — Prescribe the priorities and modes of land acquisition for socialized housing, mandating that expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes have been exhausted and exempting small property owners. Applied as matters requiring evidentiary hearing during the condemnation stage, not at the writ of possession stage.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr.