Case Digest (G.R. No. 192908)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 192908, August 22, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The Republic, through the DPWH, filed two separate expropriation cases against St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc.: Civil Case No. 0062-04 (seeking 1,992 sq.m. out of 6,068 sq.m., TCT No. T-821169) and Civil Case No. 0100-04 (seeking 2,450 sq.m. out of 9,039 sq.m., TCT No. T-821170). The properties were targeted for the Manila–Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP). The Republic later amended its complaints to allege that the land originated from a free patent and therefore no just compensation was due under Section 112 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.
On August 16, 2005, the trial court (acting presiding judge Rommel D. Baybay) issued an Order granting the Republic's motion for issuance of an order of expropriation as to the 1,992 sq.m., finding public purpose and the Republic’s right to expropriate but making no pronouncement on just compensation because of the free-patent allegation. The Republic filed a motion for expropriation in the second case but the two cases were consolidated. St. Vincent's motion for reconsideration of the August 16, 2005 Order was denied on November 16, 2006; St. Vincent did not appeal.
Tensions escalated when the Republic attempted to physically implement the expropriation. St. Vincent demanded the Republic and its agents vacate in an October 3, 2008 demand letter. The Republic sought a writ of possession; the trial court denied the writ on November 25, 2008 but modified its August 16, 2005 Order by requiring the Republic to immediately pay St. Vincent 100% of the value of the property sought. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 29, 2009.
The Republic filed a motion for additional time (15 days) to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted that motion in a Resolution dated April 30, 2009, giving the Republic until May 4, 2009. The Republic filed its petition for certiorari on April 30, 2009, challenging the trial court orders of November 25, 2008 and January 29, 2009 as issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Motu proprio, the CA on June 19, 2009 ordered the Republic to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as filed out of time under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. The Republic pleaded for relaxation of the rules citing transcendental importance; St. Vincent opposed. On October 30, 2009 the CA dismissed the petition as filed out of time, relying on Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009) which interpr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error by dismissing the Republic's petition for certiorari as filed out of time under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)