Civil Procedure If you lose your right to appeal because you’re late, if you fail to appeal, or if
Week 19: May 16 Transcript there is still an appeal available, Rule 65 will not be proper.
BY: Rocamora, Sayson, Servando, Sungcad
I. Certiorari
Don’t be confused with Certiorari under Rule 65 and Appeal by Certiorari
under Rule 45
In Rule 65, you only have to state whether or not the court has jurisdiction
and whether the court indeed committed grave abuse of discretion.
Generally, the court will not go into the merits of the case. [Certiorari] is not a
remedy you can apply to many different tribunals, adverse parties,
situations. It’s actually a very limited examination. You’re only looking at
jurisdiction.
However, can the court go into the merits of the case sometimes? You have
this case of Leonor. Not really a landmark case, but it encapsulates what the
Court can do even in a petition for certiorari.
Leonor v. CA
The RTC ruled on the declaration of nullity of marriage.The petition in the
CA, the only question is whether or not RTC gravely abused its discretion in
deciding the merits of the civil case. It’s a procedural question whether the
appeal should be allowed or not, should be given due course or not because
the RTC dismissed the case because there was no record on appeal. CA
agreed and said that it is grave abuse of discretion because a record of
appeal is not required in a special proceeding. The CA then ordered the
case to be remanded back to the RTC.
Supreme Court said while certiorari is limited only where the issue of
jurisdiction or the lack thereof is mentioned … The Supreme Court is not a
toothless proponent of judicial niceties. [inaudible] I must, in appropriate
cases, proactively provide litigants with immediate legal and equitable relief
What did the SC do? Ruled on the merits. It is important here that the order
of the RTC is a void order
Does that mean than when you’re talking about a void judgment, certiorari
kaagad? No. You still have to prove that there is no other speedy and
adequate relief in the ordinary course of law
BUT, for instance, out of the blue a decision comes to you. You didn’t know
about the case and judgment is rendered against you. No summons was
given and it’s the first time you heard it. And it’s already final. A writ of
execution is already in play. In this case, you can use Rule 65.
Take note the SC has gone through certain lengths even if there is a
pending case. There are situations, for instance, a motion to dismiss was
denied so the case went on. The case is still going on and the denial of the
Motion to Dismiss was elevated to the SC through Rule 65. SC says yes,
that’s case is dismissible. Even if the trial on the merits is pending, the SC
can stop everything.
There are even situations where the SC went beyond the petition. Very
special situations. Where an interlocutory is being questioned, but the SC
noticed that the proceedings in the lower court are without jurisdiction.
Therefore, it should be dismissed. These are special circumstances.
For instance, in the case of Comendador, the SC went ahead and affirmed
the lower court’s decision even while it is pending appeal in the CA on the
ground that the case is simple enough and to avoid delay.
Who may file a petition for certiorari? The Rules have one requirement: The
person aggrieved. Who is a person aggrieved? Generally, someone with any
material interest. Even a non-party, who did not file a motion to intervene.
Anyone who is adversely affected. What if you’re just emotionally aggrieved?
Is that enough? No. It has to be something of direct and legal interest.
For instance, in one case, it was an estate proceeding. At the end of the
proceeding, the judgment required transfer of certain property in favor of
some of the heirs. However, one of these properties, a daughter in law was
not a party to the proceeding. Daughter in law was required to transfer
property also. She filed a petition for certiorari. SC agreed, because it affects
her property. Therefore, she is qualified to file.
Can juridical persons be aggrieved? Of course.
Let’s say a criminal case is dismissed with GADALEJ. Who is entitled to file
a petition for certiorari? State and the private complainant. Both of them are
aggrieved parties and both of them can file a certiorari petition. If the civil
aspect of the criminal case is separate, does the private complainant still has
an interest to protect? No more. He/she cannot be a petitioner anymore.
Can an acquittal be questioned with a certioari petition? There are cases
where the SC took cognizance of certioari petitions on dismissals and
acquittals because of GADALEJ. It’s possible.
Rule 65 is subject to the procedure of under Rule 46.
What courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus? SC, CA, RTC, SB in aid of appellate jurisdiction, CTA in aid of
appellate jurisdiction. Are these courts exercise exclusive and original
jurisdiction? No. It’s all concurrent.
When to file? 60 days from decision or denial of MR.
If the petition relates to an act or omission of the MTC, it shall be filed in the
RTC exercising appellate jurisdiction.
If the petition relates to the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency,
petitions should be filed with the CA.
I. Prohibition
Prohibition, under Rule 65, is slightly different from certiorari. In certiorari,
you’re only talking about judicial, quasi-judicial functions. In prohibition,
you’re talking about judicial, quasi-judicial, and ministerial functions.
The key here is that you’re trying to prohibit, not annul, the acts. You’re
trying to prohibit acts about to be done without jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion.
Prohibition also includes the granting of incidental reliefs the demands of
justice require.
Example. You want a restrain a court from taking cognizance of a case of
which it has no jurisdiction. Example, the MTC is about to rule on ownership.
You can prohibit that court.
Prohibition looks forward to the future. What if it happened already? What if
the acts complained of happened already? Then it is not prohibition you’re
looking for. It has to be a certiorari.
What if hindi pa nangyayari yung act when you filed the prohibition, but
pending the action, they were accomplished. That’s Aurillo v. Rabi.
Aurillio v. Rabi
Generally, a petition for prohibition looks forward.
Will it apply to future acts? Yes, it will.
Will it apply to acts already accomplished? What’s important here is that
when the petition was already pending and the act complained of was done
(happened), prohibition is not necessarily rendered moot. Rules of Court can
grant sufficient relief not just to prevent what will be done but also undo what
has been done during the pendency of the case.
The SC said “In proceeding with the preliminary investigation … Aurillo did
so subject to the outcome of the petition for prohibition … Jurisprudence has
it that prohibition will give complete relief not only by preventing what
remains to be done but by undoing what has been done. The Court has
authority to grant any appropriate relief within the issues presented by the
pleadings of the parties.”
It is important in filing for a petition for prohibition to ask for any other relief
that justice or law may require. Similar to the case of an injunction, what
you’re concerned about is the status quo ante. Even if certain acts that have
already been accomplished, an injunction can not only prevent future acts
but also return parties to the status quo ante, to undo whatever disturbed the
status quo ante.
In Aurillo, there was a TRO that prevented the criminal preliminary
investigation from continuing. However, the TRO expired after 20 days. The
PI eventually filed a criminal information, as he was basically entitled to do
because there’s no TRO, there’s nothing legally preventing him from doing
that. However, the SC said, where acts are performed after the injunction
suits are brought, the defendant may not as a matter of right proceed to
perform the acts sought to be restrained and then be heard to assert in the
suit that injunction will not lie because he has already performed his acts
before final hearing but after the beginning of the action. The defendant does
acts at his own peril.
Take note, if there’s not TRO or TRO expires and you do certain acts when
there’s a pending case, liable to question the authority to do those acts. If
you lose, you have to undo as asked. You act at your own peril, whether the
acts would be sustained or not. You cannot say “nagawa ko na, di na
pwedeng baguhin” because the Court can always undo what you’ve done.
What if the investigation ended before the expiry of the petition for
prohibition? In that case, will the prohibition case be dismissed? -- YES. Fait
accompli. The common practice of practitioners just to be sure is that they
file hybrid petitions — petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus all in
one just to be sure.
Vergara v. Duque
Prohibition is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already
accomplished. It should be dismissed. The regular time to correct errors of
irregularity in procedure …
When you’re questioning the jurisdiction of the court, body, or tribunal or
agency/office, are you questioning the jurisdiction of the office as a body of
law or are you questioning the exercise of that authority by the officer
General rule: if you’re questioning the qualifications of the officers to
exercise authority, that’s not prohibition. The remedy is quo warranto. We
will not be looking into whether certain acts were done according to the
jurisdiction given to that officer. In quo warranto, you’re looking at whether X
is entitled to be the professor the class and the judge to be the magistrate.
That’s quo warranto.
In prohibition, you’re looking into whether those sitting on the chair made the
right order, made it with jurisdiction, and made it without grave abuse of
discretion. It does not matter who the person is behind those acts.
Nationalista Party v. Bautista
If it were not the Solicitor General who was appointed, would the outcome be
defeated. Yes. the writ of prohibition is in the form of a quo warranto
proceeding and in a quo warranto proceeding, only the solicitor general can
file it before the court or the person who has a legal right to the public office.
Again, it reinforces the rule that when you’re questioning the title of the
officer, the entitlement to sit on the office, that’s quo warranto and not
prohibition.
Prohibition will be denied. Quo warranto has a specific set of requirements of
where to file.
However, if you’re questioning the authority of that office to do something,
then your action is prohibition.
Take note that prohibition is also subject to the requirements that there
would be an MR, resort and exhaustion of other remedies, there should be
no other remedies either appeal or adequate relief aside from the petition for
prohibition. So if there’s an appeal, prohibition will be denied.
