Case Digest (G.R. No. 106440)
Facts:
Alejandro Manosca, Asuncion Manosca and Leonica Manosca v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Benjamin V. Pelayo, Presiding Judge, RTC‑Pasig, Hon. Graduacion A. Reyes Claraval, Presiding Judge, RTC‑Pasig, and Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996, Supreme Court First Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the private owners who inherited a 492‑square‑meter lot on P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig. The National Historical Institute (NHI) determined that the parcel was the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo and, pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 260, adopted Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986 declaring it a national historical landmark; the resolution was approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports on 6 January 1986.
Seeking to effectuate state acquisition, and relying on the NHI declaration and an opinion of the Secretary of Justice (Opinion No. 133, Series of 1987), the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for expropriation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig on 29 May 1989, alleging that the lot was needed as a national historical landmark — a public purpose. The Republic also moved for immediate possession.
On 3 August 1989 the RTC (Branch 168) fixed provisional market and assessed values (provisional market value P54,120.00; assessed P16,236.00) and authorized the Republic to take possession upon deposit of the required sum with the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig. Petitioners opposed the taking and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing the expropriation was not for public use and would impermissibly employ public funds for the benefit of a religious sect in violation of Section 29(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; they also sought suspension of the RTC’s possession order.
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on 15 February 1990, and on 20 February 1990 declared the motion for reconsideration and the request for suspension moot and academic; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on 16 April 1991. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which on 15 January 1992 dismissed the petition, holding that an ordinary appeal was an adequate remedy and petitioners had not shown grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction by the RTC; the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration on 23 July 1992.
Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners demonstrate that the remedy of certiorari was proper because the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction?
- Was the expropriation of the 492‑square‑meter lot, declared a national historical landmark by the NHI, a valid taking for a public use under the power of eminent domain?
- Did the proposed expropriation and use of public funds to acquire the site violate Section 29(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution (prohibition against appropriation of public money for the benefit of a religious sect)?
- Were petitioners denied due process in the fixing of the provisional value of their property?
- Was the doctrine of Noble v. City of Manila applicable so as to preclude expropriation because of an all...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)