Title
Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 194247
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2013
BCDA contested RTC's summary judgment on just compensation for land expropriation for SCTEx; SC remanded case for proper valuation due to procedural errors.
expropriation case
summary judgment
panel of commissioners
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194247)

Factual Background

On February 13, 2007, BCDA filed Civil Case No. DH-1136-07 to expropriate 308 square meters of a parcel of land in Barangay San Ramon, Dinalupihan, Bataan, registered in Rosa’s name under TCT No. CLOA-10265. BCDA alleged the land was an irrigated riceland and asserted a zonal value of P20.00 per square meter, based on the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) zonal valuation. Pursuant to Section 4(a) of RA 8974, BCDA deposited P6,120.00, representing one hundred percent (100%) of the zonal value, for the subject property.

BCDA separately filed Civil Case Nos. DH-1137-07 and DH-1138-07 for additional expropriation matters involving portions of parcels of land owned by Cenando and Carlos, covering 156 square meters and 384 square meters, respectively. For those portions, BCDA deposited P3,120.00 and P7,680.00, respectively, again in accordance with Section 4(a) of RA 8974.

In their respective Answers, respondents did not dispute BCDA’s right to expropriate. They instead challenged the offered just compensation as too low, contending the properties had already been re-classified into residential lots as early as October 6, 2003, which allegedly resulted in zonal values ranging from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 per square meter as determined by the BIR. While respondents maintained their objection to the valuation, they also expressed willingness to expedite the proceedings by accepting P3,000.00 per square meter as a minimum rate for just compensation, which they computed as P924,000.00 for Rosa, P468,000.00 for Cenando, and P1,152,000.00 for Carlos.

The three cases were consolidated by the RTC on May 23, 2007, and the RTC issued a writ of possession on December 12, 2007 in BCDA’s favor.

Proceedings on Summary Judgment in the RTC

While the expropriation actions were pending, respondents filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 27, 2007, asserting that no genuine issues remained except for the proper amount of damages constituting just compensation. BCDA opposed the motion. It argued that Rule 35 on summary judgment applies only to ordinary civil actions for recovery of money claims and not to expropriation cases. BCDA further argued that the mandatory appointment of a panel of commissioners under Section 5, Rule 67 would preclude summary judgment.

In reply, respondents maintained that Rule 35 applies to both ordinary and special civil actions.

On November 27, 2007, the RTC granted the motion for summary judgment. It ordered BCDA to pay just compensation at P3,000.00 per square meter, for P924,000.00 for Rosa, P468,000.00 for Cenando, and P1,152,000.00 for Carlos. The RTC reasoned that the properties had already been re-classified from agricultural to residential in 2004, long before BCDA’s complaints were filed in February 2007. It thus concluded that just compensation should fall within the range of P3,000.00 to P6,000.00 per square meter, using the relevant BIR zonal valuation as published in the December 9, 2002 issue of the Official Gazette. The RTC treated respondents’ acceptance of P3,000.00 per square meter as removing the need for further proceedings and dismissed BCDA’s argument that commissioners were required as a futile exercise that would only delay.

BCDA moved for reconsideration, contending, among others, that respondents failed to prove proper re-classification, that the RTC erred in valuing the properties at P3,000.00 per square meter since the properties were allegedly inner lots rather than along a national highway or road, that the failure to appoint commissioners was fatal, and that issues involving an overlap with the Philippine National Bank property had to be resolved first. BCDA insisted that a full trial should have been conducted.

The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on May 12, 2008, prompting BCDA to file a notice of appeal.

The Parties’ Arguments on the Proper Mode of Appeal

Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, arguing that an appeal from summary judgment involves only questions of law and that the proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

BCDA countered that its appeal raised both questions of fact and law and therefore was properly lodged with the CA through ordinary appeal.

