EXPROPRIATION

Rule 67: Expropriation TWO STAGES IN EVERY ACTION FOR EXPROPRIATIONDetermination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and,Determination of the just compensation through the court-appointed commissionersSection 1

(d) The following must be clearly stated in thecomplaint , if applicable: (1) If the title to any property sought to beexpropriated appears to be in the Republic ofthe Philippines, although occupied by private individuals; (2) If the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful sothat the plaintiff cannot with accuracy orcertainty specify who are the real owners.[Rule 67, Sec. 1]

Eminent DomainOr the power of expropriation is the authority and the right of the state as sovereign, to take private property for public use upon observance of due process of law and payment of just compensationWhere private property is needed for conversion to some public use, the first thing obviously that the government should do is to offer to buy it.(Noble V City of Manila, 67 Phil 1). If the owner is willing to sell and the parties can agree on the price and the other conditions on the sale, a voluntary transaction can then be concluded and the transfer effected without the necessity of judicial action. But if the owner of the private property is unwilling to part with it, or , being willing, cannot agree on the conditions of the transfer, then it will be necessary for the government to use its coercive authority. By its power of eminent domain, it can then, upon payment of just compensation, forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote it to the intended public use.Section 9 Article III of the ConstitutionThat private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This provision is not a grant but indeed a limitation of the power as its negative and restrictive language clearly suggests. This limiting function is in keeping with the philosophy of the Bill of Rights against the arbitrary exercise of governmental powers to the detriment of individual rights. Given this function, the provision should therefor be strictly interpreted against the expropriator and liberally in favor of the property owner.Who may exercise the powerGeneral Rule: The power of Eminent Domain is lodged primarily in the national legislature.( Congress)Exception: Its exercise may be validly delegated to other governmental entities and in fact , even to private corporations, like the so-called quasi public corporations serving essential public needs or operating public utilities. a. President of the Philippines b. Various local legislative bodies c. Certain public corporations, like the Land Authority and the NHA. d. Quasi-public corporations like the PNR, PLDT and the MERALCO Requisites of taking in Eminent Domain1. The expropriator must enter a private property2. The entry must be more than a momentary period. 3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority.4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or unjustly affected.5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of the beneficial enjoyment of the property. Requisites to exercise Eminent Domain:Necessity/Private property:THE CITY OF MANILA vs CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA, ET AL.G.R. No. L-14355 October 31, 1919Facts: The city of Manila presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of said city, praying that certain lands, therein particularly described, be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement. The petitioner, in the second paragraph of the petition, alleged:

That for the purpose of constructing a public improvement, namely, the extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila, it is necessary for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of certain parcels of land situated in the district of Binondo of said city within Block 83 of said district, and within the jurisdiction of this court. One of the defendants answering the petition, denied each and every allegation of the complaint, and alleged that said expropriation was not a public improvement; that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to acquire the parcels of land in question; that a portion of the lands in question was used as a cemetery in which were the graves of his ancestors; that monuments and tombstones of great value were found thereon; that the land had become quasi-public property of a benevolent association, dedicated and used for the burial of the dead and that many dead were buried there; that if the plaintiff deemed it necessary to extend Rizal Avenue, he had offered and still offers to grant a right of way for the said extension over other land, without cost to the plaintiff, in order that the sepulchers, chapels and graves of his ancestors may not be disturbed; that the land so offered, free of charge, would answer every public necessity on the part of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the expropriation was necessary. The defendants each alleged (a) that no necessity existed for said expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a cemetery, which had been used as such for many years, and was covered with sepulchres and monuments, and that the same should not be converted into a street for public purposes. The trial court decided that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the particular strip of land in question, and absolved each and all of the defendants from all liability under the complaint.Issue: Whether or not there is a necessity for the taking of the property.Held: The Supreme court held that aside from insisting that there exists no necessity for the alleged improvements, the defendants further contend that the street in question should not be opened through the cemetery. One of the defendants alleges that said cemetery is public property. If that allegations is true, then, of course, the city of Manila cannot appropriate it for public use. The city of Manila can only expropriate private property. In such an appropriation, what, we may ask, would be the measure of damages at law, for the wounded sensibilities of the living, in having the graves of kindred and loved ones blotted out and desecrated by a common highway or street for public travel? The impossibility of measuring the damage and inadequacy of a remedy at law is too apparent to admit of argument. To disturb the mortal remains of those endeared to us in life sometimes becomes the sad duty of the living; but, except in cases of necessity, or for laudable purposes, the sanctity of the grave, the last resting place of our friends, should be maintained, and the preventative aid of the courts should be invoked for that object. (Railroad Company vs. Cemetery Co., 116 Tenn., 400; Evergreen Cemetery Association vs. The City of New Haven, 43 Conn., 234; Anderson vs. Acheson, 132 Iowa, 744; Beatty vs. Kurtz, 2 Peters, 566.)

