h.

Mandamus
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
to do an act required to be done.

a. When he or unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law; or
b. When one unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which the other is entitled. (Sec. 3, Rule 65)

NOTE: It is commenced by a verified petition accompanied by a sworn certification of

non-forum shopping.

PRAYER IN MANDAMUS
In a petition for mandamus, the petitioner prays:
a. That judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act required to be
done to protect the rights of the petitioner
b. That the respondent pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent

REQUISITES OF MANDAMUS
1. The plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded.
→ Because mandamus will never be issued in doubtful cases
2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act because the same is mandated
by law
3. The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law
4. The act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary
5. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. (Sec. 3, Rule 65; Riano, 2012)

NATURE OF MANDAMUS:
This remedy is:
1. Affirmative or positive (if the performance of a duty is ordered) or it is
2. Negative (if a person is ordered to desist from excluding another from a right or office).
(Sec. 3, Rule 65)

AGAINST WHOM:
Directed against any tribunal, corporation board officer or person exercising ministerial function.

GROUNDS FOR MANDAMUS

The tribunal, corporation board officer or person is alleged to have unlawfully neglected a
ministerial duty; or excluded another from the use of a right or enjoyment of a office.
PURPOSE OF MANDAMUS
Purpose of mandamus is for the respondent to:
1. Do the act required; and
2. To pay damages.

SCOPE OF MANDAMUS
Only for ministerial acts.

DISCRETIONARY ACTS NOT COMPELLABLE BY MANDAMUS

It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a

ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty.

However, even when the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the
respondent may be directed to act by mandamus, but this is not to direct the exercise of
judgment in a particular manner.

NOTE: Generally, mandamus will not lie to enforce purely private contract rights and will not lie
against an individual unless some obligation in the nature of a public or quasi-public
duty is imposed. To preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is not used for the redress
of private wrongs, but only in matters relating to the public. (Uy Kiao Eng v. Nixon Lee, G.R. No.
176831, January 15, 2010)

Existence of a clear legal right

For a writ of mandamus to be issued, it is essential that petitioner should have a clear legal right
to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act
required. The writ of mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioner‘s legal right to the
performance of the particular act, which is sought to be compelled, is clear and complete.
Ministerial act versus discretionary act

DISCRETIONARY - if the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to
decide how or when the duty shall be performed.

MINISTERIAL - in which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed

manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority. It is only when the discharge of the
same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment. A duty is ministerial when it
demands no special judgment, discretion, or skill. It is one in which nothing is left to discretion
and is a simple and definite duty imposed by law. Hence, mandamus will not be available to
compel the performance of a discretionary act.

PAGE 1
 When mandamus may lie to compel discretionary acts

When the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may
only be directed by mandamus to act but not to act in one way or the other.
It is available to compel action, when refused, even in matters involving judgment and
discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment in a particular manner.
However, this rule admits of exceptions. Mandamus is the proper remedy in cases where there
is:
1. Gross abuse of discretion
2. Manifest injustice
3. Palpable excess of authority.
Contractual obligations, not compellable by mandamus
● Mandamus cannot be availed of as a remedy to enforce the performance of contractual
obligations.
● No rule of law is better settled than that mandamus does not lie to enforce the
performance of contractual obligations. It was not intended to aid a plaintiff in the
enforcement of a mere contract right.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

GR: Mandamus will not issue when administrative remedies are still available.
XPNs:
1. If the party is in estoppel (Vda. de Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission, G.R. No. L-
12944, March 30, 1959); or
2. Only questions of law are raised. (Madrigal v. Lecaroz, G.R. No. L-46218, October 23,
1990)
Mandamus vs. Injunction vs Quo Warranto

MANDAMUS INJUNCTION QUO WARRANTO

Remedial; To perform positive Preventive; To prevent an

legal duty. act to maintain status quo
between parties.
Special civil action. Ordinary civil action.

To set in motion and to To restrain motion or to

compel action (active). enforce inaction
(conservative).

Directed against a tribunal, Directed against a litigant

corporation, board or officer

Brought against a holder of Brought against a litigant Brought against the person who
the office, who is the person is responsible for unlawfully
claiming the office excluding the petitioner from
office, like an appointing officer.