II. Mandamus
Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus.
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such
other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the
act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay
the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of
the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping
as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
If certiorari deals with quasi-judicial and judicial functions and prohibition
deals with quasi-judicial and judicial functions of ministerial functions,
mandamus deals only with ministerial functions.
What do you want to happen when you ask for a writ of mandamus? You
want someone to do something that is required of him under law. Prohibition
is to stop someone from doing something, mandamus is there to require him
to do that act.
In certiorari, you can also file it against public officials, board, tribunal,
agency officer. And because it is about private individuals, your remedy is an
ordinary action. Prohibition, more or less the same. You’re talking about
public officers. If a private person is about to do something without
jurisdiction, your action is really an ordinary action.
However in mandamus, it says that tribunal, corporation, board of officer/s or
person/s. The requirement here is that the person unlawfully neglects to
perform an act the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment
of a right or office. The question therefore is, must the respondent be a
public official or not? There seems to be no requirement. The only
requirement is that there must be a ministerial duty imposed by law resulting
to an office, trust, or station, whether that duty is imposed on a public official
or a private.
Take note, that’s the important distinction. Has to be a duty imposed by law
or required by office, trust or station. A mandamus petition will not lie to
enforce a private duty imposed by contract, not imposed by law. It cannot lie
to impose private rights against the private person. It has to be a public duty.
Generally, mandamus is used for public officials. There are many cases
which deal with duties that are near the boundary. For instance, mandamus
was considered the appropriate remedy to compel a corporation to grant
holiday pay for its employees. You can say that the Labor Code enjoins (?)
the payment of holiday pay — a duty imposed by law. Mandamus may be
issued to compel the secretary of a corporation to …. stock in the books of
the corporation. Under what law does it require a corporation secretary to
transfer stock? Corporation Code.
In American jurisprudence, however, the rule is much more relaxed. The
Federal Supreme Court, their policy is that so long as there is a right and no
other specific remedy, mandamus should not be denied. So even if it is
almost a purely private duty, then you can compel it with mandamus.
In our case, that’s basically also governed by any regular action for
mandatory injunction. In the US jurisdictions, their action for mandamus is
equivalent with one of our regular action for mandatory injunction.
Important thing to remember about mandamus: a ministerial duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station.
What is a ministerial duty? No discretion.
What is discretion? We’ve all read Lamb v. Phipps and the dissent of Justice
Trent. According to the SC, the majority just said that the issuance of a
clearance is discretionary. Therefore, mandamus will not lie. Dissent of
Trent: the auditor here, in issuing the clearance, although it is discretionary,
has abused such discretion. J. Trent wanted to grant the mandamus. He
was going on a different approach. Majority said it was a discretionary act
and therefore, you cannot compel it by mandamus. Issuance of clearance is
discretionary. J. Trent’s first premise is that any discretion is not absolute.
Any discretion given by the law is always legal discretion which is the
discretion to do what the law wants you to do, the discretion to judge for
yourself what the law wants to happen. It’s not absolute power of discretion.
Example, more close to home. For instance, I love this class. Mr.
Hernandez, I want you to throw a party for us. This is Ateneo, a Catholic
institution. Bahala ka na sa preparation, what you want to happen. You have
the discretion to make the party enjoyable. Mr. Hernandez rented a ballroom
in Hyatt and hired a band and spent Php 1M decorating the place. For the
afterparty, he hired sexy dancers and macho dancers and also ordered lots
of party drugs. Question: does he have authority to do that? Did I give him
the discretion to go absolutely wild in preparing the party? Obviously, yes, he
went overboard. I only gave him legal discretion in keeping with Ateneo
values and obviously our very low budget of Php 5 each. When he went
overboard, do you think he still had discretion? Do you think you still had
authority to do that? Not anymore. I’m sure everyone encountered situations
like that. (Example of parents giving permission to go out, but this does not
mean that you can go to Baguio)
Legal discretion. That’s what J. Trent was talking about. The Insular Auditor
had the discretion to grant or not grant the clearance. But he can only do so,
can only refuse to grant the clearance for instance if there was sufficient
reason to do so. If there was reason under law to deny the clearance.
According to J. Trent, everything was above board. He submitted all the
requirements. The Insular Auditor did not give any reason why he was
denied the clearance. The only other reason was flimsy -- that he had a case
filed against him. But everyone has a case filed against him. The case
seems to be a nuisance case anyway. J. Trent said, everything the Insular
Auditor did outside the legal discretion is no longer authorized. Therefore, it
is not authorized, everyone has the ministerial duty to adhere to your legal
discretion.
