The Issue
The issue in this case is whether petitioners are still entitled to retain possession over the subject property despite the dismissal of the expropriation case.
The Ruling of the Court
We find the petition without merit.
Section 11, Rule 67 (Expropriation) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
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 to public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from 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. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division, in the related expropriation case entitled City of Manila v. PechatenCorporation, held that the expropriation of the property was not for public use. In its Decision dated 24 March 2009, the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division found that the expropriation of the property pursuant to City Ordinance No. 7984 was intended for the sole benefit of the family of Virgilio Meneses.16 Thus, the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division dismissed the complaint for eminent domain. The City of Manila did not appeal the Decision, which became final and executory on 14 April 2009.
Considering that the Decision of the Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division reversing the judgment of expropriation already became final and executory, it is only proper that respondent should be restored to its rightful possession of the property in accordance with Section 11, Rule 67 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
