Manila Railroad Company vs Paredes

FACTS:

The plaintiff is a railroad corporation organized under the laws of the Philippine Islands
and has the power of eminent domain. In conformity with its charter it constructed and is
now operating a branch line from Manila to Gumaca, Province of Tayabas. .It claims that
it took possession of this strip of land with the consent of the various owners and
occupants claiming title thereto, and with the understanding that it would pay the owners
of all the lands thus taken a price to be agreed upon thereafter, or to be fixed in
condemnation proceedings; and that, not having been able to agree upon a price with
the owners of the land, it was later compelled to institute proceedings for the
condemnation of the land thus taken.

However this may be, the Railway Company, on the first day of April, 1913, instituted
expropriation proceedings looking to the condemnation of all these lands under and by
virtue of the authority conferred upon it by is charter and under the laws applicable to
such proceedings. On the fourth day of April, 1913, the Honorable Herbert Gale, the
judge then presiding in the court wherein these proceedings were pending, entered an
order granting to the Railroad Company the right of possession of all these lands, upon
the filing of a deposit in an amount certified by the provincial treasurer to be equal to the
average assessed value of all these lands, which, in the language of the order itself was
the value of the lands, "hereby provisionally ascertained and fixed." On the eleventh of
April, 1913, the Railroad Company deposited the sum of P8,971.72, the assessed value
of the lands in question as shown by the certificate of the provincial treasurer. On the -
of April, 1913, Judge Cui, then presiding in the court wherein the proceedings were
pending, issued a formal writ, directing the sheriff of the court to put the Railroad
Company in possession of all the lands described in the applications in expropriation
proceedings filed by the Railroad Company.

Thereafter, the land companies to be the owners and successors in interest of the
original owners of most of the lands in question, entered their appearance as
defendants in the expropriation proceedings, and acting jointly with the various
claimants whose lands had not been acquired by them, procured the appointment of
commissioners for the valuation of these lands. On the ninth of January, 1915, the land
companies and the other claimants to these lands moved the court to increase the
amount of the deposit from P8,971.72, the amount originally fixed, to P1,000,000. On
the 18th of February, 1915, the respondent judge, then presiding in the court wherein
the proceedings were pending, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence
submitted at the hearing, and notwithstanding objection duly interposed on the ground
of his lack of jurisdiction to entertain the motion, issued an order directing the Railroad
Company to increase its deposit to P1,000,000.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
virtual law library

It is this order which the applicants now seek to have this court declare null an void in
original certiorari proceedings in this court.
ISSUE:

Whether the state may prescribed a procedure by virtue of which a railway corporation
may secure the possession of the lands it seeks to condemn, pending the
condemnation proceedings, without first paying the owners just compensation therefor,
on condition that it deposit with the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands the value of the
land, in money, provisionally ascertained by the court without giving the owners of the
land an opportunity to be heard as to the amount of the prescribed deposit.

HELD:

The Court said that according to the weight of authority, if the constitution or statutes do
not expressly require it, actual payment or tender before taking is unnecessary, and it
will be sufficient if a certain and adequate remedy is provided by which the owner can
obtain compensation without any unreasonable delay.

The right to enter into immediate possession of the property even before the final
ascertainment and payment of just compensation is given to any plaintiff. The pertinent
Rules of Court provision (Section 2, Rule 67) reads:
Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter the plaintiff shall have the right
to take or enter upon the possession of the real or personal property involved if he
deposits with the National or Provincial Treasurer its value, as provisionally and
promptly ascertained and fixed by the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings, to be
held by such treasurer subject to the orders and final disposition of the court.l law library