Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3858)
Facts:
The City of Manila v. J. Antonio Araneta, as Executor of the Estate of the Late Angela S. Tuason, G.R. No. L-3858. March 14, 1952, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.
The City of Manila (plaintiff-appellant) instituted expropriation proceedings under Republic Act No. 409 to take six parcels of land (described by transfer certificate of title numbers and aggregating 60,633.20 sq. m.) for the purpose of subdividing them into home lots and reselling the lots on easy terms to city residents pursuant to section 100 of Rep. Act No. 409. J. Antonio Araneta, as executor of the Estate of the late Angela S. Tuason (defendant-appellee), opposed the complaint.
After summons, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing inter alia that the statutory requisites of Rep. Act No. 409 were not complied with (acquisition allegedly approved by the Cabinet rather than by the President), that the contemplated taking was for private benefit rather than public use, that there was no public necessity, and that the Rural Progress Administration (RPA) had already purchased or contracted to purchase a large part of the same tract under authority of Executive Order No. 191 for the same purpose of subdividing and reselling to tenants. Attached to the motion was a copy of the judgment in Civil Case No. 7942 (CFI Manila) ordering specific performance against the RPA for the purchase price of seven hectares (P490,000 at P7 per sq. m., plus 6% interest from April 27, 1949).
The City Mayor filed a Manifestation stating that the seven hectares allegedly involved in the RPA transaction were different from the six parcels the City sought to expropriate and that the occupants to be benefited were not the same. The defendant replied, asserting the City had failed to comply with a court-ordered settlement with the RPA and alleging the City lacked funds to pay for the parcels; he renewed his prayer that the dismissal motion be acted upon.
The trial court (Court of First Instance) dismissed the complaint, holding that the RPA had already taken steps to acquire practically the same parcels for the same purpose and that the parties had obligations in the pending action between them, so that two government agencies should not pursue the same objective in separate proceedings. An assistant fiscal filed a motion to vacate and set the case for hearing, arguing the question turned on facts that required evidentiary hearing; that motion was denied. The City appealed.
On appeal the record showed the judgment in Civil Case No. 7942 for specific performance did not contain a technical description or boundaries of the seven-hectare tract, so the courts could not directly compare it to the six parcels described in the expropriation complaint. The parties disputed identity: the City insisted the tracts were different; the defendant maintained the parcels sought to be expropriated comprised a large part of the seven-hectare tract (the RPA tract being said to be 70,000 sq. m. versus the expropriation 60,633.20 sq. m.). The trial court concluded, citing section 97 of Rep. Act No. 409, that if the tracts were the same the present action would be superfluous.
On appeal to this Court the appellee urged the Court to take notice of the boundaries litigated in Civil Case No. 7942 (brought to this Court as G.R. No. L-3645). The Court refused to take not...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in dismissing the City of Manila’s expropriation complaint on the ground that the Rural Progress Administration had already purchased or agreed to purchase practically the same land for the same purpose?
- May this Court take judicial notice of the record in another case (Civil Case No. 7942 / G.R. No. L-3645) to resolve the question of identity of the lands when the trial court had not been given the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)