Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. J. King and Sons Company, Inc.

Upon deposit of the provisional payment equivalent to 100% of the zonal value with the court, the trial court has a ministerial duty to immediately issue a writ of possession in expropriation cases covered by R.A. No. 8974.

Petitioner Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD), a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Presidential Decree No. 198, sought to acquire a five-square meter lot occupied by its production well, which formed part of respondent J. King and Sons Company, Inc.'s property in Banilad, Cebu City. Petitioner initiated negotiations for the voluntary sale of the property, but respondent refused the proposal.

• Authority to Expropriate: Petitioner's board of directors approved Board Resolution No. 015-2004, authorizing its general manager to file expropriation cases. The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) reviewed and approved the filing via a letter dated 28 February 2005, specifically identifying the five-square meter lot to be expropriated.
• Filing and Deposit: On 10 November 2004, petitioner filed a complaint for expropriation. On 7 February 2005, petitioner moved for the issuance of a writ of possession. Petitioner failed to attend a rescheduled hearing to tender payment directly to respondent but subsequently deposited ₱17,500.00—equivalent to 100% of the BIR zonal value of ₱3,500.00 per square meter—with the Clerk of Court.
• RTC Ruling: The trial court granted the motion and issued the writ of possession. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied.
• CA Reversal: Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which granted a temporary restraining order. The CA ruled that the board resolution lacked exactitude and particularity, rendering it invalid; that there was no genuine necessity for the expropriation; and that reliance on R.A. No. 8974 contravened the judicial determination of just compensation.

• Board Authorization: Petitioner argued that Board Resolution No. 015-2004 provided sufficient authority to institute the expropriation complaint, and the exercise of the power of eminent domain was duly reviewed and approved by the LWUA.
• Writ of Possession Procedure: Petitioner maintained that the procedure for obtaining the writ of possession was properly observed, contending that the deposit of the provisional payment with the court under R.A. No. 8974 entitled it to the writ as a matter of right.

• Invalid Board Resolution: Respondent argued that the board resolution authorizing the expropriation lacked exactitude and particularity, likening it to a general warrant in criminal law.
• Lack of LWUA Review: Respondent contended that petitioner's exercise of the power of eminent domain was not reviewed by the LWUA.
• Inapplicability of R.A. 8974: Respondent asserted that reliance on R.A. No. 8974 contravened the judicial determination of just compensation and ran counter to Section 2 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
• Lack of Necessity: Respondent claimed there was no genuine necessity for the expropriation of the five-square meter lot.

• Board Authorization: Whether there was sufficient authority from petitioner's board of directors to institute the expropriation complaint.
• Writ of Possession Procedure: Whether the procedure in obtaining a writ of possession was properly observed, specifically concerning the application of R.A. No. 8974.

• Board Authorization: Sufficient authority existed to institute the complaint. As a corporation, petitioner exercises its powers through its board of directors, which passed Board Resolution No. 015-2004 authorizing the general manager to file expropriation cases. The subsequent LWUA letter explicitly approved the filing against the owner of the specific five-square meter portion of the lot, providing the requisite particularity and debunking the claim of absent LWUA review.
• Writ of Possession Procedure: The procedure was properly observed. R.A. No. 8974 applies to projects undertaken by government-owned and controlled corporations and explicitly supersedes the deposit system under Rule 67 for national government infrastructure projects. The law requires immediate payment of 100% of the zonal value as a provisional payment to entitle the plaintiff to a writ of possession. The deposit of this provisional amount with the court is equivalent to payment. Upon compliance, the trial court has a ministerial duty to issue the writ. The issue of necessity is a justiciable question to be resolved during the first stage of the expropriation proceeding, not in a certiorari proceeding challenging the writ of possession.

• Two Stages of Expropriation — An expropriation proceeding consists of two stages: (1) determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise, ending in an order of dismissal or condemnation; and (2) determination by the court of just compensation with the assistance of commissioners. The necessity of the expropriation is a justiciable question resolved in the first stage.
• Ministerial Duty to Issue Writ of Possession under R.A. 8974 — Upon compliance with the guidelines of R.A. No. 8974, specifically the immediate payment of 100% of the zonal value, the court must immediately issue an order to take possession of the property. No hearing is required, and the court exercises no discretion or judgment in determining the provisional value, as the legislature has fixed the amount.
• Provisional Payment as Prerequisite for Writ of Possession — Under R.A. No. 8974, the provisional payment of 100% of the zonal value is a prerequisite and trigger for the issuance of the writ of possession. It is not the final just compensation, which must still be judicially determined according to the standards set forth in Section 5 of R.A. No. 8974.

• "It is the plain intent of Rep. Act No. 8974 to supersede the system of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of 'immediate payment' in cases involving national government infrastructure projects."
• "Upon compliance with the requirements, a petitioner in an expropriation case…is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and it becomes the ministerial duty of the trial court to forthwith issue the writ of possession. No hearing is required and the court neither exercises its discretion or judgment in determining the amount of the provisional value of the properties to be expropriated as the legislature has fixed the amount under Section 4 of R.A. No. 8974."

• Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429 — Followed. Established that R.A. No. 8974 supersedes the deposit system under Rule 67 with a scheme of immediate payment, and that the legislature validly fixed the standard for provisional value.
• Capitol Steel Corporation v. PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority, G.R. No. 169453 — Followed. Held that upon compliance with R.A. No. 8974 requirements, the petitioner is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right, and the trial court has a ministerial duty to issue it without a hearing.
• Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. 170740 — Followed. Explained the two stages of an expropriation proceeding, clarifying that the determination of necessity is a justiciable question resolved in the first stage.

• P.D. No. 198, Sec. 25 — Grants local water districts the power of eminent domain, subject to review by the Administration (LWUA). Applied to validate petitioner's exercise of eminent domain upon LWUA approval.
• R.A. No. 8974, Sec. 2 — Defines "national government projects" to include projects undertaken by government-owned and controlled corporations and water supply facilities. Applied to include petitioner's project under the coverage of the law.
• R.A. No. 8974, Sec. 4 — Requires the implementing agency to immediately pay 100% of the BIR zonal value to entitle it to a writ of possession. Applied to mandate the provisional payment and trigger the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ.
• Rule 67, Sec. 2, Rules of Court — General rule requiring deposit of assessed value for taxation purposes to obtain a writ of possession. Held superseded by R.A. No. 8974 for national government infrastructure projects.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion.