Expeditious Resolution of Expropriation Cases and Other Related Processes
OCA Circular No. 68-2022 mandates the expeditious resolution of expropriation cases related to national government infrastructure projects. All designated special courts and Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) are reminded to hold hearings at least once a week for these cases and to adhere to strict timelines, including a trial termination within 180 days and judgment issuance within 90 days post-submission. The circular emphasizes the requirement for a deposit that reflects the land's current value and necessitates the prompt issuance of writs of possession. It underscores that the issuance of such writs is a ministerial duty, requiring swift action from the courts. Compliance with these guidelines is essential for the effective handling of expropriation matters.
March 25, 2022
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 68-2022
| TO | : | All Judges and Clerks of Court of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Courts |
| SUBJECT | : | Expeditious Resolution of Expropriation Cases and Other Related Processes |
Considering that expropriation cases involving national government infrastructure projects and the corresponding issuance of writs of possession, and other related processes involving the said cases, are urgent matters which require immediate resolution, all special courts for expropriation cases designated under Memorandum Circular Nos. 08-2020 dated 11 August 2020, 04-2021 dated 25 March 2021, and 09-2021 dated 03 December 2021, and all other courts with pending expropriation cases, are hereby REMINDED to strictly observe and comply with the guidelines set forth in OCA Circular No. 12-2021 dated 19 January 2021 (Re: Guidelines for the Special Expropriation Courts for Public Roads), particularly the following, to wit:
"3. As far as practicable, all Special Expropriation Courts for Public Roads, as well as other RTCs with pending expropriation cases, shall devote at least one (1) day a week to hear expropriation cases.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Expropriation cases referred herein shall strictly comply with the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure where trial shall be terminated within one hundred eighty (180) days from the initial presentation of evidence. Judgment shall be rendered within ninety (90) days from submission for decision unless otherwise provided by law or the Court.
xxx xxx xxx
9. Pursuant to OCA Circ. No. 113-2019 dated 16 July 2019, in compliance with Sec. 6, Right-of-Way Act, the Office of the Clerk of Court for multiple-sala courts, and the court itself in a single-sala court, shall receive the deposit equivalent to the sum of:
a. One-hundred percent (100%) of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued not more than three (3) years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint;
b. Replacement cost at current market value of the improvements and structures; and,
c. Current market value of crops and trees located within the property as determined by a government financial institution or an independent property appraiser.
10. Upon deposit of the amount equivalent to the sum mentioned in paragraph 9 herein, the concerned court shall forthwith issue the WOP within seven (7) days from deposit pursuant to Sec. 6, Right-of-Way Act."
Further, as emphasized in Municipality of Cordova v. Pathfinder Development Corporation, 1 "[n]o hearing is actually required for the issuance of a writ of possession, which demands only two (2) requirements: (a) the sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint; and, (b) the required provisional deposit x x x Upon compliance with these requirements, the petitioner in an expropriation case is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and the issuance of the writ becomes ministerial." (Emphasis supplied). Thus, all concerned are likewise REMINDED that writs of possession, being issued ministerially in expropriation cases, as well as all related writs such as writs of demolition and other processes, should be acted upon with dispatch.
For strict observance and compliance.
(SGD.) RAUL BAUTISTA VILLANUEVACourt Administrator
Footnotes
1.Municipality of Cordova v. Pathfinder Development Corporation, G.R. No. 205544, 29 June 2016.