Case Digest (G.R. No. 171496)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, G.R. No. 171496, March 03, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and prosecuted by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG); the respondent is Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, owner of Lot 5‑B‑2 (70,278 sqm) in Pasig City. At the DPWH's request, Ortigas subdivided its property and designated a 1,445‑sqm portion (Lot 5‑B‑2‑A) for road widening for the C‑5 flyover project and annotated its title with a road‑widening encumbrance referencing Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree).
The C‑5‑Ortigas flyover was completed in 1999 but utilized only 396 sqm of the 1,445‑sqm designation. Ortigas further subdivided Lot 5‑B‑2‑A into Lot 5‑B‑2‑A‑1 (the portion actually used) and Lot 5‑B‑2‑A‑2 (unutilized portion). On February 14, 2001 Ortigas filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 267, Pasig, a petition for authority to sell Lot 5‑B‑2‑A‑1 to the government, asserting DPWH requested the conveyance and that Ortigas had not been compensated. The RTC required publication and directed service on several public offices; no oppositor appeared at the April 27, 2001 hearing, and Ortigas presented evidence ex parte through its liaison officer, Romulo Rosete.
On June 11, 2001 the RTC granted Ortigas authority to sell Lot 5‑B‑2‑A‑1 to the Republic. The OSG filed an opposition (June 27, 2001) and a motion for reconsideration (June 29, 2001), arguing Section 50 of PD 1529 permits disposal of delineated streets only by donation to the government; the RTC denied the motion on October 3, 2001. The Republic filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 2001. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal in a resolution dated October 14, 2005 on the ground that an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable; the CA denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration on February 9, 2006, also finding lack of jurisdiction because the appeal raised only a questi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in denying the Republic of the Philippines’ appeal on procedural technicalities?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in dismissing the appeal from the RTC order granting Ortigas authority to sell Lot 5‑B‑2‑A‑1 to the Republic (i.e., may Ortigas sell rather tha...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)