RULE 67

EXPROPRIATION
The former title was Eminent Domain. However, just to make a
distinction, Eminent Domain is the right while Expropriation is the procedure
of enforcing that right.
Eminent domain or expropriation, is a phrase which refers to the power of
a sovereign state to take or to authorize the taking of any property within its
jurisdication

for

the

public

use

and

without

the

owners

consent.

Expropriation, technically, is a special civil action filed by the government as

an exercixe of the right to eminent domain against owner of private property
for public use and upon payment of just compensation. It is, therefore, a
manifestation of the ubiquitious character of eminent domain, an inherent
political right of the state of approriating the property of individual members
of the community to the great necessities of the whole community.
We have learned in Constitutional law that the power of eminent domain
is inherently possessed the the State. By delegation, it may also be possess
by local governments, other public entities, and public utilities. (Joaquin
Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Philippine Constitution A Reviewer-Primer [1987])
Being an inherent power, it is inherent in sovereignty and does not
depend for its existence a specific grant by the Constitution. 1 Nevertheless,
the Constitution has provisions on eminent domain:
Article XII, Section 18: The state may, in the interest of
national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital
indistries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to
public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be
operated by the government.
Article XIII, Section 4: The state shall, by law, undertake an
agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To
this end, the state shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities
and
1

reasonable

retention

limits

as

the

Visayan Refining Co. V. Camus and Paredes, 40 Phil. 550 (1919)

Congress

may

prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or

equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the state shall
respect the right of small landowners. The state shall further
provide incentives for voluntary land sharing.
Artivle XVIII, Section 22: At the earliest possible time, the
Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural
lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the
beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program.

LIMITATIONS TO THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN

The right to eminent domain, like all other inherent rights of the state, is
not ablsolute. The 1987 Constitution has imposed limitations to the exercise
of the power of eminent domain, to wit:
Article III, Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Aricle III: Section 9
Under the above provision and jurisprudence, the following are
the limitations of the right of eminent domain:
1. The right must be exercised by the state or its
authorized entities;
The right of eminent domain is usually exercised through the
legislative branch of government. However, the Congress may
delegate this power to other entities of the State. Consequently, the
power of eminent domain id delated to the Local Government Units
(LGU) and other entites such as the Philippine Estates Authority. In
the LGUs exercise of eminent domain, it has to enact an ordinance
authorizing the local chief executive to conduct expropriation
proceesing of private property for public use.
2. Just compensation must be paid to the owner;

Just compensation is defined as the sum equivalent to the market

value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the
seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action
and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who
receives and one who desires to sell it fixed at the time of the actual
taking by the government.2
3. Due process must be observed;
This is provided under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
Due process requirement is served if the government complies with
the requirements under Rule 67.
4. The taking must be limited to properties necessary for
a legitimate purpose
An essential requisite of expropriation is that there must be a
necessity of a public charity for the exercise of eminent domain. The
ascertainment of the necessity must come first and not follow, the
taking of the property. 3
Republic of the Philippines vs Castellvi is instructive as it
raciocinates that there is compensable taking of a private property
when the following conditions concur: (a) the expropriator must enter
a private property; (b) the entrance into private property
Where a private property is needed for conversion to some public
purpose, there must first be an offer on the part of the government to
the owner to buy the property. If the owner is willing to sell, the
parties agree as to the terms and conditions of the sale, just like any
other contract of sale. Otherwise, the government will have to use its
power of eminent domain to forcibly take the property, subject to the
payment of just compensation. Also, when the owner and te
government fail to arrice to an agreement or where the offer is not
accepted, the right of eminent domain may be exercised. This
inherent right can only be exercised through a judicial action under
Rule 67 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.

2
3

Alabastro, et al. Expropriation and Partition (2006)

City of Manila v Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil. 349 (1919)

Section 1. The complaint. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing
of a verified complaint which shall state with certainty the right and purpose of
expropriation, describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and 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. 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. (1a)

Expropriation proceedings are governed by revised Rule 67 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect on July 1, 1997.
Previous doctrines inconsistent with this Rule are deemed reversed or
modified. Specifically, (1) an answer, not a motion to dismiss, is the
responsive pleading to a complaint in eminent domain; (2) the trial
court may issue a writ of possession once the plaintiff deposits an
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property, pursuant to
Section 2 of said Rule, without need of a hearing to determine the
provisional sum to be deposited; and (3) a final order of expropriation
may not be issued prior to a full hearing and resolution of the
objections and defenses of the property owner.
NATURE of the PROCEEDING
In Ramos v. Philippine Tourism Authority (G.R. Nos. 52449-50, June
9, 1980), the Supreme Court held:
... condemnation or expropriation proceedings is in the
nature of one that is quasi-in-rem wherein the fact that the
owner of the property is made a party is not essentially
indispensable insofar was least as it conncerns is the
immediate taking of possession of the property and the
preliminary determination of its value, including the amount
to be deposited.

