Case Digest (G.R. No. 214310)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. Estate of Juan Maria Posadas III, Maria Elena Posadas, and Estela Marfori de Posadas, G.R. No. 214310, February 24, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, A., Jr., J., writing for the Court.On July 4, 1990 the Republic, through the DPWH, filed a complaint for expropriation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Makati City, against multiple persons including the respondents, seeking to acquire land along Sucat Road in Parañaque for a road‑widening project. The complaint sought 15,554 square meters from the respondents and alleged an appraised value; the Estate of Juan Maria Posadas III contested valuation. The Republic deposited P1,866,480.00 (10%) with a government depositary on January 8, 1991 and moved for a writ of possession; the record does not show the exact date the Republic entered the property.
The respondents did not contest public purpose; they moved to withdraw the provisional deposit while reserving their right to contest valuation. The RTC allowed withdrawal of the provisional ten percent, but directed that final just compensation remain subject to the outcome of the case. In August 1993 the respondents sought payment of the balance of the provisional valuation, but despite orders the Republic never paid.
In November 1998 DPWH Secretary Gregorio Vigilar informed the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that DPWH would no longer pursue the project; in March 2005 Acting Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr. later informed the OSG that the Department changed its position and intended to proceed under a different plan, necessitating an amended complaint to reflect the different area to be condemned. The Estate moved to dismiss in 2005 for abandonment; the Republic opposed and, in 2007–2008, the Estate asked for payment and for the complaint to be amended because a road had already been constructed and other parcels were implicated.
The RTC ordered the Republic to submit an amended complaint reflecting the new area (Resolution of March 11, 2008) and gave successive extensions, but the Republic never filed the amended complaint. The Republic also sought suspension and repeatedly requested postponements because of difficulties in securing funds and the absence of assigned state solicitors at hearings. The OSG explained nonappearance by travel/assignment issues for the assigned solicitor.
On December 7, 2009, after prolonged delay and the Republic’s failure to comply with the RTC order to amend the complaint, counsel for the Estate orally moved to dismiss. The RTC dismissed the complaint under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court for failure to comply with a court order. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration citing medical excuse for its counsel was denied on February 3, 2010. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On February 19, 2014 the CA (De Leon, J., with Cruz and Gaerlan, JJ., concurring) affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, holding that the Republic’s delays and vacillation prejudiced the respondents and that the order of condemnation never became final. The CA denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration on September 15, 2014.
The Republic then f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the absence of a substitute for the deceased respondent Maria Elena Posadas justified the Republic’s failure to amend its compla...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)