Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48769)
Facts:
Barangay Matictic, Municipality of Norzagaray, Province of Bulacan v. Honorable J. M. Elbinias as District Judge, CFI of Bulacan, Branch V, and Spouses Jose Serapio and Gregoria Pacida, et al., G.R. No. L-48769, February 27, 1987, Supreme Court Second Division, Alampay, J., writing for the Court.On December 7, 1968, Barrio Matictic (now Barangay Matictic) filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan, Branch V, Civil Case No. SM-210, seeking an injunction against the private respondents to remove obstructions and reopen the Poblacion‑Tomana‑Canyakan barrio road. On January 28, 1969, counsel for Barrio Matictic moved to dismiss that injunction case, asserting that an expropriation action was the proper remedy; the trial court thereupon dismissed SM‑210.
Also on January 28, 1969, the Municipality of Norzagaray filed a complaint for eminent domain in the same court as Civil Case No. SM‑234 (CFI, Branch I), naming the same private respondents and covering the same property. Defendants moved to dismiss SM‑234 for want of jurisdiction and capacity of the municipality to sue, asserting that at the time of filing the municipality lacked the required authority from the Office of the President. Despite a February 11, 1969 order allowing possession upon deposit and a March 14, 1969 amended complaint by the municipality alleging it had obtained Presidential authority, the trial court on January 22, 1970 dismissed SM‑234 for failure of the plaintiff to comply with prior court orders (requiring approved plans).
The Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal on January 5, 1973, directing the CFI to proceed with the expropriation case pursuant to Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The case returned to the CFI, now presided by Judge J. M. Elbinias. The municipal mayor later expressed reluctance to pursue the case and sought withdrawal, but the Municipal Council refused. Defendants renewed a motion to dismiss (April 3, 1978) attacking jurisdiction on the ground that the originally filed complaint lacked prior Presidential approval.
On January 26, 1978, Barangay Matictic filed a motion for intervention in SM‑234, asserting that the expropriation would greatly affect its social and economic development. The trial court took notice of the intervention motion and stayed consideration of defendants’ motion to dismiss pending resolution of the intervention. Nevertheless, on May 12, 1978 the trial court dismissed SM‑234 without prejudice on the ground that at the time the original complaint was filed there was no showing of prior Presidential approval as required by Section 2245 of the Revised Administrative Code. A motion for reconsideration by the Municipality was denied in an order dated January 15, 1978.
Barangay Matictic then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, complaining that the trial judge had not ruled on its motion for intervention and seeking to compel the judge to admit its co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Barangay Matictic have legal personality and standing to invoke certiorari and mandamus to annul the trial court's dismissal of Civil Case No. SM‑234 and to compel admission of its complaint in intervention after the principal action had been dismissed?
- Did the trial judge commit grave and manifest abuse of discretion in dismissing the expropriation case without prejudice for lack of prior Presidential approval under Section ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)