STAGES OF THE PROCEEDING

As held in the case of Bian vs. Garcia, 180 SCRA 576 (1989), as reiterated in
NAPOCOR v Jocson, 206 SCRA 520 (1992), an expropriation proceeding has two
stages:
1. The determination of plaintiffs authority to exercise the power of
eminent domain in the context of the facts of the case;
It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of
condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take
the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or
purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just
compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint." An order of dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a
final one, of course, since it finally disposes of the action and
leaves nothing more to be done by the Court on the Merits. So, too,
would an order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter, as
the Rules expressly state, in the proceedings before the Trial Court,
"no objection to the exercise of the right of condemnation (or the
propriety thereof) shall be filed or heard.

2. The determination of the just compensation by the court for the

property sought to be taken.
This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than
three (3) commissioners. The order fixing the just compensation on
the

basis

of

the

evidence

before,

and

findings

of,

the

commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of the

second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the
Court regarding the issue. Obviously, one or another of the parties
may believe the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the
evidence or findings of fact or otherwise. Obviously, too, such a
dissatisfied party may seek reversal of the order by taking an
appeal therefrom.
Thus, unlike an ordinary civil action, it can be inferred from Rule 67
of the Rules of Court that the special civil action of expropriation is
characterized by two important stages of proceeding wherein the
issue of propriety of the exercise of the right to eminent domain
and the issue of just compensation are ruled upon.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCEDURE:

HOW TO INITIATE THE COMPLAINT

1. There must be a Verified Complaint
2. The verified complaint must allege the following:
a. the right and purpose of expropriation,
b. describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated,

c. and join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying,

any part
thereof or interest therein,
d. showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of each defendant.
e. If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the
Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals,
f. 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.
3. Must implead 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.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Verification refers to a declaration unver oath or upon penalty of perjury that a
statement or pleading is true.Verification is intended to assure that the allegations
therein have been prepared in good faith or are true and correct, not mere
speculations. Generally, lack of verification is merely a formal defect that is neither
jurisdictional nor fatal. Its absence does not divest the trial court of
jurisdiction. The trial court may order the correction of the pleading or act on the
unverified pleading, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance
with the rule may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice. 4
PARTIES TO THE CASE
The defendants in an expropriation case are not limited to the owners of the
property condemned. They include all other persons owning, occupying or claiming to
own the property. When a parcel of land is taken by eminent domain, the owner of
the fee is not necessarily the only person who is entitled to compensation. In the
American jurisdiction, the term "owner" when employed in statutes relating to
eminent domain to designate the persons who are to be made parties to the
proceeding, refers, as is the rule in respect of those entitled to compensation, to all
those who have lawful interest in the property to be condemned, including a
mortgagee, a lessee and a vendee in possession under an executory contract. Every
person having an estate or interest at law or in equity in the land taken is entitled to
share in the award. If a person claiming an interest in the land sought to be
condemned is not made a party, he is given the right to intervene and lay claim to
the compensation.5

JURISDICTION

Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission. 272
SCRA 737, 743, May 29, 1997; Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279, 299, May 20, 1998
5
De Knecht vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108015, May 20, 1998.
4

An action for expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and falls within

the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, regardless of the value of the subject
property.6
May a property already devoted to public use be subject to expropriation?
No.
It is a well known fact that cemeteries may be public or private. The former is a
cemetery used by the general community, or neighborhood, or church, while the
latter is used only by a family, or a small portion of the community or neighborhood.
Where a cemetery is open to public, it is a public use and no part of the ground can
be taken for other public uses under a general authority. And this immunity extends
to the unimproved and unoccupied parts which are held in good faith for future use. 7

Section 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized

government depositary. Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time
thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the
right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he
deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to
the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such
bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless
in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a
government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the
authorized government depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and
the amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper
officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved and
promptly submit a report thereof to the court with service of copies to the
parties. (2a)

PRELIMINARY DEPOSIT
Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the
defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of
the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary
an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation
to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court.

