Municipality of Cordova vs. Pathfinder Development Corporation

In expropriation proceedings initiated by local government units under Section 19 of the Local Government Code, the Regional Trial Court has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession in favor of the expropriating authority upon compliance with the statutory requirements of filing a sufficient complaint and depositing fifteen percent (15%) of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration; no prior hearing is required for such issuance.

The Municipality of Cordova enacted Ordinance No. 003-2011 authorizing the expropriation of portions of private properties owned by Pathfinder Development Corporation and Topanga Development Corporation located in Alegria, Cordova, Cebu. The expropriation was intended for the construction of a road access from the national highway to a municipal roll-on/roll-off port. Following the filing of the expropriation complaint, the property owners challenged the validity of the ordinance before another Regional Trial Court, claiming constitutional infirmities for lack of prior offer and violation of due process.

• Pathfinder Development Corporation owns Lot No. 692 (1,819 sq.m.) and part of Lot No. 697 (50,000 sq.m.) in Alegria, Cordova, Cebu, while Topanga Development Corporation owns Lot No. 691 (29,057 sq.m.) and part of Lot No. 697 (15,846 sq.m.).
• On February 8, 2011, the Sangguniang Bayan enacted Ordinance No. 003-2011 expropriating 836 sq.m. of Lot No. 692, 9,728 sq.m. of Lot No. 697, 3,898 sq.m. of Lot No. 691, and 1,467 sq.m. of Lot No. 693 for constructing road access from the national highway to the municipal roll-on/roll-off port.
• On February 17, 2011, the Mayor filed an expropriation complaint and a motion to place the municipality in possession of the properties.
• On March 4, 2011, Pathfinder and Topanga filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of the Expropriation Ordinance before the RTC of Mandaue City, Branch 56, claiming that no offer to buy was shown or attached to the complaint, rendering the ordinance constitutionally infirm for violating due process and equal protection.
• On July 13, 2011, the corporations filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the expropriation case based on the prejudicial question raised in the nullity suit.
• On August 12, 2011, the RTC Lapu-Lapu, Branch 27 denied the motion to suspend and granted the issuance of a Writ of Possession in favor of the municipality.
• The corporations' motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
• The CA reversed the RTC orders, finding grave abuse of discretion and remanding the case for reception of evidence de novo on the authority to exercise eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise.

• The CA seriously erred in allowing the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 despite the availability of the remedy of appeal under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
• The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession since the statutory requirements—filing of a sufficient complaint and deposit of fifteen percent of the fair market value—were fully complied with.
• The taking of the properties was necessary for public use as it would provide access to the municipal RORO port, thereby benefiting shippers and passengers.

• The trial court issued an Order of Condemnation without conducting a proper hearing for the reception of evidence of the parties.
• No offer to buy was shown or attached to the expropriation complaint, rendering the ordinance constitutionally infirm for violating due process and equal protection.
• The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of possession and denying the motion to suspend proceedings based on the prejudicial question raised in the separate nullity case.

• Procedural: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in giving due course to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 despite the availability of the remedy of appeal under Rule 67.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession and orders of condemnation in favor of the Municipality of Cordova.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court held that while certiorari is generally precluded when appeal is available, exceptions exist when the broader interest of justice demands it to avoid grossly unjust results, or when the order constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari is proper when appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient, or where there is danger of a failure of justice. The Court held that the CA did not err in giving due course to the petition under Rule 65, as the instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be strictly defined, and the writ may be granted when urgent need exists to prevent substantial wrong or do substantial justice.
• Substantive: The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in holding that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 19 of Republic Act 7160 and Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the requisites for authorizing immediate entry are the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and the deposit of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value based on the current tax declaration. Upon compliance with these requirements, the petitioner is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right, and the issuance of the writ becomes ministerial. No hearing is required for the issuance of a writ of possession; the sufficiency of the complaint can be determined by mere examination of its allegations. Since the complaint was sufficient and the deposit was made, and the taking was for a public purpose (road access to RORO port), the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was granted, the CA decision reversed and set aside, the RTC orders reinstated, and the case remanded to the trial court for the second stage of proceedings (determination of just compensation).

• Availability of Certiorari Despite Existence of Appeal — While certiorari under Rule 65 is generally not available when an adequate remedy such as appeal exists, exceptions apply when the broader interest of justice demands it, when there is danger of failure of justice, when appeal would be slow or inadequate, or when the order constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The inadequacy of the remedy, not its mere absence, determines the propriety of certiorari.
• Two-Stage Proceedings in Expropriation — Under Rule 67, expropriation proceedings consist of two stages: (1) the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the surrounding facts, and (2) the determination of just compensation for the property sought to be taken. The first stage ends with an order of condemnation or dismissal.
• Ministerial Duty to Issue Writ of Possession — In expropriation proceedings initiated by local government units under Section 19 of RA 7160, the court has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession upon compliance with two requirements: (a) filing of a complaint sufficient in form and substance, and (b) deposit of 15% of the fair market value based on the current tax declaration. No hearing is required for this issuance.
• Requirements for Exercise of Eminent Domain by Local Government Units — Under Section 19 of the Local Government Code, a local government unit may exercise eminent domain through its chief executive pursuant to an ordinance for public use or purpose, upon payment of just compensation, provided that a valid and definite offer has previously been made to the owner, and the LGU may immediately take possession upon filing of proceedings and deposit of 15% of fair market value.

• "The requirement that there must be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions, such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency."
• "It is mere inadequacy, not the absence of all other legal remedies, and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must determine the propriety of certiorari."
• "The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the Court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus, and that in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts, a superior court is to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case as the ends of justice may require."
• "Upon compliance with these requirements, the petitioner in an expropriation case is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and the issuance of the writ becomes ministerial."

• Francisco Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the enumeration of exceptions to the rule that certiorari is not available when appeal is available.
• Heirs of Spouses Reterta, et al. v. Spouses Mores and Lopez — Cited for the principle that inadequacy of remedy, not absence of all other remedies, determines propriety of certiorari, and that certiorari is discretionary.
• Heirs of Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong — Cited for the definition of eminent domain as an indispensable attribute of sovereignty and the two-stage nature of expropriation proceedings.
• Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) v. J. King and Sons Company, Inc. — Cited for the constitutional requirements of eminent domain (just compensation and due process) and the ministerial nature of writ of possession issuance upon compliance with statutory requirements.
• De la Paz Masikip v. The City of Pasig — Cited for the limited areas of judicial review in eminent domain (adequacy of compensation, necessity of taking, public use character).
• The City of Iloilo v. Judge Legaspi — Cited for the rule that no hearing is required for issuance of writ of possession and that sufficiency of complaint is determined by examination of allegations.

• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari; cited regarding the availability of the remedy despite existence of appeal when broader interests of justice demand it.
• Rule 67 of the Rules of Court — Governs expropriation proceedings; cited for the two-stage nature of expropriation and the requirements for issuance of writ of possession.
• Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Grants local government units the power of eminent domain subject to specific requirements including prior definite offer to the owner and deposit of 15% of fair market value based on current tax declaration.