Petitioner VS.: Topic: Remedial Law Eminent Domain: Proceedings For Expropriation - The Court

[G.R. No. L-27006. June 30, 1970.
]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, presided formerly by Judge L.
Pasicolan, and now by Judge Andres C. Aguilar, the spouses
FRANCISCO ROQUE and FRANCISCA HENSON, and the
Topic: REMEDIAL LAW; EMINENT DOMAIN: PROCEEDINGS FOR EXPROPRIATION – The court
is empowered to entertain the conflicting claims of ownership of the condemned or sought to be
condemned properly and adjudge the rightful owner thereof, in the same expropriation case. This is
evident from Section 9 of the Revised Rule 69, which provides that the court may order any sum or
sums awarded as compensation for the property, the ownership of which is uncertain, to be paid to
the clerk of court for the benefit of the persons adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled
thereto.
Facts:
This is a Petition for certiorari against the order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in an
expropriation case, declaring itself without jurisdiction to pass upon the question of ownership of one
of the condemned lots, in the same proceeding.
The Republic filed a case in CFI Pampanga for the expropriation of the so-called Henson Estate,
situated in the municipality of Angeles of that province.
After a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all the defendants, one Antonio Feliciano, representing
himself to be the owner of the lot identified as Lot No. 6, Block 6, plan Psd-2017, with proper leave of
court, filed a motion in intervention praying for the dismissal of the case as far as such property was
concerned.
The motion was opposed by the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines, pointing out that the sale of the
land by Francisca Henson-Roque to movant-intervenor was made on 16 September 1957, or a year
after the filing of the expropriation case, in violation of Section 20 of the Land Reform Act of 1955.
Acting on the foregoing motions, the court declared as null and void the sale of the lot to Antonio
Feliciano; reconsidered the order allowing the intervention of Feliciano.
Before the above order was issued, Feliciano sold the same lot to the spouses Juan Punzalan and
Eufrocina Wingco. Required later to show cause why the sale of the lot to them should not be declared
invalid and their title cancelled, the Punzalans contested the jurisdiction of the lower court, submitting
that not being a land registration court, it is without authority to pass upon the validity of the sale and
of the certificate of title. Besides, it was claimed that the sale of the lot to them was in good faith and
for value.
The Punzalans once more applied to the court for the exclusion of the lot from the order of 3 August
1960, and for the cancellation of the lis pendens notice at the back of their certificate of title. The
motion was denied by the court reasoning that to grant movants' prayer at that point would amount to
prejudging the matter of the validity of their (movants) title to the land. The court denied movants'
motion; and declared itself possessed of authority to pass upon the issue raised in that incident, in
accordance with Section 10, Rule 69 3 of the Rules of Court. There was a lull in the proceeding in the
lower court until the judge to whom the case was reassigned issued an order disavowing jurisdiction
over the question of the validity of the subsequent sales of the lot, and directing its exclusion from the
order of condemnation. When its motion for reconsideration of this latest order was denied, the
plaintiff Republic of the Philippines came to this Court by way of the present certiorari proceeding.
Issue:
Whether or not the court that hears the expropriation case has also jurisdiction to determine, in the
sale proceeding, the issue of ownership of the land sought to be condemned
Ruling:
YES. The court is empowered to entertain the conflicting claims of ownership of the condemned or
sought 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 provides:
"SEC. 9. Uncertain ownership. Conflicting claims. — If the ownership of the property taken is
uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums
awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the clerk of court for the benefit of the
persons adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall require the
payment of the sum or sums awarded to either the defendant or the clerk before the plaintiff can
enter upon the property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has already been made."
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.
The court taking cognizance of the expropriation must necessarily determine if the sale to the
Punzalan spouses by Antonio Feliciano is valid or not. For if valid, said spouses must be the ones to be
paid by the condemnor; but if invalid, the money will be paid to someone else.

Petitioner VS.: Topic: Remedial Law Eminent Domain: Proceedings For Expropriation - The Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner VS.: Topic: Remedial Law Eminent Domain: Proceedings For Expropriation - The Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner VS.: Topic: Remedial Law Eminent Domain: Proceedings For Expropriation - The Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. L-27006. June 30, 1970.

You might also like