In the present case, even granting that a necessity exists for the opening of the street in question, the record contains no proof of the necessity of opening the same through the cemetery. The record shows that adjoining and adjacent lands have been offered to the city free of charge, which will answer every purpose of the plaintiff.

Republic v Castellvi Gr No. L-20620 August 15, 1974Facts:The government had rented and started occupying a parcel of land in 1947, and when the owner refused to continue extending the lease, commenced expropriation proceedings in 1959. As the property supposed to be assessed for the purpose of just compensation from the time of the taking , the government argued that it should be deemed to have taken the same in 1947, when the lease commenced, and not in 1959 when the proceedings was initiated.Issue: Whether or not the taking was under the concept of eminent domain and if it should commenced from 1947.Held: The Supreme Court ruled that, it is clear therefore, that the taking of Castellvis property for purpose of eminent domain cannot be considered to have taken place in 1947 when the Republic commenced to occupy the property as lessee thereof. We find merit in the contention of Castellvi that the two essential elements in the taking of property under the power of imminent domain namely (1) that the entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent or indefinite period (2) that in devoting the property to public use the owner was ousted from the property and deprived of its beneficial use, were not present when the Republic entered and occupied the Castellvis property in 1947. Amigable v Cuenca GR No. L-26400 February 29, 1972Facts:Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of the property of Amigable for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenue in Cebu City.Amigables counsel wrote the President of the Philippines requesting payment of the portion of the lot which had been appropriated by bthe government. The claim was indorsed to the Auditor General who disallowed it in his indorsement.Amigable filed a complaint in the court against the Republic for the recovery of ownership and possession of the land traversed by the Mango and Gerardo Avenues.Issue: Whether or not the appellant may properly sue the government.Held:..If the constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated properly for the property taken for public use were to be respected, as it should, then a suit of this character should not be summarily dismissed. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Had the government followed the procedure indicated by the governing law at the time, a complaint would have been filed by it, and only upon payment of the compensation fixed by the judgment or after tender to the party entitled to such payment of the amount fixed, may it have the right to enter in and upon the land so condemned, to appropriate the same to the public use defined in the judgment. If there were observance of procedural regularity petitioners would not be in the sad plaint they are now. Amigable may immediately file a complaint with the proper court for payment of his property as the arbitrary action of the government shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit. Taking in the constitutional senseCANORECO V CAGR No. 109338 November 20, 2000Facts: Conrad L. Leviste filed with the RTC, Daet, Camarines Norte, a complaint for collection of a sum of money and foreclosure of mortgage against Philippine Smelter Corporation (PSC) For failure to file an answer to the complaint, the trial court declared PSC in default and allowed plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte and rendered its decision in favour of the plaintiff. When the decision became final and executory, the trial court issued a writ of execution and respondent sheriff levied upon two (2) parcels of land which were sold at public auction in favor of Vines Realty Corporation (Vines Realty). The Clerk of Court, as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, issued a Certificate of Sale which was approved by the executive judge. Copy of the writ of possession was served on petitioner as owner of the power lines standing on certain portions of the subject property. Later, Vines Realty filed an amended motion for an order of demolition and removal of improvements on the subject land. Among the improvements for removal were the power lines and electric posts belonging to petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not there is an exercise of the power of eminent domain.Held: The trial court failed to appreciate the nature of electric cooperatives as public utilities. Among the powers granted to electric cooperatives by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 26936 are: "Section 16 Powers- (j) To construct, maintain and operate electric transmission and distribution lines along, upon, under and across publicly owned lands and public thoroughfares, including, without limitation, all roads, highways, streets, alleys, bridges and causeways; Provided, that such shall not prevent or unduly impair the primary public uses to which such lands and thoroughfares are otherwise devoted; "(k) To exercise the power of eminent domain in the manner provided by law for the exercise of such power by other corporations constructing or operating electric generating plants and electric transmission and distribution lines or systems." Electric cooperatives, like CANORECO, are vested with the power of eminent domain.

"Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right-of-way." However, a simple right-of-way easement transmits no rights, except the easement. Vines Realty retains full ownership and it is not totally deprived of the use of the land. It can continue doing what it wants to do with the land, except those that would result in contact with the wires. The acquisition of this easement, nevertheless, is not gratis. Considering the nature and effect of the installation power lines, the limitations on the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinary use. For these reasons, Vines Realty is entitled to payment of just compensation, which must be neither more nor less than the money equivalent of the property.

Just CompensationIn expropriation proceedings, it is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain, but the owners loss. The word just is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation and to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. The constitutional limitation of just compensation is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property broadly defined as the price fixed by the seller in in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competitions or the fair value of the property; as between one who receives and of the actual taking by the Government.(Republic v Rural Bank of Kabacan, GR No. 185124 January 25, 2012) If the compensation is not paid when the property is taken, but is postponed to a later date, the interest awarded is actually part of just compensation which take into account such delay.It is settled that in determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner the nature and character of the land be principally considered. (Tinio Jr V NAPOCOR, 640 SCRA 287,293 January 24, 2011)Forms of compensation1.Cash2.Bonds

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC V Secretary of Agrarian Reform G.R. No. 78742July 14, 1989It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium for the payment of just compensation is money and no other. And so, conformably, has just compensation been paid in the past solely in that medium. However, we do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner. Its purpose does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos.Generations yet to come are as involved in this program as we are today, although hopefully only as beneficiaries of a richer and more fulfilling life we will guarantee to them tomorrow through our thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no less than the Constitution itself that has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams but can now become the key at least to their deliverance.The Supreme Court allowed the payment of just compensation in bonds. CARP do not deal with the traditional exercise of Eminent Domain it is revolutionary and it involves billions of pesos.

Determination of just compensationThis is done with the assistance of not more thanthree (3) commissioners.The order fixing just compensation is also final and appealable . Just compensation is to bedetermined as of the date of the taking of thepropriety or the filing of the complaint, whichevercomes first.Exercise of Eminent Domain by the local Government UnitSection 19 of RA 7160SEC. 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted:Provided, further, 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: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.

