Below is a detailed, organized, and comprehensive discussion of Expropriation (Eminent Domain) under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court in the Philippines, including pertinent procedural rules, constitutional foundations, relevant statutes and jurisprudence, ethical considerations, and sample forms/pleadings. The aim is to provide a meticulous overview of “all there is to know” in the context of Remedial Law, Legal Ethics, and Legal Forms, focusing particularly on Rule 67.

I. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BASIS

Constitutional Provision
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 9:
  
  “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”
  This establishes the fundamental right of property owners to be compensated if the State (or its authorized agent) exercises its power of eminent domain.
Power of Eminent Domain
- The power of eminent domain is an inherent power of the State to acquire private property for a public purpose upon payment of just compensation.
- This power may be delegated by law to local government units (LGUs), government agencies, and certain public utilities or quasi-public corporations under specific enabling statutes.
Rule 67, Rules of Court (Special Civil Action for Expropriation)
- Governs the judicial procedure by which the government (or its authorized delegate) brings an action to expropriate private property.
- Complements other laws (e.g., Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code, Republic Act No. 8974 for government infrastructure projects, etc.).

II. WHO MAY EXERCISE THE POWER OF EXPROPRIATION

National Government
- Through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) or Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), depending on the agency seeking to expropriate.
Local Government Units
- Municipalities, cities, and provinces may expropriate private property for public purposes (e.g., roads, markets, schools), subject to compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Code (e.g., ordinance authorizing the expropriation, availability of funds, prior efforts to negotiate).
Public Utilities / Quasi-Public Corporations
- Certain entities (e.g., power corporations, water districts, telecommunication entities) may be granted statutory authority to expropriate property necessary for their public utility operations.

III. PUBLIC USE OR PURPOSE

Concept of Public Use
- Traditionally: roads, bridges, public buildings, infrastructure projects.
- Expanded Definition: includes urban renewal, socialized housing, economic development, and other matters beneficial to the general public.
- Judicial Interpretation: courts generally accord deference to the legislature or expropriating authority’s determination of public use unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness.
Necessity of Expropriation
- Courts generally refrain from substituting their judgment for that of the expropriating authority as to the necessity of the taking.
- An owner may question lack of necessity or bad faith, but the burden of proof is upon the landowner to show that the condemnation is arbitrary or capricious.

IV. JUST COMPENSATION

Definition
- Just compensation means the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated. It is the value of the property at the time of the taking, plus consequent damages, if any, minus any consequential benefits.
Determination of Just Compensation
- By Court-Appointed Commissioners (Rule 67, Sections 5-8):
  - The court appoints not more than three (3) commissioners.
  - The commissioners conduct hearings, receive evidence, and determine the fair market value of the property.
  - The commissioners submit a commissioners’ report to the court.
- The court may accept, modify, or reject the commissioners’ report, and thereafter renders judgment on the amount of compensation.
Factors Considered
- Nature and character of the land, location, improvements, capability, market conditions, zonal valuations, as well as comparable sales in the vicinity.
Interest
- If payment is delayed, the Supreme Court has recognized that payment of legal interest (often 6% per annum, subject to prevailing rules) may be warranted from the time of taking until full payment is made.
Effect of RA 8974 (For National Government Infrastructure Projects)
- Requires the immediate payment of at least the sum equivalent to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) zonal valuation of the property or the market value under the applicable tax declaration, whichever is higher, before issuance of a writ of possession.
- This law overrides certain portions of Rule 67 if the expropriation is specifically for national government infrastructure projects.

V. PROCEDURE UNDER RULE 67

Below is a step-by-step summary of the judicial expropriation process, referencing Rule 67 of the Rules of Court:

