CIV PRO PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[477] Bardillon v. Barangay Masili MTC

G.R. No. 146886 | April 30, 2003 | Ponente • Respondent files first Complaint; purpose: providing
San Pedro Barangay Masili a multi-purpose hall for the use and
benefit of its constituents.
PETITIONER: DEVORAH E. BARDILLON • Said Complaint dismissed for lack of interest for failure
RESPONDENT: BARANGAY MASILI of Calamba, Laguna of Respondent and counsel to appear at pre-trial

TOPIC: Expropriation RTC

• Second Complaint for eminent domain was filed; same
DOCTRINES: purpose
• Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor: “The • Petitioner: Motion to Dismiss, alleging it violated
primary consideration in an expropriation suit is Section 19(f) of Rule 16 in that [respondent’s] cause of
whether the government or any of its instrumentalities action is barred by prior judgment, pursuant to the
has complied with the requisites for the taking of doctrine of res judicata.
private property. Hence, the courts determine the o DENIED
authority of the government entity, the necessity of the • Decision in favor of Barangay Masili in August 4, 2000;
expropriation, and the observance of due process. In Writ of Possession in favor of respondent issued on
the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the August 16.
government’s exercise of eminent domain, a matter
that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. [The ISSUES and RULING:
estimated value of the property to be expropriated, ISSUES RELEVANT TO DOCTRINE
expressed in money terms,] is merely incidental to the WoN RTC has jurisdiction over the expropriation case – YES.
expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined • ARGUMENTS: Petitioner claims that, since the value
only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the of the land is only P11,448, the MTC had jurisdiction
expropriation.” over the case. On the other hand, the appellate court
• The requirements for the issuance of a writ of held that the assessed value of the property was
possession in an expropriation case are Based on Rule P28,960.10 Thus, the MTC did not have jurisdiction
67.2 and, for LGU’s, Section 19 of the Local over the expropriation proceedings, because the
Government Code: amount involved was beyond the P20,000
o (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation jurisdictional amount cognizable by MTCs.
sufficient in form and substance; and • RULE: Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor:
o (2) the deposit of the amount equivalent to 15 “The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is
percent of the fair market value of the whether the government or any of its instrumentalities
property to be expropriated based on its has complied with the requisites for the taking of
current tax declaration. are expressly and private property. Hence, the courts determine the
specifically governed by Section 2 of Rule 67 authority of the government entity, the necessity of the
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the expropriation, and the observance of due process. In
part the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the
government’s exercise of eminent domain, a matter
FACTS: that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. [The
ANTECEDENTS estimated value of the property to be expropriated,
• two (2) [C]omplaints for eminent domain which were expressed in money terms,] is merely incidental to the
filed by herein respondent for the purpose of expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined
expropriating a ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR (144) only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the
square meter-parcel of land, otherwise known as Lot expropriation.”
4381-D situated in Barangay Masili, Calamba, Laguna • APPLICATION: An expropriation suit does not
and owned by herein petitioner under Transfer involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals
Certificate of Title No. 383605 of the Registry of Deeds with the exercise by the government of its authority
of Calamba, Laguna. and right to take property for public use. As such, it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
 • HELD: RTC has jurisdiction. present in two or more pending cases, such that a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
Won MTC’s dismissal of the first Complaint for eminent domain was another.
with prejudice, since there was no indication to the contrary in the • APPLICATION: The earlier case lodged with the MTC
Order of dismissal – NO. had already been dismissed when the Complaint was
• RULE: The requisites of res judicata: filed before the RTC. Even granting arguendo that both
o (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the cases were still pending, a final judgment in the MTC
court that rendered it had jurisdiction over case will not constitute res judicata in the RTC, since
the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a the former had no jurisdiction over the expropriation
judgment on the merits; and (4) there is— case.
between the first and the second actions—an
identity of parties, subject matter and cause of DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the
action. assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO
• APPLICATION: The MTC had no jurisdiction over ORDERED.
expropriation proceedings. The second requisite is
absent.
• HELD: The doctrine of res judicata finds no
application even if the Order of dismissal may have
been an adjudication on the merits.

WoN CA erred when it ignored the RTC’s Writ of Possession over

Petitioner’s property – NO.
• RULE: The requirements for the issuance of a writ of
possession in an expropriation case are Based on Rule
67.2 and, for LGU’s, Section 19 of the Local
Government Code:
o (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation
sufficient in form and substance; and
o (2) the deposit of the amount equivalent to 15
percent of the fair market value of the
property to be expropriated based on its
current tax declaration. are expressly and
specifically governed by Section 2 of Rule 67
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the
part
• APPLICATION: the issuance of the Writ of Possession
in favor of respondent after it had filed the Complaint
for expropriation and deposited the amount required
was proper, because it had complied with the
foregoing requisites.
• HELD: Although the Writ of Possession was valid, if
petitioner objects to the necessity of the takeover of her
property, she should say so in her Answer to the
Complaint.

OTHER MATTERS
WoN respondent is guilty of forum shopping because it schouted for
another forum after obtaining an unfavorable Decision from the MTC
– NO.
• RULE: The test for determining the presence of forum
shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are