PAGE 2
 Nature of the judgment in Mandamus

A favorable judgment rendered in a special civil action for mandamus is in the nature of a
special judgment. It requires the performance of any act other than the payment of money or the
sale or delivery of real or personal property the execution of which is governed by Sec. 11 Rule
39 of the Rules of Court.

The respondent who receives an adverse judgment shall be ordered to perform 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.

● Rodolfo Laygo and Willie Laygo, Petitioners, vs. Municipal Mayor Of Solano, Nueva
Vizcaya, Respondent, G.R. No. 188448, January 11, 2017
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state
or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or
person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from
the official station of the party to whole the writ is directed or from operation of law.

As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of the following grounds:
a. That the court, officer, board, or person against whom the action is taken unlawfully
neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from office, trust, or station; or
b. That such court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully excluded petitioner/relator from
the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled.

Neither will the extraordinary remedy of mandamus lie to compel the performance of duties that
are discretionary in nature.

● Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr. v. Sec. Leila de Lima, et al., G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013
● Spouses Augusto Dacudao and Ofelia Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales,
G.R.No. 188056, January 8, 2013
● Special People, Inc. Foundation, etc. v. Nestor M. Canda, G.R. No. 160932, January 14,
2013
● Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes Inc., et.al., G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017

i. Exceptions to filing of motion for reconsideration before filing petition (CERTIORARI)

FILING OF MOTION RECONSIDERATION
GR: Petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition will not be entertained unless the public
respondent has been given first the opportunity through a motion for reconsideration to correct
the error being imputed to him.
→ NOTE: It is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or
fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the
case.

PAGE 3
XPNs: A prior motion for reconsideration is not necessary to entertain a petition for certiorari
where:
1. The order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
2. The questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
court;
3. There is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner
4. The subject matter of the action is perishable;
5. Under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
6. The petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
7. In a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief
by the trial court is improbable;
8. The proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
9. The proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object;
and
10. The issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (Regalado,
2010)

● Barrazona v.RTC of Baguio-Branch 61, 486 SCRA 55

While the rule is that before certiorari may be availed of, petitioner must first file a motion for
reconsideration with the lower court of the act or order complained of, however, such rule is not
without exception. We have, in several instances, dispensed with the filing of a motion for
reconsideration of a lower court's ruling, such as: where the proceedings in which the error
occurred is a patent nullity; where the question is purely of law; when public interest is involved;
where judicial intervention is urgent or its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
and where the court a quo has no jurisdiction, as in this case.

● Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, G.R.No. 162575, December 15, 2010

j. Injunctive relief necessary to stop proceedings below

● Juliano-Llave v. Republic, 646 SCRA 637

An application for certiorari is an independent action which is not part or a continuation

of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of." Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court is explicit in stating that “the petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case
unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against
the public respondent from further proceeding in the case."

RELIEFS PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO

1. Annulment;
2. Modification of the judgment, order, or resolution or proceeding subject of the Petition;
3. It may also include such other Incidental reliefs as law and justice may require (Sec. 1,
Rule 65);

PAGE 4
 4. The court may also award damages in its judgment and the execution of the award for
damages or costs shall follow the procedure in Sec. 1 of Rule 39. (Sec. 9, Rule 65)

k. Effects of filing of an unmeritorious petition

Effect of a Petition for Mandamus which is patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly
for delay, or raises questions which are too unsubstantial to require consideration
The Court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same patently without merit or prosecuted
manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration. In such event, the court may award in favor of the respondent treble costs
solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in addition to subjecting counsel to administrative
sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-B. (City of Davao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 200538,
August 13, 2014)

Grounds for dismissal of the petition; unmeritorious petitions

1. The petition is found to be patently without merit;
2. The petition is prosecuted manifestly for delay;
3. The questions raised in the petition are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

In the event of the dismissal of unmeritorious petitions, the court may award in favor of the
respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel.

The court (Supreme 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.

l. Grave abuse of discretion

Grave abuse of discretion connotes such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to
be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the
Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.

● Spouses Marquez v. Spouses Alindog

Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the
Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. Here, while the RTC had initially issued a writ of
possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, it defied existing jurisprudence when it effectively
rescinded the said writ by subsequently granting Sps. Alindog's prayer for injunctive relief.

The RTC's finding anent the initial evidence adduced by Sps. Alindog constitutes
improper basis to justify the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in their favor since, in
the first place, it had no authority to exercise any discretion in this respect.

● Ralph P. Tua v. Hon. Cesar Mangrobang, et al., G.R. No. 170701, January 2, 2014

PAGE 5
m. Period to file

Petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from the notice of judgment or from
the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless, the rule is that in filing petitions for
certiorari under Rule 65, a motion for extension is a prohibited pleading. However in exceptional
or meritorious cases, the Court may grant an extension anchored on special or compelling
reasons.

● Adtel, Inc. And vs. Marijoy A. Valdez, G.R. No. 189942. August 9, 2017
Petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from the notice of judgment or from
the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless, the rule is that in filing petitions for
certiorari under Rule 65, a motion for extension is a prohibited pleading. However in exceptional
or meritorious cases, the Court may grant an extension anchored on special or compelling
reasons.

● Dennis M. Concejero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 223262. September 11, 2017
Petitioner had 60 days to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Since petitioner received the
NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on September 23, 2014, he had until
November 22, 2014 (the 60th day) within which to file his petition. However, November 22, 2014
fell on a Saturday; hence, petitioner had until the next working day or until November 24, 2014
(Monday) to file the petition under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.

6. Quo warranto
A proceeding or writ issued by the court to determine the right to use an office, position or
franchise and to oust the person holding or exercising such office, position or franchise if
his right is unfounded or if a person performed acts considered as grounds for forfeiture of said
exercise of position, office or franchise.

It literally means “by what authority.”

NOTE: It is commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines or in the name of the person claiming to be entitled to a public office or
position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another. (Sec. 1, Rule 66)

● Tecson v. COMELEC
A quo warranto proceeding is generally defined as being an action against a person who
usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. In such context, the
election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. In Rule 14, only a registered
candidate who would have received either the second or third highest number of votes could file
an election protest. This rule again presupposes a post-election scenario.

It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph
7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the
qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.

PAGE 6
 ● Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, G.R. No. 162272, April 7, 2009
There is in fact a more appropriate, more narrowly-tailored and least restrictive remedy that is
afforded by the law. Such remedy is that adverted to by the NTC and the Court of Appeals —
the resort to quo warranto proceedings under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.

Under Section 1 of Rule 66, "an action for the usurpation of a public office, position or
franchise may be brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against a person
who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises public office, position or
franchise." Even while the action is maintained in the name of the Republic, the Solicitor
General or a public prosecutor is obliged to commence such action upon complaint, and upon
good reason to believe that any case specified under Section 1 of Rule 66 can be established
by proof.

The special civil action of quo warranto is a prerogative writ by which the Government can call
upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public
franchise.

It is settled that "[t]he determination of the right to the exercise of a franchise, or whether the
right to enjoy such privilege has been forfeited by non-user, is more properly the subject of the
prerogative writ of quo warranto, the right to assert which, as a rule, belongs to the State 'upon
complaint or otherwise', the reason being that the abuse of a franchise is a public wrong and not
a private injury." A forfeiture of a franchise will have to be declared in a direct proceeding for the
purpose brought by the State because a franchise is granted by law and its unlawful exercise is
primarily a concern of Government.

Quo warranto is specifically available as a remedy if it is thought that a government

corporation has offended against its corporate charter or misused its franchise.

The Court of Appeals correctly noted that in PLDT v. NTC, the Court had cited quo warranto as
the appropriate recourse with respect to an allegation by petitioner therein that a rival
telecommunications competitor had failed to construct its radio system within the ten (10) years
from approval of its franchise, as mandated by its legislative franchise. It is beyond dispute
that quo warranto exists as an available and appropriate remedy against the wrong
imputed on private respondents.

