Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48769)
Factual Background
On December 7, 1968 Barrio Matictic filed Civil Case No. SM-210 for injunction to remove obstructions closing a barrio road. On January 28, 1969 the barrio moved to dismiss and the court dismissed SM-210. On the same day the Municipality of Norzagaray filed Civil Case No. SM-234, an expropriation proceeding against the same private respondents and concerning the same property. The defendants promptly filed motions to dismiss, contesting jurisdiction and the municipality's capacity. The trial court allowed the municipality to take possession upon deposit of PHP 2,682.00 on February 11, 1969. The municipality filed an amended complaint on March 14, 1969 alleging that it had obtained authority from the Office of the President to institute expropriation proceedings as required by law.
Trial Court Proceedings and Intervening Events
The court required the municipality to submit approved plans of the land on August 18 and 19, 1969. For failure to comply, the court dismissed Civil Case No. SM-234 on January 22, 1970. The Court of Appeals reversed on January 5, 1973 and ordered the case to proceed pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The matter returned to the court a quo with Judge J. M. Elbinias presiding. The municipal mayor thereafter expressed reluctance to prosecute and sought withdrawal, but the Municipal Council refused to withdraw the case. Motions attacking jurisdiction were renewed, including an April 3, 1978 motion to dismiss reiterating that the absence of prior presidential approval was a fatal, jurisdictional defect.
Motion for Intervention by the Barangay and Trial Court Action
On January 26, 1978 Barangay Matictic filed a motion for intervention in Civil Case No. SM-234, asserting that the outcome would affect the social and economic development of the barrio. The trial court took notice of the motion for intervention and deferred ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss pending consideration of the motion for intervention. Without resolving the intervention, the trial court issued an order dated May 12, 1978 dismissing the expropriation case, but without prejudice, on the ground that at the time the original complaint was filed there was no showing of prior presidential approval required by Section 2245 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The Petition to the Supreme Court and Interim Relief
Dissatisfied, Barangay Matictic filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Supreme Court to compel the respondent judge to allow and admit its complaint in intervention and to remedy the alleged failure to act on its motion. This Court gave the petition due course by resolution dated January 15, 1979 and issued a temporary restraining order on February 2, 1979 enjoining respondents from exacting toll fees for the use of the feeder road subject of the expropriation proceedings until further orders.
The Parties’ Contentions
Barangay Matictic contended that the trial court omitted to resolve its motion for intervention and thereby denied it the personality to take part in the case, such omission constituting grave and manifest abuse of discretion. The Municipality of Norzagaray maintained that it had obtained presidential approval, a fact alleged in the amended complaint, and sought to challenge the dismissal. The private respondents argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the time of filing because the municipality had not obtained prior presidential approval and that subsequent authorization did not cure the jurisdictional defect.
Issues Presented to the Court
The Supreme Court identified the central questions as whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. SM-234 without resolving the motion for intervention, whether the lack of presidential approval at the time of filing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction such that dismissal was proper, and whether Barangay Matictic had the legal personality to seek mandamus to compel admission of an intervention in a case which the principal plaintiff allowed to lapse.
Analysis on Intervention and Legal Personality
The Court held that Barangay Matictic lacked the legal personality to continue the expropriation action independently and therefore could not properly seek relief by intervention after the principal action had become final as to the Municipality of Norzagaray. The Court observed that intervention is collateral, accessory, and interlocutory, and exists only to aid the rights of the original party; once the principal right ceased, the intervention right likewise ceased. The Court cited the doctrinal proposition as stated in Francisco, Rules of Court, and relied on Clareza vs. Rosales, 2 SCRA 455, 457-458, which recognized that the right of an intervenor is in aid of the original party and terminates when that party's right has ceased.
Analysis on Finality of Dismissal and Proper Party to Seek Relief
The Court emphasized that the proper party to appeal or seek review of the dismissal was the Municipality of Norzagaray. The
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-48769)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Barangay Matictic filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to compel Honorable J. M. Elbinias as District Judge, CFI of Bulacan, Branch V to admit a complaint in intervention in Civil Case No. SM-234.
- The original expropriation plaintiff was the Municipality of Norzagaray in Civil Case No. SM-234, while the private respondents included Spouses Jose Serapio and Gregoria Pacida.
- The petition assailed the orders dated May 12, 1978 and the denial of reconsideration in an order dated January 15, 1978 which dismissed the expropriation case without prejudice.
- The Court issued a temporary restraining order on February 2, 1979 enjoining respondents from collecting toll fees pending resolution of the petition.
- The petition was resolved on the merits with the temporary restraining order later lifted and dissolved.
Key Factual Allegations
- On December 7, 1968 Barrio Matictic initiated Civil Case No. SM-210 by filing an action for injunction concerning the Poblacion-Tomana-Canyakan barrio road.
- On January 28, 1969 the Municipality of Norzagaray filed Civil Case No. SM-234, an action for eminent domain involving the same property contested in SM-210.
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss SM-234 on jurisdictional grounds alleging lack of presidential approval required for municipal exercise of eminent domain.
- On February 11, 1969 the trial court allowed possession upon deposit of PHP 2,682.00 by the plaintiff municipality.
- On March 14, 1969 the municipality filed an amended complaint alleging that it had obtained authority from the Office of the President.
- The trial court on August 18 and 19, 1969 required submission of approved land plans, and on January 22, 1970 dismissed SM-234 for failure to prosecute.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal on January 5, 1973 and remanded the case pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
- Municipal reluctance and internal disagreement arose thereafter when the municipal mayor sought withdrawal but the municipal council refused to abandon the expropriation proceedings.
- A renewed motion to dismiss was filed by defendants on April 3, 1978, and Barangay Matictic filed a motion for intervention on January 26, 1978.
- On May 12, 1978 the trial court dismissed SM-234 without prejudice on the ground that presidential approval had not been shown at the time the original complaint was filed.
- A motion for reconsideration filed by the municipality was denied in an order dated January 15, 1978 according to the record before the Court below.
Statutory Framework
- Section 2245 (h), Revised Administrative Code required that municipalities exercise the right of eminent d