Stated differently, comply with all the requirements, there’s no reason to
deny the clearance. The duty of the Insular Auditor becomes ministerial.
Take note that this case [is] very old.
There are other cases that now invoke the same legal principle. For
instance, in Big Five Products Worker’s Union vs. CIR, which is a 1963 case,
deals with the Labor Code, which gives the Labor Arbiter the authority to
order the employer convicted of unfair labor practice to reinstate victims with
or without backpay. The Supreme Court even said the legal provision were
deemed to confer discretion, the same is neither unlimited, nor arbitrary,
capricious, inquisitorial or oppressive in nature, but a sound, legal discretion,
limited by the evident purpose of the law. The Arbiter here, did not pay
backpay for no reason at all. Wala lang. If there’s no reason to deny
backpay, you cannot deny backpay. You have to come with legal discretion.
In other words, if there’s no reason to deny, the duty to do it becomes
ministerial.
In the University of San Agustin case, there is no legal duty to re-admit the
students because the University was not a public entity. Again, as
emphasized, the important factor is the duty granted or required by law.
(Atty. Melo emphasized reading this case) (Angchangco vs. Ombudsman)
In the case of Angchangco which was not assigned, this case involves the
Ombudsman. There was a complaint filed before the Ombudsman against
Sheriff Angchangco, the Ombudsman however, did not decide it for a very
long time. Sheriff Angchangco was already about to retire and the
Ombudsman hasn’t decided on the case yet. What Angchanco did was to
file a petition for mandamus to compel the Ombudsman to resolve and
dismiss the cases against him. Is this proper? Obviously, whether or not an
administrative or criminal case can be pursued against a public officer is not
a ministerial duty. It is full of discretion. It depends on the judgment of the
officer. That was how the Ombudsman opposed the contention. SC said,
while the duty to decide whether a complaint or action is to be decided one
way or the other, that is a discretionary duty. However, the ministerial duty
here is to decide, the Ombudsman is not given the discretion to decide or
not decide the complaint. It has to decide it. So that decision, can be
compelled by mandamus. So the decision itself can be compelled, but not
whether the officer should decide one way or another. Secondly, SC said
that in the performance of an official act involving discretion, the
corresponding official can be directed by mandamus to act, but not to act in
one way or another. There are also exceptions in this rule, such as when
there is grave abuse of discretion, manifestly unjust or palpable abuse of
authority. Since in this case, Ombudsman has not acted upon the case in 6
years, the SC ordered the dismissal of the cases because of the violation of
Angchanco’s right to speedy disposition of cases.
Remember, 60 days to file, and 60 days from order or order denying from
motion for reconsideration. A motion for extension to file is allowed provided
there are justifiable reason to do so.
Remember when I said what courts have jurisdiction? There are a lot. RTC,
CA, SB, CTA and the SC, all of them concurrent and original. But does that
mean that you can automatically go to one court directly? No, we have a rule
on judicial hierarchy. What is the rule on judicial hierarchy? Unless you have
a really meritorious case that deserves the time of the higher court, you must
go through the lower courts first. That’s the case of Santiago vs. Vasquez.
This was the case involving Miriam Defensor-Santiago. SC said that it is
elementary that it is elementary that the mere pendency of a special civil
action for certiorari, commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower
court, does not even interrupt the course of the latter when there is no writ of
injunction restraining it. SC also said that to reiterate the judicial policy that
this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for
the exercise of our primary jurisdiction. Examples of cases of exceptional
and compelling circumstances, is the case involving elections and ABS-
CBN. They could have gone first to the COMELEC En Banc, but they went
straight to the Supreme Court because elections was only a few days away.
Elections is something of a public interest. There are also some cases
involving environmental rights bought directly to the Supreme Court. You
really have to justify why go straight to the Supreme Court.
Take note that Section 7, Rule 65 is a new addition. You might find it weird
why this provision is added. It is because of the abuse of the practitioners in
the past, before this section was added. SC said that because of cases of
abuse have caused several delays. Everyone cited the case of Eternal
Gardens back in the time. Everyone was saying i-Eternal Gardens mo na
lang yan. If one lawyer is having a problem, another will say i-Eternal
Gardens mo na lang yan. That is abuse. Is Eternal Gardens wrong? What
happened in that case?
