REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SECOND JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 22
CABAGAN, ISABELA

BARANGAY PARAGU, MUNICIPALITY

OF TUMAUINI, ISABELA
Represented by: Punong Barangay
FULGENCIO PEREDA
Plaintiff,
Special Civil Action No: 22-70
For: EXPROPRIATION
AND DETERMINATION OF
JUST COMPENSATION
-versus-

VIRGINIA A. GUELA
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION ON THE MOTION

FOR A STATUS QUO ORDER

UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL for the plaintiff, before this Honorable

Court, most respectfully state that:

1. A motion for a status quo order filed by the defendant and received by
this representation on February 19, 2018;

2. The granting of the motion for a status quo order would unduly
contradict, though indirectly the ex parte motion for issuance of a writ
of possession filed by the plaintiff;

3. The power of a Local Government Unit (LGU) to exercise the power

of eminent domain is laid down in Section 19 of Republic Act No.
7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991:
 Section 19. Eminent Domain.- A local government unit may,
through it chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance,
exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or
purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless,
upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions
of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That
the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a
valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner,
and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the
local government unit may immediately take possession of the
property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and
upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based
on the current tax declaration of the property to be
expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for
the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper
court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of
the property.”

4. The requisites for authorizing immediate entry based on the above-

cited provision of law are as follows: (1) the filing of a complaint for
expropriation sufficient in form and substance; and (2) the deposit of
the amount equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market
value of the property to be expropriated based on its current tax
declaration.

5. Upon compliance by the LGU of the above mentioned requisites, the

issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the
Court as stated in the case of City of Manila v. Serrano1;

1
G.R. No. 142304, 20 June 2001, 359 SCRA 231.
 6. The filing of the motion for a status quo order would render nugatory
the issuance of a writ of possession which the plaintiff is a matter of
course entitled to. This course of action indirectly circumvent the non-
adversarial/non-litigious nature of an ex parte writ of possession;

7. Considering that a status quo ante order is in the nature of a

restraining order2, a situation will arise wherein the Honorable Court
issues a writ of possession considering that the plaintiff is entitled
thereto and assuming thereafter grants the motion for a status quo
order, which in this given scenario would prevent the plaintiff from
proceeding with the improvement of the Barangay Hall and the
basketball court;

8. This course of action by the defendant is a direct contravention of

established and existing jurisprudence regarding the issuance of a writ
of possession, though not directly opposing its issuance but would
nonetheless render it ineffective even when issued;

9. The requirement of the law for the provisional deposit of FIFTEEN

PERCENT (15%) of the fair market value of the property to be
expropriated based on its current tax declaration is already a sufficient
safeguard for a defendant in an expropriation proceeding.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that the Honorable Court that the motion for a status quo order be denied for
lack of merit.
Other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.
Ilagan City, Isabela for Cabagan, Isabela February 22, 2018.

2
Dojillo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166542, 25 July 2006, 496 SCRA 484, 503.
 PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PROVINCIAL CAPITOL
ALIBAGU, ILAGAN, ISABELA

BY:

ATTY. FRANCIS JAMES E. MEER

Roll No. 58675
IBP Lifetime No. 011586
PTR No. 5339666/Isabela
MCLE compliance No. V-0005158

Copy furnished by registered mail:

ATTY. ALBERTO G. GARCIA

Counsel for the Defendant
Lalauanan, Tumauini, Isabela
 EXPLANATION OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel is constrained to serve a copy of this motion

to the parties concerned via registered mail instead of personal service due to
lack of messenger and the distance of the party concerned.

ATTY. FRANCIS JAMES E. MEER