Case Digest (G.R. No. 137285)
Facts:
Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippine Export Processing Zone, G.R. No. 137285, January 16, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is the Estate of Salud Jimenez; respondent is the Philippine Export Processing Zone (PEZA) (formerly Export Processing Zone Authority, EPZA). PEZA filed expropriation proceedings on May 15, 1981 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite (Civil Case No. N-4079) over several parcels including Lot 1406 (A and B), a parcel registered under TCT No. T-113498 in petitioner’s name. The RTC issued an order on July 11, 1991 upholding PEZA’s right to expropriate Lot 1406; possession had already been taken in August 1981.
Petitioner sought reconsideration; the RTC’s October 25, 1991 order released Lot 1406‑A from expropriation but maintained expropriation of Lot 1406‑B. PEZA appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP. No. 46112). The parties thereafter negotiated a court‑approved compromise dated January 4, 1993: PEZA agreed to receive Lot 1406‑B in exchange for transferring Lot 434 (TCT No. T‑14772) to petitioner, and petitioner waived claims for damages; the compromise was approved by the RTC on August 23, 1993 after remand by the Court of Appeals.
PEZA failed to transfer Lot 434 because it was not the registered owner. Petitioner moved to partially annul the compromise; on August 4, 1997 the RTC annulled the compromise and directed the peaceful turnover of the subject lot to petitioner. The RTC denied PEZA’s motion for reconsideration on November 3, 1997, and corrected its orders on December 4, 1997 to identify Lot 1406‑B as the parcel to be turned over.
On November 27, 1997 PEZA filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP. No. 46112) challenging the RTC Orders of August 4 and November 3, 1997. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 25, 1998, set aside the RTC orders insofar as they ordered the peaceful turnover of Lot 1406‑B and remanded the case to the RTC to proceed with the second phase of expropriation proceedings — the determination of just compensation for Lot 1406‑B. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied by resolution dated January 14, 1999.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the CA Decision and Resolution; the case was submitted for decision before the Second Division. Petitioner principally argued (1) that PEZA’s CA petition was a substitute for a lost appeal and thus improperly entertained, and (2) that under Article 2041 of the Civil Code the “original demand” meant the return of the land (not merely the determination of just compensation), and that Article 2039 — not Article 2041 — should govern rescission of compromises approved by courts.
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Sec. 1 properly entertained by the Court of Appeals despite the availability of appeal — i.e., did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion justifying certiorari?
- Does the phrase “original demand” in Article 2041 of the Civil Code mean the return of the expropriated land (Lot 1406‑B) or the determination of just compensation?
- Was PEZA’s exercise of eminent domain over Lot 1406‑B for a public purpose valid and what remedy is due petitioner given the delay in payment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)