a. An ordinance is enacted by the local council to exercise the power of eminent domain, or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property through its chief executive.b. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.c. There is payment of just compensation, as required under the constitution, and under pertinent laws; andd. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted. This stage is terminated by either an order of dismissal of the action or order of the condemnation declaring that expropriation is proper and legal. These orders are final and therefore appealable. [Municipality of Bian v. Garcia (1989)]It includes an inquiry into the propriety of theexpropriation its necessity and public purpose.Defendants shall be serve with summons.Defendants-applies to all those who have lawful interest in the property to be condemned including a mortgagee, lessee and vendee in possession under an executory contract.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.Under both Rule 67 and RA 8974, the law governing expropriation of private property for national government infrastructure projects, the government commences expropriation proceedings through the filling of the complaint.Under the local government there must be an authorizing ordinance before expropriation may be accomplished.Sec. 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.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8974November 7, 2000AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESSection 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;When plaintiffs entry to property be madeRule 67RA 8974Before issuance of writ ofpossessionUpon filing of thecomplaintExpropriationproceedings initiated bythe national governmentRight-of-way, site orlocation of nationalgovernmentinfrastructure projectsInitial deposit with anauthorized government depositaryImmediate payment tothe property ownerAmount for depositequivalent to 100%assessed value of theproperty for purposes oftaxation.Amount to be paid is:100% of the value ofthe land as stated inthe tax declaration orcurrent zonalvaluation, whicheveris higher, and thevalue ofimprovements, ORin the case of utmosturgency, the profferedvalue of the propertyto be seizedUnder the local government Code Sec 19 RA 7160, the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filling of the expropriation proceedings and making with the deposit with the proper court of at least 15% of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated.A hearing is not required in order for the plaintiff to enter or be granted immediate possession of the property. All that is required is notice to the owner and the deposit. SALVADOR BIGLANG-AWA, REMEDIOS BIGLANG-AWA, petitioners, vs HON. JUDGE MARCIANO I. BACALLA in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 216 - Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS), respondents.G.R. Nos. 139927 and 139936 November 22, 2000Facts:Petitioners are the registered owners of certain parcels of land situated in Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City. The government needed to expropriate property of petitioners for the construction of the Mindanao Avenue Extension, Stages II-B and II-C.The petitioner received a Notice from the respondent Republic, through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Project Manager requiring her to submit the documents necessary to determine the just compensation for her property.Final Notices, signed by Project Director were given by the DPWH to the petitioners to submit within five (5) days the pertinent documents, otherwise, expropriation proceedings would be filed against their properties. As the petitioners failed to comply with these final notices, the respondent Republic, through the DPWH, filed with the respondent Regional Trial Court of Quezon City separate cases for expropriation against the petitioners.The petitioners received summons from the respondent court, and were ordered to file their respective Answers to the Complaints for expropriation. The petitioners filed their Answers on August 11, 1997.Subsequently, the respondent Republic, through the DPWH, deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines the amounts of P3,964,500.00 and P2,511,000.00 for the properties of Salvador and Remedios Biglang-awa, respectively, based on the appraisal report of the Quezon City Appraisal Committee.Issue: Whether or not plaintiff has the right to enter the property without compliance to EO 1035 Held:Nothing in the foregoing provisions supports the contention of the petitioners. A careful perusal of the provisions cited do not yield the conclusion that the conduct of feasibility studies, information campaign and detailed engineering/surveys are conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession against the property being expropriated. Although compliance with these activities should indeed be made prior to the decision to expropriate private property, the requirements for issuance of a writ of possession once the expropriation case is filed, are expressly and specifically governed by Section 2 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:Rule 67 Sec.2. Entry of the plaintiff upon depositingvalue with authorized government depositary.-Upon the filing of the complaint or at anytimethereafter, and after due notice to the defendant,the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enterupon the possession of the real property involved if hedeposits with the authorized government depositary anamount equivalent to the assessed value of the propertyfor the purposes of taxation to be held by such banksubject to the orders of the courtIf 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."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."Section 3.Defenses and objections. If a defendant has no objection or defense to the action or the taking of his property, he may file and serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or identifying the property in which he claims to be interested, within the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same. If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading .A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the court, in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of the issue of just compensation whether or not a defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his property, and he may share in the distribution of the award.AnswerIF THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO OBJECTION ORDEFENSE TO THE EXPROPRIATION ORTAKING OF THE PROPERTYIF THE PLAINTIFF HAS OBJECTION ORDEFENSE TO THE EXPROPRIATION ORTAKING OF THE PROPERTYDefendant may file and serve notice ofappearance and a manifestation that he has no objection or defense, specifically designating or identifying the property in which he claims to be interested within the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, the defendant shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same.Defendant shall serve hisANSWER within the timestated in the summons.All objections and defenses to the complaint or any allegation

GENERAL RULE: All defenses or objections notalleged in the answer are deemed waived. EXCEPTION: The court, in the interest of justice, may allow the answer to be amended not later than 10 days from filing. At the trial of the issue of compensation, whether or not the defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his property, and he may share in the distribution of the award.The answer to the complaint for expropriationshall:1. Specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an interest;2. State the nature and extent of the interest claimed; and3. Adduce all of defendants objections or defenses to the taking of his property No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.Available defenses-any relevant and material facts1.The exercise of power to condemn was unauthorized.2.That there was cause for not taking defendants property for the purpose alleged in the petition.3.That the purpose for the taking was not public in character.

Section 4.Order of expropriation. If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, 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 taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. A final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be paid. After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable. It declares that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint whichever is earlier. It is issued by the court in which the complaint for expropriation is filed when:objections or defenses of the defendanthave been overruled, or the defendant raised no such defense or objection, or no party appears to defendThe order of expropriation is appealable. The final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may be appealed from by any party aggrieved by such order.Sec. 5. Ascertainment of compensation. Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and specify the time within which their report shall be submitted to the court.Copies of the order shall be served on the parties. Objections to the appointment of any of the commissioners shall be filed with the court within ten (10) days from service, and shall be resolved within thirty (30) days after all the commissioners shall have received copies of the objections.Sec. 6. Proceedings by commissioners. Before entering upon the performance of their duties, the commissioners shall take and subscribe an oath that they will faithfully perform their duties as commissioners, which oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings in the case. Evidence may be introduced by either party before the commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them, and the commissioners shall, unless the parties consent to the contrary, after due notice to the parties to attend, view and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same, after which either party may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property not taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits to be derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or person taking the property. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken.Sec. 7. Report by commissioners and judgment thereupon. The court may order the commissioners to report when any particular portion of the real estate shall have been passed upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partial report, and direct the commissioners to proceed with their work as to subsequent portions of the property sought to be expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such property. The commissioners shall make a full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be effectual until the court shall have accepted their report and rendered judgment in accordance with their recommendations. Except as otherwise expressly ordered by the court, such report shall be filed within sixty (60) days from the date the commissioners were notified of their appointment, which time may be extended in the discretion of the court. Upon the filing of such report, the clerk of the court shall serve copies thereof on all interested parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire.Sec. 8. Action upon commissioners report. Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts; or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or it may accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.Sec. 9. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims. If the ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall require the payment of the sum or sums awarded to either the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon the property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has already been made.Sec. 12. Costs, by whom paid. The fees of the commissioners shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings. All costs, except those of rival claimants litigating their claims, shall be paid by the plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the owner of the property and the judgment is affirmed, in which event the costs of the appeal shall be paid by the owner. Upon the rendition of the order of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than 3 competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken.Powers and duties of commissioners1. Parties can present evidence before the commissioners and the latter have the power to administer oaths or hearings before them;2. They can, after due notice to the parties to attend, view and examine the property sought to be expropriated and its surroundings and may measure the same;EXCEPTION: when the parties agrees otherwise, the commissioners cannot view and examine the property3. The commissioners shall assess the consequential damages to the property taken and deduct from such consequential damages the consequential benefits derived by the property taken, the operation of its franchise by the corporation or person taking the property. In no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken. 4. The commissioners shall make full and accurate report to the court of all their proceedings. The report shall be filed within 60 days from the date the commissioners were notified of their appointment. Upon filing of the report, the clerk of court shall serve copies thereof on all interested parties, with notice that they are allowed ten (10) days within which to file objections to the findings of the report, if the parties desire. After the 10-day period for objecting to the commissioners report, the court, after hearing, may:1. ACCEPT the report and render JUDGMENT in accordance therewith;2. RECOMMIT the report to the commissioners for further report of facts;3. SET ASIDE the report and APPOINT new commissioners;4. ACCEPT the report IN PART and REJECT it IN PART;5. Make such order or render judgment s shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken.The findings of the commissioners may be disregarded and the trial court may substitute its own estimate of the value but it may only do so for valid reasons, .where the commissioners applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them.where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence..where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive. JUDGMENT The judgment entered in expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an adequate description, the particular property or interest therein expropriated, and the nature of the public use or purpose for which it is expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a certified copy of such judgment shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated, and its effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so described for such public use or purpose.Cases on Commissioner and Just CompensationFORFOM Development Corporation v PNRGR No. 124795 December 10, 2008Yujuico v Atienza JrGR No. 164282, October 12, 2005

Sec. 10. Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment. Upon payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken immediate possession thereof under the provisions of section 2 hereof. If the defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court, or decline to receive the amount tendered, the same shall be ordered to be deposited in court and such deposit shall have the same effect as actual payment thereof to the defendant or the person ultimately adjudged entitled thereto.Upon payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the compensation fixed by the judgment, with legal interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the property, or after tender to him of the amount so fixed and payment of the costs, the plaintiff shall have the right to enter upon the property expropriated and to appropriate it for the public use or purpose defined in the judgment, or to retain it should he have taken immediate possession thereof. The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the same for public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate court determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the RTC to forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the possession of the property, and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff.Sec. 11. Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal. The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the same for public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate court determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court to forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the possession of the property, and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff.Sec. 13. Recording judgment, and its effect. The judgment entered in expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an adequate description, the particular property or interest therein expropriated, and the nature of the public use or purpose for which it is expropriated. When real estate is expropriated, a certified copy of such judgment shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated, and its effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff the title to the real estate so described for such public use or purpose.Sec. 14. Power of guardian in such proceedings. The guardian or guardian ad litem of a minor or of a person judicially declared to be incompetent may, with the approval of the court first had, do and perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting the expropriation for public use or purpose of property belonging to such minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent, which such minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent could do in such proceedings if he were of age or competent.