● Republic of the Philippines Vs. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno G.R. No. 237428. May 11,
2018

PAGE 7
a. Distinction between quo warranto under Rule 66 and under the Omnibus Election Code
UNDER RULE 66 IN ELECTORAL PROCEEDINGS
ISSUE

Issue is legality of the occupancy of the office Issue is eligibility of the person elected.
by virtue of a legal appointment.
GROUNDS

usurpation, forfeiture, or illegal association ineligibility or disqualification to hold the office

(Sec. 1, Rule 66) (Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code)
WHEN INITIATED

Presupposes that the respondent is already Petition must be filed within 10 days from
actually holding office and action must be the proclamation of the candidate.
commenced within 1 year from cause of
ouster or from the time the right of petitioner Needs to be proclaimed first
to hold office arose.
PETITIONER

Person entitled to office May be any voter even if he is not entitled to

the office.
WHERE FILED

Filed before the Supreme Court, CA or RTC a. Filed before the COMELEC if filed against
Manila if filed by the Solicitor General. the election of a Member of Congress,
regional, provincial or city officer;
Otherwise, RTC with jurisdiction over the
territorial area where respondent or any of the b. Filed before the appropriate RTC or MTC,
respondents resides, CA, or SC. if filed against a municipal or barangay
Z (Sec. 7, Rule 66) official, respectively.
PERIOD WHEN TO FILE

Should be filed within 1 year after the cause Should be filed within 10 days after
of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner proclamation of results
to hold such office or position arose.
(Sec. 11, Rule 66)
EFFECT OF JUDGMENT

Person adjudged entitled to the office may Actual or compensatory damages are
bring a separate action against the recoverable in quo warranto
respondent to recover damage. under the Omnibus Election Code.
(Sec 11, Rule 66)

NOTE: If the dispute is as to the counting of votes or on matters connected with the
conduct of the election, quo warranto is not the proper remedy but an election protest.
(Cesar v. Garrido, G.R. No. 30705, March 25, 1929)

PAGE 8
 ● Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, December 18, 2008
The denial of due course to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on the lack of
qualifications but on a finding that the candidate made a material representation that is false,
which may relate to the qualifications required of the public office he/she is running for. It is
noted that the candidate states in his/her CoC that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks.
Section 78 of the OEC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the constitutional and statutory
provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public office. If the candidate subsequently states a
material representation in the CoC that is false, the COMELEC, following the law, is empowered
to deny due course to or cancel such certificate. Indeed, the Court has already likened a
proceeding under Section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding under Section 253 of the OEC since
they both deal with the eligibility or qualification of a candidate, with the distinction mainly in the
fact that a "Section 78" petition is filed before proclamation, while a petition for quo warranto is
filed after proclamation of the winning candidate.

The court held that a "Section 78" petition should not be confused or interchanged with Quo
Warranto under the ROC "Section 68" petition. They are different remedies, based on different
grounds, and resulting in different eventualities. Private respondent's insistence, therefore, that
the petition it filed before the COMELEC in SPA No. 07-372 is in the nature of a disqualification
case under Section 68, as it is in fact captioned a "Petition for Disqualification", does not
persuade the Court.

b. When GOVERNMENT may commence an action against individuals (PPA)

An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by
a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
1. A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public
office, position or franchise;
2. A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a
ground for the forfeiture of his office; and
3. An association (DE FACTO CORP) which acts as a corporation within the Philippines
WITHOUT being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act. (de facto
corporation) (Sec. 1, Rule 66)

It is the Solicitor general or the public prosecutor who must commence the action when
directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise that he or she
has good reason to believe that any case specified in the Rules can be established by proof.
(Sec. 2, Rule 66)

NOTE:
● Actions of quo warranto against corporations now fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC
acting as Special Commercial Courts. (Sec. 5.2, Securities Regulations Code)
● Quo warranto will only lie against de facto corporations.

PAGE 9
c. Who may commence the action
Who may commence (SPI)
1. Solicitor General - may bring the action as directed by the President or at the request of
another person with the permission of the court.
2. Public Prosecutor
3. Private person/ Individual claiming to be entitled to the office or position usurped or
unlawfully held or exercised by another. (Sec. 5 Rule 66)

NOTE:
● Not any person may file the petition for quo warranto. The person authorised to file the
same is the one who claims to be entitled to a public office or position which was
usurped or unlawfully help by another.
● In order for a petition for quo warranto to be successful, the suing private individual must
show a clear right to the contested office. His failure to establish this right warrants
the dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of action; it is not even necessary to pass
upon the right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the
undisturbed possession of his office. (General v. Urro, G.R. No. 191560, March 29, 2011)
● By analogy with provisions of Sec. 5, it has been held that a public utility may bring a
quo warranto action against another public utility which has usurped the rights of
the former granted under franchise. (Cui v. Cui, 60 Phil. 57; Regalado, 2010)

d. Judgment in quo warranto action

When the respondent is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or
exercising a public office, position or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such
respondent be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or relator,
as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment may be rendered determining
the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of the parties to the
action as justice requires. (Sec. 9, Rule 66)

The court may render judgment for costs against either the petitioner, relator, respondent, or
the person or persons claiming to be a corporation. The corporation may also apportion the
costs, as justice requires. (Sec. 12, Rule 66)

LIMITATION OF QUO WARRANTO

Period within which a person ousted from office must file a petition for quo warranto
GR: An action for quo warranto must be commenced within 1 year after the cause of such
ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose (Sec. 11, Rule 66).

