Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority the complaint, PPA offered PhP 336.
40 per square meter as just
Date | Ponente | Syllabus Topic
Made by:
Recit Ready:
Batangas Port Zone (BPZ) was delineated and was placed under the
jurisdiction of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) for zoning, planning,
development and utilization. Pursuant thereto, PPA instituted an
expropriation proceedings over 1.2M square meters of land for the Phase
II of the development of the BPZ. Initially, the offer for just
compensation was Php 336.83. However, upon the report by the court-
appointer commissioners, the value was increased to Php 4,800. In the
RTC proceedings, the land-owners appealed the assessment price and
was able to obtain Php 5,500.00 for compensation. The decision was
appealed by the PPA who sought to reduce compensation to Php 425.00.
Pending appeal, the RTC ordered for the discretionary execution of the
compensation on account of the petitioner’s old age. For failure to pay
just compensation, petitioners moved for garnishment against PPA.
The issue in this case is W/N execution pending appeal is applicable in
expropriation cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the funds of PPA
partake of government funds, and such may not be garnished absent an
allocation by its Board or by statutory grant. If the PPA funds cannot be
garnished and its properties, being government properties, cannot be
levied via a writ of execution pursuant to a final judgment, then the
trial court likewise cannot grant discretionary execution pending appeal,
as it would run afoul of the established jurisprudence that government
properties are exempt from execution.
FACTS:
 Executive Order No. (EO) 385 delineated the BPZ and placed it
under the PPA for administrative jurisdiction of its proper zoning,
planning, development, and utilization.
 Pursuant thereto, the PPA instituted a Complaint for expropriation
of 185 lots.
 The PPA alleged that, per evaluation of the Land Acquisition
Committee for Phase II of the BPZ project, subject lots had a fair
market value of PhP 336.83 per square meter. Prior to the filing of
compensation, but defendants rejected the offer.
 the RTC divided the defendant-lot owners into three groups,
represented as indicated: the first group represented by Atty.
Reynaldo Dimayacyac (Dimayacyac Group); the second group by
Attys. Gregorio F. Ortega (Ortega Group) and Cesar C. Cruz (Cruz
Group); and the third group by Atty. Emmanuel Agustin (Agustin
Group).
 In relation to Dimayacyac group, directed PPA to pay the
Dimayacyac Group the amount of PhP 5,500 per square meter as
just compensation, amending the suggested compensation of PhP
4,800 per square meter recommended by the Commissioners.
 Alleging that almost all of the group members were of advanced
age, the trial court, upon motion, issued the July 24, 2000 Order
that granted the execution pending appeal. Upon issuance of the
decision, the Dimayacyac Group filed a motion for issuance of a
writ of execution which was granted by the court.
 Subsequently, a notice of garnishment was issued to LBP Batangas
City Branch. PPA lost no time in assailing the aforesaid orders and
the notices of garnishment before the CA thru a special civil action
for certiorari and prohibition.
 The CA gave due course to PPA’s appeal and annulled the
challenged RTC Orders.
 In the instant petition, petitioners Curata, et al. (Dimayacyac
Group) assail, among others, the ruling of the CA allowing PPA’s
appeal despite the alleged finality of the July 10, 2000 Order (First
Compensation Order).
ISSUE:
The genuine issue to be resolved is whether or not execution pending appeal
is applicable to expropriation proceedings.
HELD:
The Court rules that discretionary execution of judgments pending appeal
under Sec. 2(a) of Rule 39 does not apply to eminent domain proceedings.
The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by
private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s
action "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of
execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is
rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under
writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on
obvious considerations of public policy.

PPA’s monies, facilities and assets are government properties. Ergo, they
are exempt from execution whether by virtue of a final judgment or pending
appeal.

PPA is a government instrumentality charged with carrying out

governmental functions through the management, supervision, control and
regulation of major ports of the country. It is an attached agency of the
Department of Transportation and Communication pursuant to PD 505.

Therefore, an undeniable conclusion is that the funds of PPA partake of

government funds, and such may not be garnished absent an allocation by
its Board or by statutory grant. If the PPA funds cannot be garnished and its
properties, being government properties, cannot be levied via a writ of
execution pursuant to a final judgment, then the trial court likewise cannot
grant discretionary execution pending appeal, as it would run afoul of the
established jurisprudence that government properties are exempt from
execution. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

DISPOSITION:

From the above discussion, we find that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion in its July 24, 2000 Order directing the execution of the First
Compensation Order (July 10, 2000 Order) pending appeal.