Barangay San Roque vs.

Heirs of Pastor, June 20, 2000

Facts:
Petitioner led before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu a Complaint to
expropriate a property of the respondents. In an Order dated April 8, 1997, the MTC dismissed the
Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that "eminent 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."
The RTC also dismissed the Complaint when led before it, 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 led before the MTC or the RTC.

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed directly to this Court, raising a pure question of law.

In support of its appeal, petitioner cites Section 19 (1) of BP 129, which provides that RTCs
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation
is incapable of pecuniary estimation." It argues that the present action involves the exercise of the
right to eminent domain, and that such right is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the Complaint for Eminent Domain affects
the title to or possession of real property. Thus, they argue that the case should have been brought
before the MTC, pursuant to BP 129 as amended by Section 3 (3) of RA 7691. This law provides that
MTCs shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions that involve title to or possession
of real property, the assessed value of which does not exceed twenty thousand pesos or, in civil
actions in Metro Manila, fifty thousand pesos exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs.

Issue:

Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over cases for eminent domain or expropriation
where the assessed value of the subject property is below Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).

Ruling:

No, the MTC has jurisdiction no jurisdiction in this particular case.

In the present case, an expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money.
Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private
property for public use. In National Power Corporation v. Jocson, the Court ruled that expropriation
proceedings have two phases: "The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the
plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of
the facts involved in the suit. 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 ling 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 led or
heard.' "The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by
the court of 'the just compensation 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.”

It should be stressed that 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 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.