The failure to institute the same within the reglementary period constitutes more than a sufficient
basis for its dismissal (Alejo v. Marquez) since it is not proper that the title to a public office be
subjected to continued uncertainty. (Villegas v. De la Cruz).

XPN:

PAGE 10
 a. If the failure to file the action can be attributed to the acts of a responsible government
officer and not of the dismissed employee. (Conchita Romualdez-Yap v. CSC, et al.,
G.R. No. 104226, August 12, 1993)
b. When the action is filed by the Republic. (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11,
2018)

NOTE:
● The periods within which quo warranto action should be brought are a condition
precedent to the existence of a cause of action.
● The pendency of administrative remedies does not operate to suspend the period
of one year within which a petition for quo warranto should be filed.
○ While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be first resorted to, no one
is compelled or bound to do so, and as said remedies neither are pre-requisite to
nor bar the institution of quo warranto proceedings, they should not be allowed to
suspend the period of one year. Public interest requires that the right to a
public office should be determined as speedily as practicable. (Torres v.
Quintos, G.R. No. L-3304, April 5, 1951)
● The court may reduce the period provided by these Rules for filing pleadings and for all
other proceedings in the action in order to secure the most expeditious determination of
the matters involved therein consistent with the rights of the parties. Such action may be
given precedence over any other civil matter pending in the court. (Sec. 8, Rule 66)

7. Expropriation
The power of eminent domain is one of the inherent powers of the state together with police and
taxation power. Being inherent, no law or even the Constitution may confer it. Therefore, any
provision in law or Constitution making reference to it is only a limitation to its exercise.

The right of eminent domain is ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the
public but the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, for public purpose.

Sec. 9, Art. III of the Constitution lays down specific limitations to its exercise by requiring that
the taking of private property be done only for public use and upon payment of just
compensation. The due process and equal protection clauses in Sec. 1 of Art. III of the
Constitution likewise serve as limitations to the exercise of such power.

Power of eminent domain

It is the right of the State to acquire private property for public use upon the payment of just
compensation.

NOTE: The scope of the power of eminent domain as exercised by the Congress is plenary and
is as broad as the police power. Such power however, may also be delegated to local political
subdivisions and public utilities.

DEFINITION OF EXPROPRIATION

PAGE 11
It is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain.

Expropriation is proper only when:

1. The owner refuses to sell; or
2. If the latter agrees, agreement as to the price cannot be reached.

NOTE: It is the actual filing of complaint for expropriation which binds the land, and not a
mere notice of the intent to expropriate. However, the owner of the land may still dispose of said
property, despite the filing of the action, as the grantee would merely be substituted in his place
and holds the land subject to the results of the action.

By reason of expediency, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or

allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.

REQUISITES OF THE EXERCISE OF A VALID EXPROPRIATION

1. Due process of the law
2. There should be payment of just compensation
a. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator.
3. The taking of the private property must be for public use

Properties that are subject to expropriation

All properties can be expropriated, except money and choses in action
● Choses in action – A right to personal things of which the owner has not the possession,
but merely a right of action for their possession. (Black’s Law, 2004)

Scope of expropriation
Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a corresponding transfer of
title or possession. The right-of-way easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on property
rights over the land traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit of the term
"expropriation.” (National Power Corporation v. Vda. De Capin).
● National Power Corporation V. Apolonio Marasigan et. al
● Ato v. Gopuco, Jr. 462 SCRA 544

MATTERS TO ALLEGE IN COMPLAINT FOR EXPROPRIATION

The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by filing of a verified complaint, which shall:
1. State with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation;
2. Describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated;
3. Join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof
or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of each
defendant; and
4. If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the Republic of the
Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or if the title is otherwise obscure
or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real
owners, averment to that effect shall be made in the complaint. (Sec. 1, Rule 67)

PAGE 12
a. Two stages in action for expropriation
1. First stage – the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to expropriate. This
determination includes an inquiry into the propriety of the expropriation – its necessity
and the public purpose.

