MUNICIPALITY OF CORDOVA, PROVINCE OF CEBU; THE SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN OF CORDOVA; and THE MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY of
CORDOVA, Petitioners,
vs.
PATHFINDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and TOPANGA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
June 29, 2016
G.R. No. 205544
Facts:
Respondent
Pathfinder Development Corporation (Pathfinder) is the owner of real
properties in Alegria, Cordova, Cebu: (1) Lot No. 692 and (2) part of Lot No.
697 while respondent Topanga Development Corporation (Topanga) owns Lot
No. 691 and part of Lot No. 697.
Petitioner Sangguniang Bayan of the
Municipality of Cordova enacted Ordinance No. 003-2011 expropriating a portion
of both respondents lot and lot 693 owned by one Eric ng Mendoza, for the
construction of a road access from the national highway to the municipal
roll-on/roll-off (RORO) port. It likewise authorized petitioner Mayor
of Cordova (the Mayor) to initiate and execute the necessary
expropriation proceedings.
The Mayor of Cordova filed an
expropriation complaint against the owners of the properties. Later, the Mayor
filed a motion to place the municipality in possession of the properties sought
to be expropriated.
Pathfinder and Topanga filed an
action for Declaration of Nullity of the Expropriation Ordinance before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 56, claiming that
no offer to buy addressed to them was shown or attached to the expropriation
complaint, thereby rendering the Ordinance constitutionally infirm for being in
violation of their right to due process and equal protection. They likewise
filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings based on prejudicial question in
the case for the declaration of nullity of the Ordinance.
The Lapu-Lapu RTC, Branch 27 issued
an Order denying the corporations' motion for suspension of the proceedings and
granting the issuance of a Writ of Possession in favor of the municipality.
Pathfinder and Topanga moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied.
Hence, they elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The CA reversed the RTC.
Petitioners Municipality, Sangguniang Bayan, and Mayor of Cordova then filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, but the same proved to be futile.
Issue: Whether or not the CA committed a reversible error in
giving due course to the petition under Rule 65.
Held:
The municipality argues that the CA
seriously erred when it allowed the companies' Petition
for Certiorari despite the available remedy of appeal under Rule 67
of the Rules of Court.
While there exists a settled rule
precluding certiorari as a remedy against the final order when appeal
is available, a petition for certiorari may be allowed when:
(a) The broader interest of justice demands
that certiorari be given due course to avoid any grossly unjust
result that would otherwise befall the petitioners; and
(b) The order of the R TC evidently constitutes grave abuse
of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. In the past, the Court has
considered certiorari as the proper remedy despite the availability
of appeal, or other remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In Francisco Motors
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court has declared that "the
requirement that there must be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions, such
as:
(a) When it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and
injury to a party;
(b) Where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically
exercised his judgment;
(c) Where there may be danger of a failure of justice;
(d) Where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and
insufficient;
(e) Where the issue raised is one purely of law;
(f) Where public interest is involved; and
(g) In case of urgency."
If appeal is not an adequate
remedy, or an equally beneficial, or speedy remedy, the availability of appeal
as a remedy cannot constitute sufficient ground to prevent or preclude a party
from making use of certiorari. It is mere inadequacy, not the absence
of all other legal remedies, and the danger of failure of justice without the
writ, that must determine the propriety of certiorari.
As in this case, there is an urgent need to
prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice, the writ will be
granted.
However, the CA erred when it held that
the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.1avvphi1
Eminent domain is the right or
power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular uses
to promote public welfare.1âwphi1 It is an indispensable attribute of
sovereignty; a power grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the
common need and advance the general welfare.
Its exercise is proscribed by
only two Constitutional requirements: first, that there must be just
compensation, and second, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law.
The power of eminent domain is
essentially legislative in nature but may be validly delegated to local
government units. The basis for its exercise by the Municipality of Cordova,
being a local government unit, is granted under Section 19 of Republic Act
7160.
Sec. 19. Eminent
Domain. -A local government unit may, through its chief executive and
acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for
public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the
landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent
domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided,
further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the
property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a
deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair
market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the
property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That the amount to be paid for
the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the
fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
Under Rule 67 of the Rules of
Court, expropriation proceedings are comprised of two stages: (1) the
determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of
eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the
surrounding facts, and (2) the determination of the just compensation for the
property sought to be taken. The first stage ends, if not in a dismissal of the
action, with an order of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful
right to take the property sought to be condemned, for public use or purpose.
Pathfinder and Topanga contend that
the trial court issued an Order of Condemnation of the properties without
previously conducting a proper hearing for the reception of evidence of the
parties. However, no hearing is actually required for the issuance of a writ of
possession, which demands only two requirements: (a) the sufficiency in form
and substance of the complaint, and (b) the required provisional deposit.
No comments:
Post a Comment