In Eternal Gardens, SC court said that although the Court did not issue any
restraining order against the Intermediate Appellate Court, the appellate
court should have refrained from ruling thereon because its jurisdiction was
necessarily limited upon the filing of a petition for certiorari with this Court
questioning the propriety of the issuance of the above-mentioned
resolutions. Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical
considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final
determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying
to render moot exactly what was before this court.
In Joymart case, clarified this issue. Judicial courtesy behooved the trial
court to keep its hands off the writ of preliminary injunction and defer to the
better judgment of the Court of Appeals the determination of whether the writ
should be continued or discontinued. The non-issuance of a temporary
restraining order by the Court of Appeals upon receipt of the petition in CA-
G.R. SP No. 12998 simply meant that the trial court could proceed to hear
and decide the main complaint of Joy Mart for specific performance of
contract and damages against the LRTA and Phoenix. It did not give the
lower court a license to interfere with the appellate court's disposition of the
writ of preliminary injunction. There is nothing preventing the lower court
from proceeding with the case, and in fact it should proceed. And in fact, it
dit. However, whatever was raised with the higher court, the lower court can
no longer touch.
Section 8 of Rule 65 tries to temper the tendency of lawyers to abuse
certiorari. The 3rd paragraph of the provision says that The Court may
impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary sanctions
or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious
petitions for certiorari.
It reminds me of an old case involving two matronas in the province. As one
matrona was exiting a building, nagkasikuhan at nagkabangaan yung mga
matrona. They filed many cases against each other. One of these cases
reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was so angry with the
lawyers, saying that it was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court is
reserved for issues of transcendental importance. Justice Nocon? Held all
the parties solidarily liable for treble costs. This is probably the precedent for
Section 8 of Rule 65.
What happens if you disobey a writ of prohibition, mandamus or certiorari?
That can be punishable as contempt and of course that can be executed
damages may be claimed under Rule 39. Which court will issue the writ of
execution? The court wherein you file the petition subject of the original
action.
Quo Warranto
According to the Rules, the SolGen or the Prosecutor must commence the
action when directed by the President. You can also file a complaint or
otherwise motu proprio if you have a good reason or ground to do so.
Basically the SolGen or Prosecutor has the discretion whether or not to file
the cases under letter a, b, and c. The SolGen or Prosecutor may also file
the action upon request or relation to another person with and upon leave of
Court. So if you can’t convince the SolGen or the Prosecutor to file, sorry
you cannot. There is no way the SolGen will file if he is not convinced. If he
is slightly convince, he can get a leave of Court to file the action.
Very rare cases where the SolGen will file a Quo Warranto against public
officers. Why? Because he has so many other cases. Usually the Quo
Warranto we are talking about involves those cases filed by private persons.
Private persons can file the Quo Warranto when he claims to be entitled to
the office or position.
One important thing about Quo Warranto is that there is a prescriptive
period. That’s 1 year from the cause of the ouster or when the right of
petitioner to the office arises. If you fail to file within one year, that’s it.
Why is it that it will be very difficult to file a petition for quo warranto? Why
not make it more accessible? Because no one wants to shake confidence in
our public officers, or their title to office.
For a Private person to initiate Quo Warranto, he must allege or establish
that he has a right to the office. It’s like a two stage proceeding also. First he
must prove his own right –the petitioner– before he goes into why the
other/usurper does not deserve the position. [referring to case law] Since the
petitioner does not prove his own right to the office, the Court decided to
dismiss the case, and then the petitioner complained, he said that to take a
look at respondent because he is also not entitled to the office. The Court
said there is no need to go to that because you never proved your own right
anyway. Why drag him through the muck, if you don’t have the authority to
take over anyway. You don’t want to shake the faith in public officers. That’s
it. Simple lang quo warranto.
Expropriation is a 2 stage proceeding. There are two questions that need to
be answered. First, whether there is a right to expropriate. And Secondly,
just compensation. So first, just to give a framework, expropriation is
initiated ONLY by the state. Well, ultimately the state, but that power can be
delegated. So the petitioner can therefore be NAPOCOR, etc. And of
course, you know the 2 requirements for eminent domain: Public Use, and
Just Compensation. Without both, there is no legal or valid expropriation.
In what Court can you file an action for expropriation?
RTC.
What if the value of the property is only P20k? (trick question)
Still RTC. Because expropriation is not capable of pecuniary estimation.
Take note of Section 2: Upon filing the complaint, and notice to defendants,
the government can take the property and enter, upon payment of the
deposit, which is based on the assessed value for taxes. It is not yet just
compensation, it is just a deposit. Or an advance for the just compensation.