NOTE: The first stage will end in the issuance of an order of expropriation if the
court finds for plaintiff or in dismissal of the complaint if it finds otherwise.

2. Second stage - Determination of just compensation through the court- appointed

commissioners.
a. GR: Just Compensation must be reckoned from the time of taking or filing of the
complaint, whichever came first.

XPN: As a measure of simple justice and ordinary fairness to them, therefore,

reckoning just compensation on the value at the time the owners
commenced these inverse condemnation proceedings when:
a. stealth is employed instead of complying with the legal process of
expropriation. (National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit
Sangkay, 671 Phil. 569, 2011)
b. there is no intention to pay the owners just compensation. (National
Power Corporation v. Spouses Saludares)

● National Power Corporation v. Joson, 206 SCRA 520

● City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation, G.R. No. 187604, June 25, 2012

b. When plaintiff can immediately enter into possession of the real property in relation to R.A.
No. 8974/10752 (RIGHT OF WAY ACT)
8974
RA 8974, otherwise known as "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right- of-Way, Site
or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and For Other Purposes," and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations has modified Sec. 2 of Rule 67.

RA 8974 requires that the Government make a direct payment to the property
owner before the writ may issue as compared to Rule 67. It only applies in instances
when the national government expropriates property for NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.

10752
In line with The Right-of-Way Act”, whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for
the right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project through
expropriation, the proper agency, through the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel, or their deputize government or private legal counsel, shall
initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under the following
guidelines:

PAGE 13
 1. Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the
implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount
equivalent to the sum of 100% of the value of the property based on the current
relevant zonal valuation of the BIR issued not more than 3 years prior to the filing of
the expropriation complaint, the replacement cost at current market, and the value of
the improvements and/or structures, the current market value of crops and trees located
within the property;
2. In case the owner of the property cannot be found, if unknown, or deceased in cases
where the estate has not been settled, after exerting due diligence, or there are
conflicting claims over the ownership of the property and improvements and structures
thereon, the implementing agency shall deposit the amount equivalent to the sum
provided (Zonal Value) for in the preceding number;
3. In provinces, cities, municipalities, and other areas where there is no land
classification, the city or municipal assessor is hereby mandated, within the period
of 60 days from the date of filing of the expropriation case, to come up with the
required land classification and the corresponding declaration of real property
and improvement for the area.

In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation,
the BIR is mandated within the period of 60 days from the date of the expropriation
case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said area; and
4. In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency
and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the
implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered
value taking into consideration the standards prescribed by the law.

Upon compliance with the guidelines, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing
agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
(Sec. 6, RA 10752)
In any of the cases mentioned, upon the receipt of the writ of possession that was issued by the
court, the implementing agency may take possession of the property and start the
implementation of the project. (Sec. 6, RA 10752)
Requisites in order that plaintiff may be authorized to immediately enter into property
under Rule 67 of the ROC
Upon the:
1. Filing of complaint, serving notice to defendant and after depositing the assessed value
of property for taxation purposes with the authorized government depositary (Sec. 2,
Rule 67); and
2. Tender, or payment with legal interest from the taking of possession of the property, of
compensation fixed by the judgment and payment of costs by plaintiff (Sec. 10, Rule 67).
Once the preliminary deposit has been made, the expropriator is entitled to a writ of
possession as a matter of right, and the issuance of said writ becomes ministerial on the part of
the trial court. The defenses by the owner against immediate possession can be considered
during trial on the merits.

PAGE 14
c. Defenses and objections
1. If a defendant has any objection or defense to the taking of his property:
a. He shall serve his answer. The answer shall specifically designate or identify
the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the nature and
extent of the interest claimed;
b. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the
same;
c. If there are no objections, he must file and serve a notice of appearance and
manifestation to that effect. And thereafter, shall be entitled to notice of all
proceedings. (Sec. 3, Rule 67)
NOTE:
● The failure to file an answer does not produce all the disastrous consequences of default
in ordinary civil actions, because the defendant may still present evidence as to just
compensation.
● If the answer omits some defenses, the remedy, in order to prevent a waiver of those
defenses not alleged, is to seek leave to amend the answer within 10 days from the
filing thereof. (Sec. 3, Rule 67)
● If a defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged, the court, in the
interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made not later than 10
days from the filing thereof.

