Short answer. Yes, the government's right to enter and use the property is not delayed by an appeal. But if the appellate court later rules the plaintiff had no right to expropriate, it must order the trial court to restore possession to the defendant and determine the damages suffered from the wrongful possession.
What the law says
The right of the plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the same for public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal from the judgment. But if the appellate court determines that plaintiff has no right of expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Court to forthwith enforce the restoration to the defendant of the possession of the property, and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by reason of the possession taken by the plaintiff.
Rule 67, Section 11 — Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal. Read the full provision →
No automatic stay pending appeal
Filing an appeal from the judgment does not delay the government's right to enter upon the defendant's property and appropriate it for the public use or purpose involved. The expropriation proceeds even while the appeal on the right to expropriate is still being decided by the appellate court. That is a deliberate policy choice: public projects that depend on the property, such as roads or infrastructure, are not left waiting on the outcome of litigation that can take years to resolve.
The consequence if the appeal succeeds
This carries real risk for the government, though. If the appellate court determines that the plaintiff actually had no right of expropriation to begin with, it renders judgment ordering the Regional Trial Court to forthwith enforce restoration of possession to the defendant — undoing what had already taken place during the appeal. So proceeding to take possession while the appeal is pending is not risk-free for the plaintiff; it is a calculated move that can be reversed if the right to expropriate turns out not to exist.
Damages for the wrongful possession
Beyond restoring possession, the trial court must also determine the damages the defendant sustained and may recover because of the possession the plaintiff took while the appeal was pending. This gives the property owner a concrete remedy for the period during which their land was used or occupied without a valid legal basis, rather than leaving the owner with only the bare return of the property and no compensation for the intervening loss of its use.
Two different things the appeal can be about
The rule separates the right to enter, which is not suspended by an appeal, from the right to expropriate at all, which is exactly what the appeal is testing. Only a ruling against the plaintiff on that second, more fundamental question triggers restoration of possession and damages — an appeal that merely disputes the amount of compensation does not undo the taking itself.
Related provisions
- Rule 67, Section 11 — Entry not delayed by appeal; effect of reversal
- Rule 67, Section 4 — Order of expropriation
- Rule 67, Section 10 — Rights of plaintiff after judgment and payment