Filing of Complaint (Section 1)
- The expropriator (plaintiff) files a verified Complaint stating:
  1. The right or authority to expropriate (e.g., enabling law or ordinance).
  2. The purpose or public use.
  3. The description of the property.
  4. The identities of owners and other interested parties (e.g., lienholders).
- The complaint must be accompanied by a deposit (or proof of payment) of the assessed or zonal value (depending on the applicable law).
Entry of Plaintiff and Possession (Section 2)
- Immediate Entry / Preliminary Deposit:
  - Upon filing of the complaint and deposit with the authorized government depositary, the plaintiff can file a motion for immediate entry.
  - The court, after due notice and hearing, may issue a Writ of Possession allowing the plaintiff to take immediate possession of the property.
Defenses of the Owner
- The defendant-owner may file an Answer within the time fixed by the court.
- Defenses typically include:
  - Lack of authority to expropriate;
  - No genuine necessity for the taking;
  - Property not devoted to public use;
  - Insufficiency of the deposit (under certain laws);
  - Challenge to the offered amount.
Appointment of Commissioners (Section 5)
- After the issues are joined, the court appoints not more than three (3) commissioners to ascertain the just compensation.
- Parties may recommend or nominate commissioners, subject to approval by the court.
Proceedings Before the Commissioners (Section 6)
- Commissioners set hearings to receive evidence (documents, testimonies, ocular inspections).
- Parties may be represented by counsel and may present their respective appraisers or experts.
Commissioners’ Report (Section 7)
- After due proceedings, the commissioners submit a written report on their recommended value of the property.
- Parties have the opportunity to file objections or comments.
Court Action Upon the Commissioners’ Report (Section 8)
- The court may accept, reject, or modify the commissioners’ findings.
- The judgment fixing just compensation is rendered by the court.
Judgment and Payment (Section 9)
- The court’s judgment is final as to the amount.
- Payment is made to the owner or deposited in court.
- Upon payment of just compensation, title to the property vests in the plaintiff.
Appeals
- The final judgment on compensation can be appealed (Rule 67, Section 11; Rule 45 for Supreme Court, or Rule 41 for Court of Appeals).
- However, the plaintiff’s right to enter and possess is generally not stayed by an appeal (once a valid deposit/payment has been made).

VI. RELATED REMEDIES AND CONCEPTS

Inverse Condemnation
- Occurs when property is taken for public use without formal expropriation proceedings, prompting the property owner to file suit seeking compensation.
- Grounded also in the constitutional guarantee that no private property shall be taken without just compensation.
Abandonment of Expropriation
- The expropriator may, at times, abandon the expropriation prior to final judgment (Rule 67, Section 4).
- The owner in such a case may seek recovery of damages (e.g., attorney’s fees, costs) if the property has been unjustly taken or there was bad faith.
Multiple Ownership or Claims
- If several persons claim separate interests in the same property, all must be joined.
- The just compensation is allocated among the co-owners or claimants in proportion to their respective interests.

VII. LEGAL ETHICS CONSIDERATIONS

Duty of Candor and Fairness
- Lawyers for both the government and private landowners must provide the court with accurate appraisals and evidence.
- Submitting inflated or deflated valuations is unethical and violates the lawyer’s duty of honesty to the tribunal.
Conflict of Interest
- A lawyer must ensure that representation of a condemning authority in one case does not conflict with the representation of an affected landowner in another, especially if confidential information is involved.
Professional Responsibility to Expedite Litigation
- Especially in expropriation suits, where public interest is at stake, counsel should avoid frivolous motions or dilatory tactics.
Confidentiality
- Attorney-client privilege strictly applies to communications with the client (whether the government agency or private landowner). Ensuring no unauthorized disclosures or conflicts of interest is paramount.

VIII. SAMPLE LEGAL FORMS

Below are simplified outlines of the usual pleadings and orders in an expropriation case under Rule 67. Actual documents must be tailored to specific facts, jurisdictions, and court requirements.

1. Complaint for Expropriation

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
[Judicial Region], Branch __
[City/Province]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (or LGU or authorized entity),
Plaintiff,

-versus-                                   Civil Case No. _______

[NAME OF DEFENDANT OWNERS],
[ADDRESS],

Defendants.
____________________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR EXPROPRIATION

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully alleges:

1. Plaintiff is the [Government Agency/LGU/Authorized Corporation], with office address at [address], duly authorized under [legal basis] to exercise the power of eminent domain for [public use/purpose].
2. Defendants are the registered owners/claimants of certain parcels of land located at [location], described as follows: [technical description from TCT/OCT].
3. The property is urgently needed for [public use/purpose], specifically [e.g., construction of a road, school, etc.].
4. Prior to filing this action, plaintiff has deposited with [authorized government depository] the amount of [PHP ____], representing the current zonal/assessed value of the property, as evidenced by the attached certificate of deposit.
5. Despite earnest efforts, parties have failed to agree on the voluntary sale of the property, thereby necessitating judicial expropriation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that:

1. Upon filing of this Complaint, the Court issue an Order of Expropriation and, after due proceedings, fix just compensation for the property in accordance with law.
2. Plaintiff be placed in immediate possession of the property upon compliance with the deposit/payment requirements.
3. After final determination and payment of just compensation, title to and possession of the property be adjudged in favor of plaintiff.

Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable.

City of ___________, Philippines, this __ day of _______ 20__.

