A.C. No. 1006 - Ocampo vs. Dominguez

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), filed a Complaint on January 23, 2008, seeking to expropriate a parcel of land in Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City for the C-5 Northern Link Road Project.
In the Complaint, the title of the subject property was not distinctly identified since the registered owner was initially unknown; an unidentified owner, referred to as “John Doe YY,” was impleaded based on the title records.

The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 55-V-08 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 172.
Following the RTC’s direction, the Complaint was published in a newspaper of general circulation.
A Motion for the issuance of a writ of possession was filed by the petitioner, resulting in an Order directing that the writ be implemented only after the petitioner deposited a check equivalent to 100% of the zonal value of the property.
Upon compliance, the RTC subsequently issued the writ of possession on March 10, 2009.

On October 13, 2008, a motion was filed by Atty. Conrado E. Panlaque, requesting that Elena A. Macabagdal be substituted as party defendant on the ground that she was, in fact, the real party in interest and the registered owner of the subject property. A copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-125922), registered in Elena’s name, was submitted.
The substitution was further bolstered on February 3, 2010, when Atty. Ricardo C. Pilares, Jr. filed an Omnibus Motion for Substitution of Party. In his pleading, he averred that Elena had died on May 14, 1997, and that her sole heir, Leonor A. Macabagdal, should substitute her. Leonor, represented by Eulogia Macabagdal-Pascual through a Special Power of Attorney, affirmed her status as the only surviving sibling of Elena.
On April 16, 2010, Atty. Pilares introduced evidence through two witnesses—Eulogia Macabagdal-Pascual and Nenita Pascual Ramota—and presented documentary evidence including a notarized Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, which purportedly established Leonor’s standing as the sole heir of Elena.
In its Order dated July 9, 2010, the RTC officially substituted the original party defendant with Elena A. Macabagdal. Due to Elena’s death, the RTC then ordered her substitution by her sole heir, Leonor A. Macabagdal, as represented by Eulogia Macabagdal-Pascual.

On August 25, 2010, the petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, contending that the substitution was improper because the extrajudicial deed used to establish Leonor’s sole heirship was unregistered with the Register of Deeds and was not published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC, in its Order dated March 16, 2011, denied the motion, stating that the requirements for substitution did not necessarily include registration or publication of the deed, since Elena’s Death Certificate clearly revealed her status and the absence of any other heirs.

The petitioner then elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The sole issue advanced was whether there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in allowing the substitution of Elena by her sole heir, Leonor, despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence.
The petitioner argued that since the only evidence supporting Leonor’s status was the extrajudicial deed of settlement, which was unregistered and unpublished, it could not legally bind the petitioner or confer upon respondent Leonor the right of substitution.
Conversely, respondent Leonor maintained that sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence, including her presentation of the Death Certificate of Elena and prior admissions by the petitioner regarding the registration of the property under Elena’s name, substantiated her right as the sole heir.

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing the substitution of the deceased Elena A. Macabagdal with her sole heir, Leonor A. Macabagdal, as party defendant in the expropriation proceedings.
Whether the extrajudicial Deed of Settlement, despite its non-registration with the Register of Deeds and non-publication in a newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, is sufficient and valid evidence to establish respondent Leonor’s status as the sole heir of Elena.
Whether the petitioner’s admission that the subject property is the one registered in the name of Elena precludes its further challenge regarding respondent Leonor’s substitution as party defendant.