Scribd
Upload
98 views1 page

(DIGEST) Republic vs. de Knecht, 182 SCRA 441 (1990)

1) The petitioner filed an expropriation case against property owners including the respondent in 1979. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss which was denied and a writ of possession was granted. 2) The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled in the respondent's favor. In 1983, the case was dismissed due to a new law passed that expropriated the same properties for the same purpose. 3) The issue was whether an expropriation case can be subject to a new expropriation law after a Supreme Court ruling. The Court ruled that while the Supreme Court decision is binding, the government still has the right to expropriate property through legislation as provided in the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Harold Q. Gardon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
98 views1 page

(DIGEST) Republic vs. de Knecht, 182 SCRA 441 (1990)

1) The petitioner filed an expropriation case against property owners including the respondent in 1979. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss which was denied and a writ of possession was granted. 2) The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled in the respondent's favor. In 1983, the case was dismissed due to a new law passed that expropriated the same properties for the same purpose. 3) The issue was whether an expropriation case can be subject to a new expropriation law after a Supreme Court ruling. The Court ruled that while the Supreme Court decision is binding, the government still has the right to expropriate property through legislation as provided in the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Harold Q. Gardon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Republic vs. De Knecht G.R.

87351, February 12, 1990

Fact: The Petitioner On February 20, 1979 filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in
Pasay City an expropriation proceedings against the owners of the houses standing along
Fernando Rein-Del Pan streets among them is the respondent and some fifteen other defendant
who filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction, pendency of appeal with the President
of the Philippines, prematureness of complaint and arbitrary and erroneous valuation of the
properties, filed an ex parte urgent motion for the issuance by the trial court of a restraining order
to restrain the Petitioner from proceeding with the taking of immediate possession and control of
the property sought to be condemned. In June, 1979 the Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance
of a writ of possession of the property to be expropriated which the lower court granted and
created a Committee of three to determine the just compensation for the lands involved in the
proceedings. Respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, and
directed against the order of the lower court dated June 14, 1979 praying that the Petitioner be
commanded to desist from further proceeding in the expropriation action and from implementing
said order where the court granted in favor of the respondent.

On August 8, 1981 defendants Maria Del Carmen Roxas Vda. de Elizalde and others moved to
dismiss the expropriation action in compliance with the dispositive portion of the aforesaid
decision of this Court which had become final and in order to avoid further damage to same
defendants who were denied possession of their properties. On September 2, 1983, the Republic
filed a motion to dismiss said case due to the enactment of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 340
expropriating the same properties and for the same purpose. The lower court in an order of
September 2, 1983 dismissed the case by reason of the enactment of the said law. The motion for
reconsideration thereof was denied in the order of the lower court dated December 18, 1986.
Respondent appealed from said order to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision
was rendered on December 28, 1988 in favor of the respondents and setting aside the decision of
the CA.

Issue: whether an expropriation proceeding that was determined by a final judgment of this Court
may be the subject of a subsequent legislation for expropriation.

Held: Yes, While it is true that said final judgment of the Supreme Court on the subject becomes
the law of the case between the parties, it is equally true that the right of the petitioner to take
private properties for public use upon the payment of the just compensation is so provided in the
Constitution and our laws. Such expropriation proceedings may be undertaken by the petitioner
not only by voluntary negotiation with the land owners but also by taking appropriate court
action or by legislation.

You might also like