Heirs of Pastor [GR 138896, 20 June 2000] Third Division,
Panganiban (J): 3 concur, 1 on leave on official business Facts: Barangay San Roque in Talisay, Cebu filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu (Branch 1) a Complaint to expropriate a property of Heirs of Francisco Pastor (Eugenio Sylianco, Teodoro Sylianco, Isabel Sylianco, Eugenia S. Ong, Lawrence Sylianco, Lawson Sylianco, Lawina S. Notario, Leonardo Sylianco, Jr. and Lawford Sylianco). In an Order dated 8 April 1997, the MTC dismissed the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that "[e]minent domain is an exercise of the power to take private property for public use after payment of just compensation. In an action for eminent domain, therefore, the principal cause of action is the exercise of such power or right. The fact that the action also involves real property is merely incidental. An action for eminent domain is therefore within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not with this Court." When the complaint was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the RTC also dismissed the Complaint on 29 March 1999, holding that an action for eminent domain affected title to real property; hence, the value of the property to be expropriated would determine whether the case should be filed before the MTC or the RTC; therefore concluding that the action should have been filed before the MTC since the value of the subject property was less than P20,000. The Barangay's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on 14 May 1999. The Barangay filed the petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) has jurisdiction over expropriation cases. Held: The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government entity, the necessity of the expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. True, the value of the property to be expropriated is Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 4 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation. Verily, the Court held in Republic of the Philippines v. Zurbano that "condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance," the forerunners of the regional trial courts (RTC). The said case was decided during the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948 which, like Batas Pambansa 129 in respect to RTCs, provided that courts of first instance had original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation." The 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court were not intended to change these jurisprudential precedents.
Todd Shipyards Corporation, On Its Own Behalf and As Chartered Owner and Bailee of The Michael Cosgrove, Libelant-Appellee v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co., Inc., 247 F.2d 626, 2d Cir. (1957)