Republic VS Hon. Samson- Tatad G.R. No. 187677 187677 2013
April April
17,
Ponente: Sereno, CJ.
FACTS: On 13 July 2001, petitioner, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a Complaint against several defendants, including private respondents, for the expropriation of several parcels of land affected by the construction of the EDSA-Quezon Avenue Flyover. During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner received a letter dated from the repor reportin ting g that that the subjec subjectt proper property ty was gover governme nment nt land. land. Petiti Petitione onerr was ther theref efor ore e prom prompt pted ed to file file an Amen Amende ded d Comp Compla lain intt seek seekin ing g to limi limitt the the cove covera rage ge of the the area area conf confor ormi ming ng to the the find findin ings gs,, and ther therea eaft fter er file filed d a Mani Manife fest stat atio ion n and and Moti Motion on to have have the the su subj bjec ectt prop proper erty ty decl declar ared ed or considered of uncertain ownership or subject to conflicting claims. RTC inter alia admitted the Amended Complaint and declared the property a subject of conflictin conflicting g claims. claims. Private Private respondent respondents s interposed interposed objection objections, s, saying saying that petiti petitione onerr was barred barred from from presen presentin ting g the evide evidence nce,, as it consti constitut tuted ed a collateral attack on the validity of their TCT No. RT-11603. RTC rendered an orde orderr in favo favour ur of the the priv private ate resp respon onde dent nts. s. A su subs bseq eque uent nt peti petiti tion on for for certiorari was denied in the appellate court. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: CAN THE COURT IN THE SAME EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDING BE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE ON THE OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY?
HELD: YES. petitioner may be allowed to present evidence to assert its ownership over the subject property, but for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to just compensation. That the court is empowered to entertain the confl onflic icti ting ng claim aims of owne ownerrsh shiip of the conde ondem mned ned or soug sought ht to be condemned property and adjudge the rightful owner thereof, in the same expropriation case, is evident from Section 9 of the Revised Rule 69, which provide inter that “cou “court rt may may orde orderr any any su sum m or su sums ms awar awarde ded d as inter alia alia that compensation X X X or the benefit of the persons adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto. ” (Emphasis Supplied).
In fact, the existence of doubt or obscurity in the title of the person or persons claiming ownership of the properties to be expropriated would not preclude the commencement of the action nor prevent the court from assuming jurisdiction thereof. The Rules merely require, in such eventuality, that the entity exercising the right of eminent domain should state in the complaint that the true ownership of the property cannot be ascertained or specified with accuracy.
If at all, this situation is akin to ejectment cases in which a court is temporarily authorized to determine ownership, if only to determine who is entitled to possession. This is not conclusive, and it remains open to challenge through proper actions. The consequences of Sec. 9, Rule 67 cannot be avoided, as they are due to the intimate relationship of the issue of ownership with the claim for the expropriation payment.
