NPC vs CA GR No.

106804

FACTS:
Antonio Pobre owns a land which he developed into a resort subdivision, beneath which is thermal
mineral water and steam. For one year, Pobre leased to NPC eleven lots from the approved subdivision
plan. To own the land for industrial purposes, NPC filed an expropriation case against Pobre, during the
pendency of which the former dumped waste materials beyond the site agreed upon by the parties. Then
NPC filed its second expropriation case against Pobre to acquire an additional area of the property. In his
motion to dismiss the complaint, Pobre prayed for just compensation of all the lots affected by NPCs
actions and for the payment of damages. But NPC itself filed a motion to dismiss the second
expropriation case on the ground that NPC had found an alternative site and that NPC had already
abandoned in 1981 the project within the Property due to Pobres opposition.
The trial court ruled that because of the pollution generated by NPCs geothermal plants NPC had
rendered Pobres entire Property useless as a resort-subdivision. The Property has become useful only to
NPC. NPC must therefore take Pobres entire Property and pay for it. But NPC insists that it has the right
to move for the automatic dismissal of its complaint, relying on Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of
Court (the Rules in effect at that time).

ISSUE: Whether or not NPC has the right to automatically dismiss complaint for eminent domain

HELD:

In expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the plaintiffs matter of right to automatically dismiss the
complaint precisely because the landowner may have already suffered damages at the start of the taking.
If the propriety of the taking of private property through eminent domain is subject to judicial scrutiny,
the dismissal of the complaint must also pass judicial inquiry because private rights may have suffered in
the meantime. The dismissal, withdrawal or abandonment of the expropriation case cannot be made
arbitrarily. Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure no longer makes the dismissal of the
complaint automatic. The right of the plaintiff to dismiss his action before the defendant has filed his
answer or asked for summary judgment must be first confirmed by the court in an order issued by it.

(It is not Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Court that is applicable to this case but Rule 67
of the same Rules, as well as jurisprudence on expropriation cases. Rule 17 referred to dismissal
of civil actions in general while Rule 67 specifically governed eminent domain cases.)