Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession.

G.R. No. 170432

March 24, 2008

AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR., CECILIA P. FRANCIA, and HEIRS OF BENJAMIN P. FRANCIA, Petitioners, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, Respondent. CORONA, J.: Facts of the Case: The Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan filed a complaint for expropriation against the Francia family in the RTC. The municipality planned to expropriate the property of the Francias, which located at the junction of the North Expressway main road artery and the MacArthur Highway, to establish a common public terminal for all types of public utility vehicles with a weighing scale for heavy trucks. The RTC ruled that the expropriation was for a public purpose, and ordered the municipality to deposit with the Court 15% of the fair market value of the property sought to be expropriated, to be based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated. The RTC also ruled that the municipality may take immediate possession of the property pursuant to the Courts writ of possession only after depositing said amount. The Francias filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, contending that the trial court erred in issuing its order without conducted a hearing to determine the existence of a public purpose. The CA ruled that the hearing was not necessary because once the expropriator deposited the required amount with the Court, the issuance of writ of possession became ministerial. Issue: Whether a hearing is necessary to determine the public purpose of the expropriation prior the issuance of a writ of possession No Arguments of the Petitioner: 1. They claimed that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the orders without conducting a hearing to determine the existence of a public purpose. 2. Petitioners essentially aver that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's orders that, in expropriation cases, prior determination of the existence of a public purpose was not necessary for the issuance of a writ of possession. Ruling of the Case: The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession. Under Section 19 of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code, the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated. Before a local government unit may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated, it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration. That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated. Petition DENIED.