CA Disposition

On May 7, 2010, the CA dismissed BCDA’s appeal. It held that BCDA’s raised errors essentially concerned the propriety of the RTC’s grant of summary judgment, which involved only questions of law. Because the CA viewed that only questions of law were involved, it determined that it lacked jurisdiction over an ordinary appeal and treated the RTC’s orders fixing just compensation as final and executory. The CA denied BCDA’s motion for reconsideration on October 15, 2010, leading to BCDA’s petition for review on certiorari.

Issue Before the Court

The sole issue was whether the CA erred in dismissing BCDA’s appeal.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that the petition was meritorious and that the CA’s dismissal should not stand, while also recognizing the analytical framework used to determine the proper mode of appeal.

First, the Court explained the two modes of appeal from RTC judgments in original jurisdiction under Section 2, Rule 41 in relation to Rule 44, and Section 2(c), Rule 41 (as reflected in the discussion of the Rules of Court in the text). It stated that when issues involve questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, the proper recourse is an ordinary appeal to the CA. When issues involve only questions of law, the proper recourse is by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. It further noted that Section 2, Rule 50 provides dismissal for appeals erroneously taken to the CA raising only questions of law.

The Court then reiterated the jurisprudential tests: a question of law exists when doubt or difference arises about what the law is on a given set of facts, while a question of fact pertains to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. The governing test was whether the issues could be resolved without evaluating evidence. If no evaluation of evidence was needed, the issue was one of law; otherwise, it was factual.

Applying those principles, the Court found that, although the CA was correct in identifying that only certain issues could be considered on appeal, the CA’s final dismissal and the consequent procedural finality should not be strictly applied. The Court observed that BCDA raised four issues before the CA: (1) the propriety of summary judgment; (2) whether evidence supported that the lots had been re-classified from agricultural to residential and, if so, whether the properties were interior lots affecting zonal valuation; (3) whether commissioners were indispensable in expropriation; and (4) whether the properties of Cenando and Rosa Reyes overlapped with the Philippine National Bank property.

The Court emphasized that the second and fourth issues were not raised in BCDA’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. These matters appeared only in BCDA’s motion for reconsideration from the RTC’s November 27, 2007 Order. The Court applied the rule that appellate courts are precluded from entertaining matters not alleged or raised in the proceedings below and ventilated only for the first time in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal. Accordingly, it reasoned that the CA could not consider the second and fourth issues. With those matters excluded, only the first and third issues remained for CA determination.

The Court agreed that the remaining issues could be treated as questions of law. It reasoned that the propriety of summary judgment involved legal application to the pleadings and undisputed procedural posture. Likewise, the question on commissioners involved the application of Section 5, Rule 67, without requiring re-examination of evidence.

Thus, the Court ruled that the CA did not commit reversible error in its characterization that the appeal involved only questions of law and that the proper recourse would have been a petition under Rule 45.

However, the Court nonetheless relaxed procedural rules and remanded the case to the RTC. It recognized that the RTC’s November 27, 2007 Order should have been treated as final and executory due to BCDA’s procedural lapse. It nevertheless found special and compelling reasons to temper procedural rigidity in the interest of substantial justice, citing jurisprudential principles that allow relaxation when the merits require it.

The Court identified two reasons for remand. First, it stated that BCDA’s appeal—at least as to the first issue—would have been granted if not for the procedural lapse because genuine issues remained and thus summary judgment was improper. In the Court’s view, summary judgment was not warranted where genuine issues for trial existed.

Second, the Court highlighted the public interest character of expropriation cases due to expenditure of public funds. It required trial courts to be more circumspect in determining just compensation. In this case, the Court found that the RTC’s computation of just compensation had not been arrived at judiciously because it was based solely on respondents’ indicated willingness to accept P3,000.00 per square meter, and not on the statutory framework of RA 8974. It stressed that final conclusions on proper just compensation must follow the requirements set forth under RA 8974 and cannot rest merely on the parties’ declarations.

The Court further observed that the RTC overlooked the proper classification of the properties as residential or agricultural lands, a matter that materially affects valuation. It referenced that the residential lots in Barangay San Ramon, Dinalupihan, Bataan had zonal valuation ranging from P2,000.00 (for all other streets)

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms