REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON.

LUCENITO TAGLE AND HELENA BENITEZ

G.R. No. 129079; December 2, 1998; PANGANIBAN, J:

Eminent Domain. It is well-settled that eminent domain is an inherent power on the State that need not be
granted even by the fundamental law.

FACTS:

Private respondent Benitez signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Philippine Human

Resources Development Center (PHRDC) allowing PHRDC to lease her lands for a period of 20 years
and/or buy the property site. As Benitez donated to PWU the parcel of land, they entered into a contract of
lease with PHRDC to occupy and use the land in question and to make all and necessary development to
attain its objectives. One of PRHDCs proposed projects involved the establishment of a Construction
Manpower Development Center (CMDC), an agency new under DTI.

At the expiration of the lease contract, the parties agreed to cease the lease payments and to
proceed with the negotiations for its sale. However, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was done, Benitez
refused to sign it, thereafter ordering the payment of rentals and to vacate the premises in 30 days from
notice. She later filed an unlawful detainer suit against the petitioner.

The petitioner also filed a Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Possession which the TC granted
but later quashed due to the motion for reconsideration of the respondents, stating that the writ is only
used as a leverage in the ejectment suit filed against it wherein the issue in possession.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent judge may quash a Writ of Possession on the ground that the
expropriating government agency is already occupying the property sought to be expropriated.

HELD:

The expropriation proceeding in this case involves a project covered nu EO 1035. Under this
provision, when the government or its authorized agent makes the required deposit, the TC has the
ministerial duty to issue a Writ of Possession.

The expropriation of real property does not include mere physical entry or occupation of the land.
Although Eminent Domain usually involves a taking of the title, there may also be compensable taking of
only some, not all, of the property interests in the bundle of rights constituting ownership. The Court
merely enforced the Constitutional limitation regarding the payment of just compensation. Clearly, an
ejectment suit should not prevail over the States power of Eminent Domain.

Wherefore, the petition is granted. The assailed orders are annulled and set aside. No costs.