                              [Signature of Counsel]
                              [Name, PTR, IBP, Roll No., MCLE compliance]

2. Motion for Immediate Issuance of Writ of Possession

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
[Judicial Region], Branch __
[City/Province]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (or LGU, etc.),
Plaintiff,

-versus-                                     Civil Case No. _______

[DEFENDANTS],
____________________________________________/

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF POSSESSION

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states:

1. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint for Expropriation over the subject property.
2. In compliance with Rule 67 (and/or RA 8974), plaintiff has deposited the amount of [PHP ____], as evidenced by the attached certificate.
3. Under the Rules, plaintiff is entitled to a writ of possession upon the completion of such deposit/payment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court issue a Writ of Possession placing plaintiff in immediate possession of the property.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

[Signature of Counsel]

3. Order Appointing Commissioners

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
[Judicial Region], Branch __
[City/Province]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

-versus-                                     Civil Case No. _______

[DEFENDANTS],
____________________________________________/

ORDER

Considering the need to determine just compensation in this case, the Court hereby appoints the following as Commissioners:

1. [Name and address of Commissioner 1]
2. [Name and address of Commissioner 2]
3. [Name and address of Commissioner 3]

The Commissioners are directed to take their oath and thereafter proceed to examine and appraise the subject property, receive relevant evidence, and submit their written report to this Court within sixty (60) days from the date of their first meeting.

SO ORDERED.

[Date, Place]

                              [Judge’s Signature Over Printed Name]
                              Presiding Judge

4. Commissioners’ Report

COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT

We, the undersigned Commissioners appointed by the Honorable Court in the above-captioned case, hereby submit this Report:

1. Pursuant to the Order dated [date], we conducted an ocular inspection of the property on [date] and scheduled hearings on the following dates: [list dates].
2. The parties were duly represented, and we received their respective evidence, including appraisal reports.
3. Based on the evidence and our independent evaluation, we fix the fair market value of the property at [amount per square meter / total amount].
4. In arriving at this valuation, we considered [detail of factors].

We respectfully recommend that just compensation be fixed at [PHP ____] for the entire property.

[Place, Date]

[Signatures of Commissioners]

5. Judgment (Excerpts)

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Fixing just compensation for the subject property at [PHP ____], inclusive of improvements.
2. Ordering plaintiff to pay said amount to defendants within [time].
3. Upon full payment of the amount adjudged, ownership and title over the property shall vest in plaintiff, and defendants are ordered to surrender possession to plaintiff (or to desist from disturbing plaintiff’s possession).

SO ORDERED.

[Date, Place]

                              [Judge’s Signature Over Printed Name]
                              Presiding Judge

IX. IMPORTANT JURISPRUDENCE

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777 & 79789 (1989)
- Clarifies the concept of just compensation in agrarian reform expropriations.
- Emphasizes payment must be “real, substantial, full and ample.”
National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828 (2007)
- Discusses the imposition of interest when there is a delay in payment of just compensation.
Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429 (2005)
- Harmonizes R.A. 8974 with Rule 67 and clarifies that for national government infrastructure projects, R.A. 8974 modifies the deposit requirements.
City of Iloilo v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 154614 (2009)
- Reiterates that the necessity of expropriation is generally not reviewable by courts absent arbitrariness or bad faith.

X. PRACTICE TIPS AND REMINDERS

Early Valuation Evidence
- Both plaintiff and defendant should gather strong expert appraisal evidence early to support or contest the commissioners’ findings.
Compliance with Statutory Requirements
- Ensure that the enabling law or ordinance authorizing expropriation is valid and that all conditions precedent (e.g., availability of funds, deposit) are met to avoid delays.
Coordination with Government Agencies
- For LGUs, secure a proper ordinance or resolution from the Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan (as applicable).
- For infrastructure projects, follow R.A. 8974 requirements strictly (higher deposit, immediate issuance of writ of possession, etc.).
Timeline and Costs
- Although expropriation is a special civil action, it can still be lengthy if there are disputes over valuation.
- Costs for commissioners, appraisers, and other fees may be substantial.
Ethical Billing Practices
- Lawyers must charge fees ethically, proportionate to the complexity of the case. Government counsel typically do not charge professional fees, but private counsel for the landowner must keep the client informed of costs.

XI. CONCLUSION

Expropriation (eminent domain) under Rule 67 is a critical legal mechanism by which the State and its authorized agencies or corporations acquire private property for public use, upon payment of just compensation. The procedure is specially regulated to balance two competing interests:

The government’s need to implement projects beneficial to the public;
The protection of private property rights, ensuring owners receive fair market value for their loss.

Strict adherence to constitutional mandates, the Rules of Court, statutory provisions (including R.A. 8974 for national projects, R.A. 7160 for LGUs, and others), and jurisprudential guidelines is essential. Throughout the process, ethical responsibility demands honesty, clarity, and fairness from counsel on both sides.

With proper attention to each step—pleading, deposit, appointment of commissioners, valuation, final judgment, and payment—expropriation can be accomplished in a manner that respects both the rights of property owners and the legitimate aims of the State.

(This overview is for educational and reference purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Specific cases should be referred to qualified counsel.)