The determination for Just compensation is a Judicial Act, and cannot be
done by the President.
Just Compensation has to be paid in money. Except when you’re talking
about CARP, where bonds can be allowed in lieu of cash. Just
compensation must be paid within a reasonable time after taking.
Again it is a 2-stage proceeding. First to determine the right to expropriation
exists, or whether the government has the right to expropriate. They have to
look into whether it is taken for a public purpose or not. If the answer to that
is yes, the Court will issue an order for expropriation. That order, terminates
that part of the case. Therefore, you can appeal that order. The case will
continue in the next stage to determine Just compensation. And when Just
Compensation is fixed, another order, that is also an appealable final order.
There can be multiple appeals [in the whole process]. It’s one of those cases
where multiple appeals are allowed. When there is an order of expropriation,
you have to appeal it, otherwise it will become final. And you can no longer
go back to that decision when the case determining just compensation is on
going.
What is Just Compensation? How much?
There is a formula provided for by the rules. It is the Market Value at the time
of taking +[plus] consequential damages -[less] consequential benefits.
However, Consequential Benefits cannot exceed the consequential
damages.
There are many ways to define Fair Market Value. There’s Fair Market
Value, Market Value in liquidation, there’s many methods for determining
Market Value.
In Law, Fair Market Value is generally, the price one is willing to sell and the
other is willing to buy. Where those two meet.
According to the Rules, FMV + Consequential Damages - Consequential
Benefits = Just Compensation.
Example
Taking a parcel of land for a highway. This land is a farm land. The value of
the land taken is what determines the FMV. Assume that it’s P5M. What are
Consequential Damages? These are damages from the point of view of the
private person. It is essentially the damage that the expropriation will do to
his property. For instance, the Highway would interrupt irrigation to the
remaining portion of the land. Assume that the damage is P1M. However,
you have to deduct the consequential benefits. Because of the Highway, the
remaining property increases in Value. Assume that the value increases by
P5M.
Do you deduct 5M from the FMV and Consequential Benefits? No. The
Benefits cannot exceed the damages. So here, you can only deduct up to
P1M. So if you have P0 consequential damages, you cannot deduct ANY
consequential benefits.
Why?
Because if you don’t have this limitation, it is license for the government to
take without paying a single centavo. If you don’t limit it to consequential
damages, they can take anything. [*transcriber’s explanation* For example
the FMV = 5M; CD = 1M; CB = 6M. If you don’t limit the Consequential
benefits to the damaged, the formula would look like this: 5M + 1M - 6M = 0.
This means that the Government can take the property without paying
anything, which is unfair/absurd]
When is there taking?
You know that already from Consti (HAHA tangina mo sir)
When there was a judgement of P5M for just compensation , and the
government does not pay, but has possession of the property, what can you
do?
General Rule, you cannot do anything. Except, receive interest or charge
interest on the Just Compensation. Non-payment by the Government is NOT
a ground for the return of the property or for the cancellation of the
expropriation.
Can you execute against the Government for the funds paid to you for just
compensation?
General Rule, No. Absolutely No. EXCEPT, in one case, Cosconuella v CA
(Aug 15, 1988). The SC said that the project for which the taking was made
can appropriation specifically for payment of right of way of just
compensation for expropriated properties, including the taking of private
lands. And the project was earning income. So the execution was allowed
because even the law providing for that government project allotted money,
earmarking for payment of just compensation. That is the only exception.
[the way i understand this is that if there is a law which appropriates funds
for just compensation, you can demand payment from the government]
Can you get the property back? If the Government does not pay?
GR: No.
Exception: But look at Republic v. Lim. The Lahug Airport Case, where the
airport was no longer being used. The SC said the Republic’s acquisition of
ownership is conditioned upon the full payment of just compensation within a
reasonable time. In this case, 57 years had passed without payment of Just
Compensation. Under such circumstances, recovery of possession is in
order. The Crucial factor in this case, was that the purpose for which the
expropriation was made never pushed through, or was no longer followed.
The airport was no longer an airport. It was just land.
The rule is within 5 years from the expropriation decision, the old doctrine
continues. You cannot recover possession if the govt has not paid. Only
charge interest.
If after 5 years from the decision, the government still fails to pay, the owner
can sue the government for recovery of possession through a SEPARATE
action. It cannot be a motion, but a separate action.
What happens if public use ceases after taking the payment of just
compensation?

You cannot go back to the action for expropriation. The proper remedy here
is not expropriation, but reversion. In Reversion, public property is reverted
back to private because public use ceases.