In Visayan Refining vs Camus, the Supreme Court said that a preliminary

deposit protects the defendant "from any danger of loss resulting from the temporary
occupation of the land by the Government, for it is obvious that this preliminary
deposit serve the double purpose of a prepayment upon the value of the property, if
finally expropriated, and as an indemnity against damages in the eventuality that the
proceedings should fail of consummation." To return this deposit to plaintiff now
would, therefore, be depriving defendants of this legal safeguard for the payment of
their damages in case they are finally held to have the right to collect said damages
in these same proceedings.

6
7

Barangay San Roque v Heirs of Pastor, GR No. 138896, June 20, 2000
City of Manila v Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil. 349 (1919)

A preliminary deposit, therefore serves the double purpose of:

1. payment upon the value of the property, if finally expropriated, and
2. Indemnity against damage in the event the proceedings fail to consummate. 8

DETERMINATION OF ASSESSED VALUE

The assessed value is that indicated in the tax declaration. This
effectively removes the discretion of the court in determining the
provisional value of the real property.
This should be distinguished from the requirement under Republic Act
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.
As stated in Republic vs Gingoyon, Republic Act No. 8974
"provides for a procedure eminently more favorable to the property
owner than Rule 67" since it requires the immediate payment of the
zonal value and the value of the improvements on the land to the
property owner before the trial court can allow the government to
take possession. In contrast, Rule 67 only requires the
government to deposit the assessed value of the property for
it to enter and take possession.
The purpose for the taking of private property was for the
construction of the National Power Corporations Substation
Island Grid Project. According to the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 8974, projects related to
"power generation, transmission and distribution" are
national infrastructure projects covered by the law. The
National Power Corporation must first comply with the
guidelines stated in Republic Act No. 8974 before it can take
possession of respondents property.
The trial court allowed the National Power Corporation to take
possession of the properties because of its deposit with Land
Bank of the Philippines of the alleged provisional value.
However, the trial court recalled the Writ of Possession
because the National Power Corporation failed to deposit the
additional amount.
We find that the trial court erred, not in recalling the Writ of
Possession, but in granting the Writ of Possession in the first
place.
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974, unlike Rule 67, Section 2
of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requires immediate payment
to the landowner of 100% of the value of the property based
on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue. It is the Bureau of Internal Revenue, not the
court, which determines the zonal value.
The law also requires the immediate payment of the value of
the improvements and/or structures on the land before the
trial court can issue the Writ of Possession.
Thus, the trial court committed two errors. First, it based the
value of the improvements on the property on the
determination made by the commissioners, and not on the
determination made by the National Power Corporation,
contrary to the requirements of Section 7 of Republic Act No.
8974.
8

Visayan Refining Co. v Camus and Paredes, 40 Phil 550 (1919)

The second error of the trial court occurred when it issued a

Writ of Possession on the basis of the National Power
Corporations deposit of the alleged provisional value with
Land Bank of the Philippines, not on its actual payment to
respondents. Even if the deposit of P580,769.93 was the
correct provisional value, it cannot be considered as
compliance with Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974. In
Gingoyon:
[T]he law plainly requires direct payment to the property
owner, and not a mere deposit with the authorized
government depositary.
Without such direct payment, no writ of possession may be
obtained.
There are, of course, instances when immediate payment
cannot be made even if the implementing agency is willing to
do so. The owner of the property is not precluded from
contesting the power of the implementing agency to exercise
eminent domain, the necessity of the taking, the public
character of its use, or the proffered value by the
implementing agency. In these instances, the implementing
agency may deposit the proffered value with the trial court
having jurisdiction over the expropriation proceedings. 9

PRIOR HEARING NOT NECESSARY

There is no requirement for prior hearing before immediate
possession can be granted the Republic of the Philippines. All that is
required is the notice to the owner of the property sought to be
condemned and deposit with the authorized depositary of the
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property. 10

Republic v. Judge Gingoyon, 514 Phil. 657 (2005)

San Diego vs Vandello, 80 SCRA 305 (1977)