However, at the trial of the issue of just compensation, whether or not a defendant has
previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount of the
compensation to be paid for his property, and he may share in the distribution of the
award. (Sec. 3, Rule 67)

d. Ascertainment of just compensation

Just compensation
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be
expropriated.

The measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. The compensation, to be just, must be
fair not only to the owner but also to the taker. Even as undervaluation would deprive the
owner of his property without due process, so too would its overvaluation unduly favor him to
the prejudice of the public. (National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz).

Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid but also
the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking.

How court determines just compensation

The trial court should first ascertain the market value of the property, to which should be
added the consequential damages after deducting therefrom the consequential benefits which
may arise from the expropriation.

If the consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages, these items should be
disregarded altogether as the basic value of the property should be paid in every case.

PAGE 15
Market Value
Is the price that may be agreed upon by parties willing but not compelled to enter into the
contract of sale. Not unlikely, a buyer desperate to acquire a piece of property would agree to
pay more, and a seller in urgent need of funds would agree to accept less, than what it is
actually worth.

Among the factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value of the property
are:
1. The cost of acquisition;
2. The current value of like properties;
3. Its actual or potential uses; and
4. In the particular case of lands, their size, shape, location, and the tax declarations
thereon. (National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007)

Formula for the determination of just compensation

JC = FMV + CD – CB | If CB is more than CD, then JC = FMV

JC – Just compensation
FMV – Fair market value
CD – Consequential damages
CB – Consequential benefits

● City of Iloilo v. Contreras Besana, 612 SCRA 458

● Republic v. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc. , 664 SCRA 223

e. Appointment of commissioners; commissioners’ report; court action upon commissioners’

report

Appointment of commissioner
Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than 3
competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the
court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order of appointment
shall designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the
commissioners and specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the court.
(Sec. 5, Rule 67)

NOTE: Objections to the order of appointment must be filed within 10 days from service of
the order and shall be resolved within 30 days after all the commissioners received the
copies of the objections. (Sec. 5, Rule 67)

Mandatory requirement of appointing Commissioner

Appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be
taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. Where the principal issue is the
determination of just compensation, a hearing before the commissioners is
indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation.

PAGE 16
While it is true that the findings of commissioners may be disregarded and the trial court may
substitute its own estimate of the value, the latter may only do so for valid reasons, that is,
where the commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them,
where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed
is either grossly inadequate or excessive. (National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz).

Commissioner’s Report
As a rule, the commissioners shall make their report within 60 days from the date they
were notified of their appointment. This period may be extended in the discretion of the court.

Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of court shall serve copies on all interested parties, with
notice that they are allowed 10 days within which to file objections to the findings of the
report, if they so desire. (Sec. 7, Rule 67; Riano, 2009)

The court may order the commissioners to report when any particular portion of the real estate
shall have been passed upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partial report, and
direct the commissioners to proceed with their work as to subsequent portions of the property
sought to be expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such property. The
commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings,
and such proceedings shall not be effectual until the court shall have accepted their report and
rendered judgment in accordance with their recommendations. (Sec. 7, Rule 67)

Action upon Commissioner’s report

Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section, or even
before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections
to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing,:
1. Accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith; or
2. For cause shown, it may recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of
facts; or
3. Set aside the report and appoint new commissioners, or
4. Accept the report in part and reject it in part; and
5. It may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff of the
property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant just
compensation for the property so taken. (Sec.8, Rule 67)

● National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz, 514 SCRA 56

f. Remedy of unpaid owner

Where a municipality fails or refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final
money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in
order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance, and the
corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefore.

Mandamus is a remedy available to a property owner when a money judgment is rendered in its
favor and against a municipality or city.

PAGE 17
 ● Yujuico v. Atienza, Jr. 472 SCRA 463

Mandamus is a remedy available to a property owner when a money judgment is rendered in its
favor and against a municipality or city, as in this case.

Where a municipality fails or refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final
money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in
order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance, and the
corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefore

PAGE 18