Questions on expropriation

Wally Gonzales owned a large tract of land in Consolacion, Cebu. Sensing that said
property is suitable for the relocation site of the informal settlers presently
occupying shanties in barangay kwekkwek, Consolacion. Municipal Mayor
Wawawee, through the resolution passby the municipal board of Consolacion,
expropriated the said property for the relocation site of said informal settlers. Mayor
wawawee then filed a petition in court for the expropriation of the said property
accompanied by the payment of the assessed value of the land. Wally Gonzales
objected said petition considering that there was no offer made to him yet by the
municipal government. The court granted the petition and ordered the municipal
government be placed in possession of the said property. Decide.

Answer:
The court is not correct. Section 19 of the Local Government Code provides that the
power 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 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: 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.
Based o n the preceding set of facts, can Wally Gonzales appeal the order of the
court despite the pendency of the determination of just compensation owing to
him?
Answer:
Yes, the order of condemnation is by its nature not interlocutory but final and
appealable. Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides that 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 just compensation to be paid.
1. A parcel of land was expropriated by the government to be used for the
construction of a public market. The said property was acquired
unconditionally and in a fee simple manner by the exercise of the right of
eminent domain. After sometime, project was abandoned and instead housed
were built by the government on the said lot. Is the previous owner entitled

to the return of his property due to the abandonment of the reason why it
was expropriated?
Ans:
When the land has been acquired in for public use in fee simple, unconditionally,
either by purchase or by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, the former
owner retains no right in the land, and the public use may be abandoned, or the
land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or
title acquire or any reversion to the former owner as provided in the case of Fery
v. Municipality of Cabanatuan.
2. In an expropriation proceeding who is liable for the cost?
Ans.:
All costs, except those 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. As provided under sec. 12 of rule 67.