Case Digest (G.R. No. 69260)
Facts:
The case Municipality of Binan vs. Hon. Jose Mar Garcia and Erlinda Francisco (G.R. No. 69260, December 22, 1989) involves a special civil action of eminent domain filed by the Municipality of Binan, Laguna before the Regional Trial Court (Branch XXIV, Region IV) presided over by Judge Jose Mar Garcia. The Municipality sought to expropriate eleven adjacent parcels of land totaling approximately eleven and a half hectares for the development of a modern public market. The expropriation was duly authorized by a resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan of Binan dated April 11, 1983. Among the defendants was Erlinda Francisco, who contested the suit by filing a "Motion to Dismiss" on August 26, 1983, invoking several grounds including vagueness, constitutional limits of eminent domain, oppression, prior decisions, and lack of cause of action. Importantly, her motion was filed pursuant to Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which allows a defendant in an eminent domain ac
Case Digest (G.R. No. 69260)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- The Municipality of Binan, Laguna (plaintiff/petitioner) filed a complaint for expropriation against owners of eleven adjacent parcels of land (approximately 11.5 hectares) including Erlinda Francisco (defendant/respondent).
- The subject land was sought for a new site for a modern public market, authorized by a Sangguniang Bayan resolution dated April 11, 1983.
- The case was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laguna and City of San Pablo, presided by Judge Jose Mar Garcia.
- Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
- Erlinda Francisco filed a "Motion to Dismiss" on August 26, 1983, under Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, asserting:
- Vagueness and conjectural allegations in the complaint;
- Violation of constitutional limitations on eminent domain;
- Oppressive nature of the complaint;
- Bar by prior decision;
- No cause of action stated.
- The "motion to dismiss" was considered a pleading substituting for an answer, not a motion governed by Rules 15 or 16.
- Procedural Developments
- On October 23, 1983, the RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of the Municipality.
- On February 3, 1984, Francisco filed a Motion for Separate Trial invoking Section 2, Rule 31, arguing:
- Delay and lack of interest by other defendants;
- Existence of a constitutional defense based on her vested right from a pre-existing approved Locational Clearance by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC).
- The RTC granted separate trial by Order dated March 2, 1984, directing separate hearing of Francisco’s special defenses.
- Separate Trial and Evidence
- During the separate trial in March 1984, the Municipality protested the reversal of the order of trial and argued the motion to dismiss was an answer and evidence should be heard first from the Municipality.
- Defendant Francisco presented evidence including:
- Testimony of Atty. Josue L. Jorvina Jr. from HSRC;
- Land Use Map of Binan;
- Locational Clearance and Development Permit issued by HSRC in Francisco’s favor;
- Executive Order No. 648 and Letter of Instructions No. 729.
- Trial Court’s Order and Subsequent Motions
- On July 24, 1984, the RTC dismissed the complaint as against Francisco, finding the HSRC Locational Clearance:
- Constituted a vested right protecting Francisco’s property from expropriation;
- Barred the Municipality’s right to expropriate said property.
- The Municipality filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 17, 1984, arguing:
- Reversal of trial sequence was irregular;
- No opportunity given to present plaintiff’s evidence;
- The locational clearance was not an absolute bar and could be revoked;
- The clearance had become automatically revoked a year after issuance in May 1984 for nonuse;
- All legal requirements for expropriation had been complied with.
- The RTC scheduled a hearing on the motion for reconsideration, but postponed it to November 20, 1984 without explanation.
- Francisco filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Execution/Finality of Order on September 13, 1984, claiming finality of the July 24, 1984 order due to Municipality’s failure to timely appeal or file motion for reconsideration within 15 days.
- On October 10, 1984, the RTC declared the Municipality’s motion for reconsideration “filed out of time” and dismissed it.
- On October 15, 1984, the RTC issued a writ of execution and certificate of finality for the order dismissing the case as to Francisco.
- The Municipality moved for reconsideration of these orders, asserting:
- Multiple appeals allowed in eminent domain actions with a 30-day appeal period;
- The separate trial gave rise ipso facto to multiple appeals;
- RTC’s action on execution motion was ex parte;
- Denial of due process because no opportunity was given for presentation of plaintiff’s evidence after Francisco’s.
- Motion for reconsideration was denied on October 18, 1984.
- Issues Raised in the Certiorari
- Whether the special civil action of eminent domain under Rule 67 is a case “wherein multiple appeals are allowed,” entitling a 30-day appeal period instead of 15 days.
- Whether the RTC may treat Francisco’s motion to dismiss as a Rule 16 motion and reverse the order of trial to hear and determine it first, then dismiss the action as to her.
- Whether the locational clearance issued by HSRC is a bar to the expropriation action.
Issues:
- Legality and applicability of the 30-day appeal period for orders in special civil action of eminent domain under Rule 67, as a case allowing multiple appeals.
- Validity of the RTC’s treatment of defendant’s motion to dismiss as a Rule 16 motion, reversing trial sequence, hearing the defendant’s evidence first, and dismissing the Municipality’s complaint as to part of the defendant without giving Municipality opportunity to present rebuttal evidence.
- Whether a locational clearance issued by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission constitutes a legal bar or vested right preventing expropriation of the subject property.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)