Municipality of Binan vs Garcia

Facts:
• Municipality of Binan filed an expropriation suit in the RTC Laguna which impleaded defendant
Erlinda Francisco and other defendants who owned the land in question and the case was
presided over by Respondent Judge Garcia.
• Petitioner sought the expropriation of 11 adjacent parcels of lands in Binan with an aggregate
area of 11 and 1/2 hectares. Lot was to be used for the new site of a modern public market.
Acquisition was authorized by a resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan of Binan
• Erlinda filed for a “Motion to Dismiss” on the grounds that the complaint filed by Petitioner (1)
was vague and conjectural, (2) violates the constitutional limitations of law and jurisprudence
in eminent domain, (3) it was oppressive, (4) barred by prior decision and disposition on the
subject matter, (5) it states no cause of action.
• The motion to dismiss was actually a pleading that substituted an answer in an ordinary civil
action thus it was not governed by the Rules of Court.
• Respondent Judge issued a writ of possession in favor of the Municipality
• Erlinda filed a “Motion for Separate Trial” stating that she had another defense as opposed to
the common defenses of the other defendants. Erlinda had a constitutional defense provided
by an apporved Locational Clearance from H.S.R.C. She alleged that until her clearance was
revoked, the Municipality should not file the expropriation case for it would be premature.
• At the separate trial, the Respondent Judge decided in favor of Erlinda dismissing the
complaint naming her as defendant and amending the Writ of Possession granted by the court
to the Municipality to remove the properties of Erlinda Francisco.

2 phases/stages in every action for expropriation:

• The first is concerned with 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 facts
involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of condemnation
declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for
the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation
to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.”
• The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the
Court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the Court
with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order fixing the just
compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners would
 be final, too. It would finally dispose of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to
be done by the Court regarding the issue. Obviously, one or another of the parties may believe
the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or findings of fact or otherwise.
Obviously, too, such a dissatisfied party may seek reversal of the order by taking an appeal
therefrom.
• In actions of eminent domain, as in actions for partition, since no less than two (2) appeals are
allowed by law, the period for appeal from an order of condemnation is thirty (30) days
counted from notice of order and not the ordinary period of fifteen (15) days prescribed
for actions in general, conformably with the provision of Section 39 of BP129 to the effect that
in "appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other
cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) days, a
record of appeal being required.