Issue: Whether or not a final determination of just compensation in an expropriation proceeding must first be made before an order of expropriation may be issued by the court.
Jurisprudential law has already settled that condemnation suits involve two stages:
- the order authorizing expropriation; and
- the judgment on just compensation.
Petitioner Republic is correct in saying that an order of expropriation denotes the end of the first stage of expropriation. Its end then paves the way for the second stage - the determination of just compensation, and ultimately, payment. An order of expropriation puts an end to any ambiguity regarding the right of the petitioner to condemn the respondent's properties.
Because an order of expropriation merely determines the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of such exercise, its issuance does not hinge on the payment of just compensation. After all, there would be no point in determining just compensation if in the first place, the plaintiff's right to expropriate the property was not first clearly established.
To stress, payment of just compensation is not a condition sine qua non to the issuance of an order of expropriation. In expropriation proceedings, it is the transfer of title to the land expropriated that must wait until the indemnity is actually paid. This is made all the more clear when note is taken of the second paragraph of Section 4, Rule 67, which states that the defendant may appeal from the order of expropriation by filing a record on appeal, which appeal does not prevent the court form determining the just compensation to be paid.
Clearly, it is after the rendition of the order of expropriation that the court shall appoint commissioners to ascertain the just compensation for the property sought to be taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment