Case Summary (G.R. No. 171496)
Key Dates
• February 14, 2001 – Petition for authority to sell filed in RTC Pasig
• June 11, 2001 – RTC grants authority to sell Lot 5-B-2-A-1 to the Republic
• October 3, 2001 – RTC denies motion for reconsideration of sale order
• October 14, 2005 – Court of Appeals dismisses appeal for lack of appealable order
• February 9, 2006 – Court of Appeals denies motion for reconsideration
• March 3, 2014 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 9 – Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
• Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), Section 50 – Restriction on disposal of delineated streets and passageways, except by donation
• Rules of Court: Rule 41 (appeals from RTC to CA), Rule 45 (certiorari to SC), Rule 50 (pure questions of law)
Facts
Respondent Ortigas owned Lot 5-B-2 (70,278 sqm) in Pasig City. At DPWH’s request for the C-5 flyover, Ortigas:
- Subdivided the parcel into five lots, reserving one (Lot 5-B-2-A, 1,445 sqm) for widening Ortigas Avenue;
- Annotated “road widening” on the title, subject to PD 1529, Sec. 50;
- After construction in 1999 used only 396 sqm, re-subdivided into Lot 5-B-2-A-1 (utilized) and A-2 (unused);
- Filed in the RTC on February 14, 2001 a petition for authority to sell Lot A-1 to the Republic; publication and service were duly made; no oppositions appeared at the April 27, 2001 hearing;
- Presented evidence ex parte (ownership, government request, lack of compensation);
- RTC Branch 267 issued on June 11, 2001 an order authorizing the sale to the Republic; the Republic opposed, arguing the lot could only be conveyed by donation under PD 1529, Sec. 50; RTC denied its motion for reconsideration on October 3, 2001;
Procedural History
– October 24, 2001: Republic filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, citing the October 3 order;
– October 14, 2005: CA dismissed the appeal, holding that orders denying motions for reconsideration are interlocutory and not appealable under Rule 41;
– February 9, 2006: CA denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, noting the appeal raised only a question of law;
– Republic petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Issues
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Republic’s appeal on procedural technicalities.
- Whether Ortigas may sell the lot to the Republic or must convey it by donation under PD 1529, Section 50.
Procedural Appeal Analysis
• Rule 41, Section 1 prohibits appeals from interlocutory orders that do not finally dispose of the case; orders denying motions for reconsideration are generally interlocutory unless they put an end to a particular matter.
• Rule 41, Section 2(c) and Rule 50 exclude pure questions of law from CA review; such appeals must proceed by petition for review under Rule 45.
• The only issue before CA was whether donation was the exclusive mode of conveyance under PD 1529, a pure question of law not involving evidence review.
• The CA properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on procedural grounds.
Substantive Conveyance Analysis
• Section 50 of PD 1529 governs mere subdivision streets and passageways not taken for public use; it does not apply where the government, with color of authority, takes pr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171496)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by the Republic of the Philippines (DPWH) seeking to nullify:
• Court of Appeals resolution of October 14, 2005 dismissing its appeal from the Regional Trial Court’s June 11, 2001 order granting Ortigas authority to sell.
• Court of Appeals resolution of February 9, 2006 denying its motion for reconsideration. - Regional Trial Court of Pasig Branch 267:
• February 14, 2001: Ortigas files petition for authority to sell Lot 5-B-2-A-1 to government.
• June 11, 2001: RTC grants authority to sell.
• October 3, 2001: RTC denies DPWH’s motion for reconsideration. - Court of Appeals:
• October 14, 2005: Dismisses DPWH’s appeal as order denying motion for reconsideration is interlocutory and non-appealable.
• February 9, 2006: Denies DPWH’s motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction and wrong mode of appeal (pure question of law raised).
Factual Background
- Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership owns Lot 5-B-2 (70,278 m²) in Pasig City.
- At DPWH’s request, Ortigas subdivides into five lots, designates Lot 5-B-2-A (1,445 m²) for Ortigas Avenue road widening; annotates title “road widening” per Sec. 50, P.D. 1529.
- C-5-Ortigas flyover completed 1999, using only 396 m² of the designated lot.
- Ortigas subdivides Lot 5-B-2-A into Lot 5-B-2-A-1 (396 m² used) and Lot 5-B-2-A-2 (unutilized).
- No compensation was paid; DPWH allegedly requested conveyance of the utilized portion.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing DPWH’s appeal on procedural technicalities.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal from the RTC’s order granting Ortigas authority to s