Facts:

The case involves Barangay Matictic, Municipality of Norzagaray, Province of Bulacan as the petitioner against Honorable J. M. Elbinias, District Judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan, Branch V, and spouses Jose Serapio and Gregoria Pacida as respondents. The events leading to this case began on December 7, 1968, when the then Barrio Matictic filed an action for injunction (Civil Case No. SM-210) against Zosimo Serapio and others, seeking to prevent them from obstructing a barrio road. The court dismissed this case on January 28, 1969, upon the municipality's motion, which argued that expropriation was the appropriate remedy. On the same day, the Municipality of Norzagaray filed an expropriation case (Civil Case No. SM-234) concerning the same property.

The defendants in the expropriation case filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of prior approval from the Office of the President, as mandated by Section 22...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves an expropriation proceeding filed by the Municipality of Norzagaray, Bulacan, against private respondents Jose Serapio and Gregoria Pacida, among others, over a barrio road (Poblacion-Tomana-Canyakan barrio road).
• The original complaint, Civil Case No. SM-234, was filed on January 28, 1969, without prior approval from the Office of the President, as required under Section 2245 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Procedural History

1. Initial Filing and Dismissal of Injunction Case (Civil Case No. SM-210):

   • On December 7, 1968, Barrio Matictic (now Barangay Matictic) filed an injunction case (Civil Case No. SM-210) to prevent private respondents from obstructing and closing the barrio road.
   • On January 28, 1969, Barrio Matictic moved to dismiss the injunction case, stating that expropriation was the proper remedy. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case.

2. Filing of Expropriation Case (Civil Case No. SM-234):

   • On the same day (January 28, 1969), the Municipality of Norzagaray filed an expropriation case (Civil Case No. SM-234) over the same property.
   • Private respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction, no cause of action, and lack of capacity to sue due to the absence of Presidential approval.

3. Amended Complaint and Further Proceedings:

   • On March 14, 1969, the Municipality filed an amended complaint, claiming it had obtained Presidential approval.
   • Private respondents filed an amended motion to dismiss, reiterating that the lack of jurisdiction at the time of filing could not be cured by subsequent approval.
   • The court dismissed the case on January 22, 1970, for failure to submit required plans, but the Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal on January 5, 1973, and ordered the case to proceed.

4. Motion for Intervention by Barangay Matictic:

   • On January 26, 1978, Barangay Matictic filed a motion to intervene, citing the social and economic impact of the case on the area.
   • The court acknowledged the motion but did not rule on it.

5. Final Dismissal of the Expropriation Case:

   • On May 12, 1978, the court dismissed the expropriation case without prejudice, citing the lack of Presidential approval at the time of filing as a fatal defect.
   • The Municipality of Norzagaray did not appeal the dismissal, making it final.

Issue:

1. Whether the dismissal of the expropriation case (Civil Case No. SM-234) by the trial court was proper due to the lack of Presidential approval at the time of filing.
2. Whether Barangay Matictic, as an intervenor, has the legal personality to question the dismissal of the expropriation case.
3. Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the expropriation case without ruling on Barangay Matictic’s motion for intervention.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, lifted the temporary restraining order, and held that the dismissal of the expropriation case was proper. Barangay Matictic’s motion for intervention could not be granted due to the dismissal of the principal action.