CASE DIGEST OF NHA VS. HEIRS OF GUIVELONDO :)

Topic: Execution/Garnishment

NHA vs. Heirs of Guivelondo

Facts:

Ø  NHA filed with RTC of Cebu Branch 11 a complaint as amended regarding the eminent domain against Heirs of Guivelondo docketed as civil case.

Ø  The petitioner alleged that defendant heirs et. al were the rightful private owners of the land which the petitioner intends to develop a socialized housing project.

Ø  The respondent heirs filed a manifestation of waiving their objections to petitioners power to expropriate their properties, thereafter trial court declares plaintiff has a right to expropriate the properties of the defendant heirs and appointed 3 commissioners who ascertain  the just compensation of the said properties be fixed at 11, 200.00 php.  per square meter.

Ø  Petitioner NHA filed 2 motion for reconsideration that assails inclusion of lots 12, 13 and 19  as well as the amount of just compensation, however the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial courts partial judgment . but the trial court issued an omnibus order to deny the motion of respondent granting the petitioner’s motion and of just compensation.

Ø  Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. Thereafter, heirs filed a motion for execution since the trial court move for the entry of the partial judgment as modified by the omnibus order.

Ø  The Court of Appeals rendered dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground of partial judgment and omnibus order became a final and executory when petitioner failed to appeal.

Ø  The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but then it was denied by the court. The courts of appeals serve on petitioner for a notice of levy pursuant to writ of Execution and a Notice of third garnishment from the Land bank of the Philippines.

ISSUE:

1.       Whether or not the state can be compelled and coerced by the courts to continue with its inherent power of eminent domain.

2.       Whether or not judgment has become final and executory and if estoppel or laches applies to government.

3.       Whether or not writs of execution and garnishment may be issued against the state in an expropriation where in the exercise of power of eminent domain will not serve public use or purpose

Ruling:

Ø  The state as represented by the NHA for housing project can continue its inherent power of eminent domain provided that the just compensation for the property sought is taken. After the rendition of such order the plaintiff shouldn’t be permitted to dismiss or discontinue such proceedings except on such terms of the court be equitable.

Ø  The order was final after the non-appealing of the petitioner as the lawful right to expropriate the properties of respondent heirs of Guivelondo.

Ø  Petitioner NHA are not exempt from garnishment or execution, although it is public in character since it is arbitrary and capricious for a government entity to initiate expropriation proceedings that seize a private owner’s property.

Ø  Petition was DENIED and the trial court’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss expropriation proceeding was AFFIRMED. Its injunctive relief against the levy and garnishment of its funds and personal properties was also DENIED. The temporary Restraining Order was LIFTED.