Case Digest (G.R. No. 69260)
Facts:
Municipality of Binan v. Hon. Jose Mar Garcia, Judge of the Regional Trial Court at Binan, Laguna (Branch XXIV, Region IV), G.R. No. 69260, December 22, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.The Municipality of Binan (plaintiff) filed a complaint for expropriation in the Regional Trial Court of Laguna and City of San Pablo (the Trial Court), docketed as Civil Case No. 8-1960, seeking to acquire some eleven adjoining parcels (about 11½ hectares) for a new public market pursuant to a Sangguniang Bayan resolution approved April 11, 1983. The Trial Court issued a writ of possession in favor of the Municipality on October 23, 1983.
One defendant, Erlinda Francisco, filed on August 26, 1983 what she captioned a “Motion to Dismiss” under Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court — a pleading in lieu of an answer — asserting, among other grounds, vagueness, constitutional limitations on eminent domain, res judicata, and a “vested right” by reason of a prior approved locational clearance from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC). On February 3, 1984 Francisco moved for a separate trial under Section 2, Rule 31, which the Trial Court granted by Order of March 2, 1984, directing a separate trial of her special defenses.
At the separate trial (March 5 and 26, 1984) the Trial Court nonetheless permitted Francisco to present evidence first; she introduced testimony and exhibits including a locational clearance and municipal land use maps. On July 24, 1984 the Trial Court dismissed the expropriation complaint as to Francisco and amended the writ of possession to exclude her property, finding that the HSRC locational clearance had vested in her a right that barred the Municipality’s taking. The Municipality filed a motion for reconsideration on August 17, 1984 contending, inter alia, that (a) the court had improperly reversed the order of proof, depriving the Municipality of its right to present evidence; (b) the locational clearance had an express one-year condition and had lapsed; and (c) in eminent domain actions multiple appeals are allowed so the appeal period should be thirty days.
The Trial Court declared the Municipality’s motion for reconsideration filed out of time and dismissed it (Orders of October 10 and October 15, 1984), concluding the Municipality had missed the fifteen-day appeal period. Francisco then secured orders for execution and a cer...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In an action of eminent domain under Rule 67, is such an action a case “wherein multiple appeals are allowed” so that the period of appeal is thirty (30) days instead of fifteen (15) days?
- May the Trial Court treat a Section 3, Rule 67 “motion to dismiss” (a pleading in lieu of answer) as a Rule 16 motion to dismiss, reverse the usual sequence of trial by receiving defendant’s evidence first, and thereafter dismiss the expropriation suit as to that defendant?
- Is an HSRC locational clearance a bar to an expropriation suit involving the covered land, particularly where t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)