Case Summary (G.R. No. 171496)
Factual Background
Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership owned Lot 5-B-2, a parcel measuring 70,278 square meters in Pasig City. The owner caused a subdivision of the property into five lots and annotated one portion for road widening for the C-5 flyover project. The portion designated as Lot 5-B-2-A measured one thousand four hundred forty-five square meters, and its title was annotated to reflect that it was reserved for road widening and subject to Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The C-5–Ortigas Avenue flyover was completed in 1999, and only 396 square meters of the designated 1,445-square-meter allotment were actually utilized for the roadway. Thereafter, Ortigas further subdivided the designated lot into Lot 5-B-2-A-1, the portion used for road widening, and Lot 5-B-2-A-2, the unutilized portion.
Trial Court Proceedings
On February 14, 2001, Ortigas filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for authority to sell Lot 5-B-2-A-1 to the government, alleging that the Department of Public Works and Highways had requested the conveyance for road widening and that Ortigas had not been compensated. The case was raffled to Branch 267, and the trial court set the matter for hearing on April 27, 2001, directed publication and service of its order and the petition, and afforded interested parties the opportunity to oppose. No one opposed at the hearing. Ortigas established jurisdictional facts and presented ex parte evidence through its liaison officer, who testified as to ownership, subdivision, and the actual use of 396 square meters for the road. The trial court found merit in the petition and issued an order on June 11, 2001, authorizing the sale of Lot 5-B-2-A-1 to the Republic of the Philippines.
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
On June 27, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General filed an opposition, contending that the lot could be conveyed to the government only by donation pursuant to Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on October 3, 2001. The Republic filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 2001. In a resolution dated October 14, 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground that an order or judgment denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on February 9, 2006, the Court of Appeals reiterating lack of jurisdiction and noting that the appeal raised only a question of law.
Issues Presented
The Supreme Court identified the principal issues as whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic’s appeal on procedural grounds and whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal from the trial court order that authorized Ortigas to sell the land to the Republic of the Philippines.
Parties’ Contentions
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that strict application of procedural rules frustrated substantial justice and that Ortigas’s subdivision and annotation withdrawing the land from commerce required that the property be conveyed only by donation, relying on Young v. City of Manila and Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Ortigas contended that the Office of the Solicitor General erred in bringing an appeal from the denial of the motion for reconsideration and argued that it was entitled to compensation because the government had taken and utilized the property for public road purposes.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal because the Republic raised only a pure question of law on appeal from the Regional Trial Court, and appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 are proper only when they raise questions of fact or both fact and law; pure questions of law must be brought directly to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Notwithstanding the procedural infirmity, the Supreme Court addressed the substantive issue and ruled that Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 does not apply where the subject property is the proper subject of an expropriation or equivalent taking for public use, and that Ortigas may sell the property to the government with entitlement to just compensation.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court explained the limited scope of Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 as applying to roads and streets within subdivisions, which are primarily intended for the benefit of surrounding private property owners, and not to public thoroughfares built on private property at the instance of the government for general public use. The Court reiterated the constitutional protection against uncompensated takings in Consti., art. III, sec. 9, and enumerated the elements of a taking: government entry on private property; permanence or indefiniteness of the entry; color of legal authority; devotion of the property to public use; and the deprivation of the owner’s beneficial enjoyment. The Court found all these elements present where the government constructed a permanent road on the private lot, the road was used by the public, and the Department of Public Works and Highways acted with legal authority. The Court held
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171496)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, seeking to nullify and set aside the Court of Appeals resolutions dated October 14, 2005 and February 9, 2006.
- Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership owned Lot 5-B-2, a 70,278-square-meter parcel in Pasig City, and was the private respondent below.
- Ortigas petitioned the Regional Trial Court, Branch 267, Pasig, for authority to sell Lot 5-B-2-A-1 to the government after the C-5-Ortigas flyover used a portion of the designated road-widening lot.
- The Regional Trial Court issued an order authorizing the sale on June 11, 2001, which the Office of the Solicitor General opposed and moved to reconsider on grounds invoking Section 50, Presidential Decree No. 1529.
- The Regional Trial Court denied the motion for reconsideration on October 3, 2001, and the Republic filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 2001, which the Court of Appeals later dismissed.
- The Court of Appeals resolved the matter by dismissing the appeal on October 14, 2005 and denying reconsideration on February 9, 2006, both rulings being the subject of the present petition.
Key Factual Allegations
- Ortigas caused the subdivision of its 70,278-square-meter property and designated Lot 5-B-2-A, a 1,445-square-meter parcel, for road widening at the request of the DPWH.
- Ortigas annotated its title to the designated lot with the term road widening and an encumbrance referencing Section 50, Presidential Decree No. 1529.
- The completed C-5-Ortigas flyover in 1999 utilized only 396 square meters of the designated 1,445-square-meter lot.
- Ortigas further subdivided Lot 5-B-2-A into Lot 5-B-2-A-1, the utilized portion, and Lot 5-B-2-A-2, the unutilized portion.
- On February 14, 2001, Ortigas filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court for authority to sell Lot 5-B-2-A-1 to the government and presented evidence ex parte before the appointed Commissioner.
- The witness presented by Ortigas, Romulo Rosete, testified to ownership, the designation for road widening, the actual utilization of only 396 square meters, and the absence of compensation despite a request by the DPWH to convey the property.
- The Regional Trial Court granted the petition to sell on June 11, 2001, and the Office of the Solicitor General filed opposition and a motion for reconsideration arguing that the lot could be conveyed only by donation under Section 50, P.D. No. 1529.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in denying the Republic's appeal based on procedural technicalities.
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the appeal from the Regional Trial Court order that granted Ortigas authority to sell the land to the Republic.
Contentions of the Parties
- The Office of the Solicitor General contended that the lot designated for road widening was automatically withdrawn from commerce and could be conveyed only by donation under Section 50, P.D. No. 1529, citing Young v. City of Manila.
- The Office of the Solicitor General further argued that strict application of procedural rules should not defeat substantial justice in the Republic's favor.
- Ortigas argued that the Office of the Solicitor General committed a fatal procedural error by appealing the denial of a motion for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals and that the sale to the government was appropriate given government utilization without compensation.