REPUBLIC VS.

GINGOYON, digested
Posted by Pius Morados on November 7, 2011
GR # 166429, December 19, 2005 (Constitutional Law Eminent Domain, Expropriation, Just
Compensation)
FACTS: NAIA 3, a project between the Government and the Philippine International Air
Terminals Co., Inc (PIATCO) was nullified.
Planning to put NAIA 3 facilities into immediate operation, the Government, through
expropriation filed a petition to be entitled of a writ of possession contending that a mere deposit
of the assessed value of the property with an authorized government depository is enough for the
entitlement to said writ (Rule 67 of the Rules of Court).
However, respondents avers that before an entitlement of the writ of possession is issued, direct
payment of just compensation must be made to the builders of the facilities, citing RA No. 8974
and a related jurisprudence (2004 Resolution).
ISSUE: WON expropriation can be conducted by mere deposit of the assessed value of the
property.
HELD: No, in expropriation proceedings, entitlement of writ of possession is issued only after
direct payment of just compensation is given to property owner on the basis of fairness. The
same principle applied in the 2004 Jurisprudence Resolution and the latest expropriation law (RA
No. 8974).