10

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8974

November 7, 2000

AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines Congress assembled:
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution states that private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation. Towards this end, the State shall ensure that owners of
real property acquired for national government infrastructure projects are promptly paid just compensation.
Section 2. National Government Projects. - The term "national government projects" shall refer to all
national government infrastructure, engineering works and service contracts, including projects undertaken
by government-owned and controlled corporations,all projects covered by Republic Act No. 6957, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7718, otherwise known as the Build-Operate-and-Transfer Law, and other
related and necessary activities, such as site acquisition, supply and/or installation of equipment and
materials, implementation, construction, completion, operation, maintenance, improvement, repair, and
rehabilitation, regardless of the source of funding.
Section 3. Modes of Accounting Real Property. - The government may acquire real property needed as rightof-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure project through donation, negotiated sale,
expropriation or any other mode of acquisition as provided by law.
Section 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. - Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for
the right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the
appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation proceedings before the proper court under
the following guidelines:
(a) 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 (1) one hundred percent
(100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7
hereof;
(b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby
mandated within the period of sixty (60) days from the date of the expropriation case, to come up with a
zonal valuation for said area; and
(c) 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 in Section 5
hereof.
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing
agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a
certificate of availability of funds from the proper official concerned.
In the event that the owner of the property contests the implementing agencys proffered value, the court shall
determine the just compensation to be paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the
expropriation case. When the decision of the court becomes final and executory, the implementing agency
shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just compensation as determined
by the court.
Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or

Negotiated Sale. - In order to facilitate the determination of just compensation, the court may consider,
among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;
(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvement on
the land and for the value of improvements thereon;
(f) This size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence
presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire
similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby
rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
Section 6. Guidelines for Negotiated Sale. - Should the implementing agency and the owner of the property
agree on a negotiated sale for the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government
infrastructure project, the standards prescribed under Section 5 hereof shall be used to determine the fair
market value of the property, subject to review and approval by the head of the agency or department
concerned.
Section 7. Valuation of Improvements and/or Structures. - The Department of Public Works and Highways
and other implementing agencies concerned, in coordination with the local government units concerned in the
acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure project, are hereby
mandated to adopt within sixty (60) days upon approval of this Act, the necessary implementing rules and
regulations for the equitable valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land to be expropriated.
Section 8. Ecological and Environmental Concerns. - In cases involving the acquisition of right-of-way, site
or location for any national government infrastructure project, the implementing agency shall take into
account the ecological and environmental impact of the project. Before any national government project
could be undertaken, the agency shall consider environmental laws, land use ordinances and all pertinent
provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
Section 9. Squatter Relocation. - The government through the National Housing Authority, in coordination
with the local government units and implementing agencies concerned, shall establish and develop squatter
relocation sites, including the provision of adequate utilities and services, in anticipation of squatters that
have to be removed from the right-of-way or site of future infrastructure projects. Whenever applicable, the
concerned local government units shall provide and administer the relocation sites.
In case the expropriated land is occupied by squatters, the court shall issue the necessary " Writ of
Demolition" for the purpose of dismantling any and all structures found within the subject property. The
implementing agency shall take into account and observe diligently the procedure provided for in Sections 28
and 29 of Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.
Funds for the relocation sites shall come from appropriations for the purpose under the General
Appropriations Act, as well as from appropriate infrastructure projects funds of the implementing agency
concerned.

Section 10. Appropriations for Acquisitions of Right-of -Way, Site or Location for Any National Government
Infrastructure Project in Advance of Project Implementation. - The government shall provide adequate
appropriations that will allow the concerned implementing agencies to acquire the required right-of-way, site
or location for any national government infrastructure project.
Section 11. Sanctions. - Violation of any provisions of this Act shall subject the government official or
employee concerned to appropriate administrative, civil and/or criminal sanctions, including suspension
and/or dismissal from the government service and forfeiture of benefits.
Section 12. Rules and Regulations. - A committee composed of theSecretary of the Department of Public
Works and Highways as chairperson, and the secretaries of the Department of Transportation and
Communications, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice, and the presidents of the leagues
of provinces, cities and municipalities as members shall prepare the necessary rules and regulations for the
proper implementation of this Act within sixty (60) days from its approval.
Section 13. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, other
parts or provisions hereof not affected shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Section 14. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent
with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
Section 15. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in at
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: November 7, 2000

(Sgd.)JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

President of the Philippines
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

HYPERLINK "http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2000/javascript:history.back(1)"
HYPERLINK "http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2000/ra_8974_2000.html" \l "top"