Facts:
On December 23, 1937, the
Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna filed a petition seeking to set aside an order dated August 31, 1937 issued by
Modesto Castillo, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, in
civil case No. 6875 for
expropriation. The proceedings were instituted by the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines under
Commonwealth Act No. 20, with
Colegio de San Jose and
Carlos Young as defendants, for the expropriation of a large parcel included in the
Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan, allegedly occupied by about 1,160 tenants, with a provisional value claimed to be
P171,808 and a prayer for authorization of the deposit and immediate delivery of possession “without prejudice” to the appointment of commissioners on appraisal to determine the correct value. Before the defendants submitted their answers, the municipality, as
intervenor, filed a complaint in intervention alleging in substance that the hacienda and the portion sought to be expropriated belonged to the Commonwealth Government or, as it alleged, to the Philippine State by
right of escheat, and that it was the beneficiary of the entire hacienda and the parcel in question; it also alleged a much lower value of
P60,000 and asked, as remedies, for the appointment of
Jose H. Guevara as commissioner to represent it, and for delivery and payment to it of any amount fixed as value or indemnity. After the defendants answered and amended, they acknowledged the government’s right to expropriate the portion but asserted substantially higher valuations and damages. In particular, the
Colegio de San Jose asserted that it was the registered owner of the entire hacienda and denied any right or interest of the municipality, while
Carlos Young asserted that he was the lessee by virtue of a contract with the Colegio. The government stated it had no objection to the court’s determination of adverse rights of the intervenor and the defendants. On March 31, 1937, the trial court denied the Colegio and Carlos Young’s petitions to obtain the
P171,808 deposit on the ground that ownership was disputed between the municipality and the Colegio. On August 31, 1937, the respondent judge entered the order appointing commissioners on appraisal:
Mariano A. Garcia to represent the government,
Fernando Quisumbinor to represent the Colegio and Carlos Young, and
Alfonso Farcon as the court’s own choice. The municipality excepted and filed a motion for reconsideration, contending, among others, that the controversy regarding its adverse claims had not been determined and that the commissioner it proposed had not been appointed; the motion was denied, prompting the municipality’s petition for
certiorari. The appeal thus questioned whether certiorari lay and whether the trial court could appoint commissioners on appraisal before deciding the municipality’s asserted adverse rights. The petition was denied, with costs to the municipality.
Issues:
Whether the municipality was entitled to
certiorari to set aside the August 31, 1937 order appointing commissioners on appraisal in the expropriation case, on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, abused its discretion by appointing commissioners despite the unresolved controversy between the municipality and the defendants, and failed to appoint the commissioner proposed by the municipality.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: