Case Summary (G.R. No. 167290)
Factual Background
The petitioner owns a property adjacent to the NLEX near Sta. Rita Exit, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-134222. An access fence along the NLEX barred ingress and egress to the property, prompting the petitioner to request from the TRB an easement of right of way to gain access. The TRB denied the request, citing the provisions of Republic Act No. 2000 and concerns over the rehabilitation and operational integrity of NLEX, including traffic conflicts.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the TRB and Engr. Jaime S. Dumlao, and later amended the complaint to include PNCC and DPWH. The complaint alleged deprivation of property enjoyment due to the access fence and sought an injunction to restore ingress and egress, declaration against the voidness of the purported condemnation, and just compensation for property taking. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding it a suit against the government without consent, and ruled that injunctions against government infrastructure projects were prohibited pursuant to PD No. 1818 and RA No. 8975. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.
Grounds for Dismissal and Jurisdictional Issues
The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the courts lacked jurisdiction because: (1) the complaint was effectively a suit against the State without its consent; (2) the petitioner was not the real party in interest; (3) easement claims were barred under RA 2000 governing limited access highways; (4) the complaint lacked legal basis as no contract existed between parties; (5) proper remedy should have been certiorari under Rule 65; and (6) requisites for injunction were absent. The trial court and CA agreed, emphasizing constitutional doctrine prohibiting injunctions on government infrastructure projects.
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity Application
The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts that the TRB, DPWH, and Dumlao (in official capacity) enjoy sovereign immunity because they perform governmental functions inherently tied to sovereignty. Accordingly, they cannot be sued without the government’s consent. The Court distinguished PNCC’s status, recognizing it as a private corporation despite majority government ownership. Nevertheless, the complaint was dismissed due to lack of cause of action and jurisdiction regardless of PNCC’s suability.
Limits on Court’s Authority to Enjoin Government Infrastructure Projects
The Court reaffirmed the prohibition on courts issuing temporary restraining orders or injunctions against government infrastructure projects, enshrined in PD No. 1818 and further strengthened by RA No. 8975. These laws withhold jurisdiction from all courts except the Supreme Court to issue such orders against national government projects involving acquisition, clearance, bidding, implementation, or related lawful acts. The purpose is to avoid delays and disruptions in essential government projects. The petitioner’s request to enjoin the erection of the access fence and to compel an easement fell squarely within these prohibited acts.
NLEX as a Limited Access Highway Facility
The Court noted that NLEX is a limited access expressway regulated under RA No. 2000. The petitioner was bound by the existing law and the physical condition of the property at the time of acquisition in 1999 when the NLEX and its access fence were already in place. The petitioner’s predecessors consented or acquiesced to the property’s isolation, precluding demands for an easement under Article 649 of the Civil Code, which requires lack of access for such rights to be claimed compulsorily.
Authority to Regulate Limited Access Highways
Clarification was made on the agency empowered to regulate limited access highways. Although the petitioner contended the DPWH had such authority, the Court held that the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) — now the Department of Transportation (DOTr) — exercises exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Executive Order No. 546 and subsequent reorganizations. DPWH orders declaring expressways as limited access facilities were void, and the TRB, under DOTr, properly imposed and enforced the access restrictions.
Validity of the Access Fence and Police Power
The access fence was erected pursuant to RA No. 2000 and was a valid exercise of police power intended to protect public safety and welfare on the tollway. Restrictions imposed by the fence on ingress and egress to the petitioner’s property were reasonable and not confiscatory. The Court found no violation of due process or equal protection clauses, given valid classification of adjacent property owne
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167290)
Case Background and Issue Presented
- The primary issue concerns the petitioner’s demand to access the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) through an easement of right of way, which respondents denied.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for specific performance; the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this dismissal.
- The petitioner owns land adjacent to the Sta. Rita Exit of NLEX, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-134222.
- An access fence along NLEX barred petitioner’s ingress and egress to the expressway, prompting a request for an easement denied by the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB).
- Petitioner alleged deprivation of property use without due process or just compensation and sought injunction, right of way, damages, and declaration of nullity of the alleged condemnation.
Petitioner's Claims and Lower Courts’ Findings
- Petitioner claimed total deprivation of possession and use of its property due to the access fence.
- Alleged violation of constitutional rights: due process and equal protection, citing that adjacent properties had access while theirs did not.
- Sought preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, easement of right of way, damages, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages, and costs of suit.
- RTC granted a motion to dismiss filed by respondents citing:
- Jurisdictional defects, as suit was tantamount to one against the state without consent.
- The complaint lacked cause of action; petitioner was not the real party in interest.
- Easement did not lie under RA 2000 (Limited Access Highway Act).
- The proper remedy was a petition for certiorari, not complaint for specific performance.
- CA affirmed RTC decision, emphasizing:
- The NLEX was already in existence with the access fence when petitioner acquired the property.
- Petitioner’s property had access via a road network, negating the necessity for an easement.
- No contractual relationship existed that would support specific performance.
- Respondents enjoyed sovereign immunity; the complaint was improperly directed against the state and its agencies.
Issues on Appeal
- The appeal challenged the CA decision on grounds of:
- Alleged violation of constitutional due process and equal protection clauses.
- Allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the CA in recognizing Entry No. 189568, which indicated the NLEX and access fence existed prior to petitioner’s acquisition.
- The claim that the PNCC should not enjoy immunity from suit despite government ownership.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Reasoning
- The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts in dismissing