Republic vs.

Tagle
(An ejectment suit shall not prevail over exercise of eminent domain)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines (Represented by DTI)
Judge Lucenito N. Tagle, RTC Cavite

E.O. No. 1035 was enacted to facilitate government acquisition of private property to
be used for infrastructure or other development projects
Ms. Benitez is the owner of 2 parcels of land in Dasmarias, Cavite
PHRDC entered into MOA with Ms. Benitez to lease her property for 20 years and Ms.
Benitez would sell it (at least 10 hectares) to PHRDC after the end of the lease term.
PWU and Benitez granted PHRDC to lease, use and develop thus CDMC took
possession of the land and erected buildings
PWU and HRDC entered into a contract of lease at 200,000.00/year for 4 years,
starting 1/1/1984 to 1/1/1988. PHRDC has option to renew the rental but not
exceeding 20 years in total
On the expiration of the term which is 1/1/1988, Negotiation began between Benitez
and PHRDC, and that shes willing to sell it for 70.00/m2
Benitez stated the position of the PWU and confirmed the amount agreed upon
(70.00/m2)
In 1991, PHRDC prepared Deed of Absolute Sale, Benitez is the vendor while PHRDC
CMDF vendee represented by Arroyo, for signature of Benitez
In 1995, Benitez demanded payment of rentals by PHRDC.
PHRDC filed a complaint for eminent domain and the RTC granted its petition and
issued Writ of Possession in favor of DTI
Benitez filed motion for recon and RTC granted the motion of Benitez and quashed
the Writ it previously issued to DTI
DTI appealed the decision of the RTC but was not granted

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Tagle committed grave abuse of discretion when he quashed
the Writ which he previously issued
Stated differently, May the judge quash a writ of possession on the ground that the
DTI is already occupying the property to be expropriated?
Ruling:
The case involves the project under EO 1035. The property sought to be expropriated
is sought to be used for the establishment and operation of the of ASEAN HRDP of the
Philippines, a component of which is CDMC which is now under the DTI
Expropriation was elaborated in Section 7 of EO 1035 which provides that should the
parties failed to agree in negotiation, the government concerned shall have the
authority to institute expropriation proceedings and there shall be just compensation
The courts shall give priority on expropriation proceedings and issue necessary writ
of possession within 5 days upon deposit of at least 10% by govt agency concerned,
thus, upon deposit, the trial court has ministerial duty to issue a Writ of Possession.
DTI admitted that it has already the possession of the property but its purpose in
securing a writ is to leverage in the ejectment suit filed against DTI by Benitez in the
issue of possession

The RTC contends that the quashing of writ is proper because prior to the filing of
expropriation case by DTI, there was already an ejectment suit by Benitez against DTI
because writ shall be issued only if the govt is not yet in possession of the property
taken
Benitez cited Tuazon case and argued that eminent domain cannot prevail over
ejectment case but the SC said that it is well-settled that eminent domain is an
inherent power of the State that need not be granted even by the fundamental law.
Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, in mandating that private property shall not
be taken for public use without just compensation, merely imposes a limit on the
governments exercise of this power and provides a measure of protection to the
individuals right to property per Tuazon case
The expropriation of real property does not include mere physical entry or occupation
of land. Although eminent domain usually involves a taking of title, there may also be
compensable taking of only some, not all, of the property interests in the bundle of
rights that constitute ownership.
The DTI in pursuit of an objective beneficial to public interest, seeks to realize the
same through its power of eminent domain. In exercising this power, petitioner
intended to acquire not only physical possession but also the legal right to possess
and ultimately to own the subject property. Hence, its mere physical entry and
occupation of the property fall short of the taking of title, which includes all the rights
that may be exercised by an owner over the subject property. In short, petitioner
wanted not merely possession de facto but possession de jure as well.
If no Writ is issued, it would be a waste of precious time and resources, ejecting DTI
per ejectment case of Benitez and then later grant DTI the possession per eminent
domain, circuitous.
The purpose of EO 1035 allow issuance of writ so as not to delay implementation of
infra projects
Said writ is both necessary and practical, because mere physical possession that is
gained by entering the property is not equivalent to expropriating it with the aim of
acquiring ownership over, or even the right to possess, the expropriated property.
Judge violated EO 1035 in quashing the writ it previously issued because DTI is
already in possession of the property thus defeating the purpose of the EO.
Petition of DTI is GRANTED, setting aside the RTC orders.

PHRDC Philippine Human Resources Devt Center (Agency under Ministry of Human
Settlements)
CMDC Construction Manpower and Development Center (sometimes CMDF, F means
Foundation; under Ministry of Industry which is now DTI)
PWU Philippine Womens University (PWU)
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
RCM