Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > March 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12064 March 31, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

105 Phil 409:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12064. March 31, 1959.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ETC., Respondent.

City Fiscal Filemon R. Consolacion for Petitioner.

Roberto Zurbano in his own behalf.


SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; FAILURE TO INCLUDE INDISPENSABLE PARTY, EFFECT OF. — The petition for a writ of certiorari is defective where the party interested in sustaining the order complained of has not been included as co-respondent in the proceeding.

2. EXPROPRIATION; JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; ORDERS ISSUED IN THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION MAY NOT BE DISTURBED. — Condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance, and orders issued in the exercise of that jurisdiction, in the absence of abuse, cannot be disturbed by the Supreme Court.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to annul an order of the court of First Instance of Iloilo entered in civil case No. 4237 directing the plaintiff to amend its complaint to include therein Lot No. 662, owned by the Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos.

After the institution of condemnation proceedings by the City Fiscal of Iloilo to acquire certain lands for the widening of the Iloilo South Road, the petitioner moved ex-parte for authority to take possession of the lands sought to be expropriated. On 19 and 23 January 1957 the Court granted the motion. On 30 January, the Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos filed a motion calling the attention of the Court to the fact that in the complaint and it the ex-parte motion for authority to take-possession of the lands to be expropriated, Lot No. 662, described in transfer certificate of title No. 342, issued in its name by the Registrar of Deeds and valued at about P1,800, is not included and that no deposit of its provisional value has been made by the petitioner in the Office of the City Treasurer as provided for in section 3, Rule 69. It prayed that the petitioner be directed to deposit with the Office of the city Treasurer within five days the sum of P1,800, the provisional value of the lot, or to restore the possession thereof to the movant (Annex A). On 2 February, the Court ordered the petitioner to amend is complaint, within ten days from notice, to include Lot No. 662 and to submit the appraised value of the lot to enable the Court to ascertain and fix provisionally the value thereof to be deposited by the petitioner (Annex B). On 6 February the petitioner moved for reconsideration (Annex C) and on 8 February amended its motion for reconsideration (Annex D) praying that the order of 2 February be set aside. On 7 February the corporacion de los Padres Agustinos objected to the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Annex E). On 9 February the Court denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Annex F). On 16 February the petitioner filed a motion praying that the execution of the order be suspended pending resolution of the petition for a writ of certiorari to be filed in this Court (Annex G). On 18 February the respondent Court granted its motion (Annex H). On 1 March this petition was filed.

To begin with, as the Corporacion de los Agustinos, the entity interested in sustaining the order complained of has not been included as co-respondent in this proceedings, contrary to section 5, Rule 67, which partly provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a court or judge, the petitioner shall join, as parties defendant with such court or judge, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such person or persons to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the court or judge affected by the proceedings, . . .

the petition for a writ of certiorari is defective.

Even if the procedural defect be overlooked or corrected by ordering the impleading of the indispensable party as respondent, still the petition has to be denied, for condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance, and orders issued in the exercise of that jurisdiction in the absence of abuse cannot be disturbed by this Court. The order of the respondent court to the plaintiff to amend its complaint to include Lot No. 662 owned by and registered in the name of the Corporacion de lo Padres Agustinos and taken possession of by the plaintiff because it was not included in the complaint for expropriation, does not constitute an abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction. Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim as alleged in its amended motion for reconsideration, that the lot in question has been occupied by it as a sidewalk since time immemorial, the same being outside the fence of the property of the Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos; and that the City Fiscal cannot amend the complaint to include the lot, because the authority granted by the President to institute condemnation proceedings does not expressly include the authority to expropriate Lot No. 662, having been denied by the Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos in its answer, the proper course for the respondent Court to pursue was to hear and receive evidence to enable it to determine whether or not the lot should be included. However, this step need not be taken because no copy of the alleged fifth indorsement dated 22 October 1956 of the Executive Secretary containing a list of the parcels of land authorized and directed by the President to be acquired through condemnation proceedings pursuant to section 64(h) of the Revised Administrative Code (p. 4, Annex D) is attached to the petition for a writ of certiorari, and the respondent Court asserts in its answer filed in this Court that the said indorsement does not mention or enumerate the specific lots to be expropriated (p 2). The petitioner did not deny this assertion.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12163 March 4, 1959 - PAZ FORES v. IRENEO MIRANDA

    105 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-10460 March 11, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUANA B. VDA. DE DEL ROSARIO

    105 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-10611 March 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO DIVINAGRACIA

    105 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. L-11223 March 16, 1959 - PABLO C. VENTURA v. JUDGE NICASIO YATCO

    105 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-11596 March 16, 1959 - ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO. INC. v. ELEUTERIO LIMCACO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-11981 March 17, 1959 - CIRIACO SANTIAGO v. MANUEL CONDE

    105 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-11315 March 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO HINAUT

    105 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-11741 March 18, 1959 - EL AHORRO INSULAR, ET AL. v. VICTORINO T. AQUINO

    105 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-14891 March 19, 1959 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. PELAGIO CRUZ

    105 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. L-13204 March 20, 1959 - ENRIQUE C. SERVO v. MARIANO ALCANABA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-9724 March 23, 1959 - TOMAS B. BERVA v. THE CITY MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER OF NAGA CITY

    105 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12343 March 23, 1959 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ALFONSO LOPEZ

    105 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-12497 March 23, 1959 - PRIMITIVO A. MACARAIG v. VICENTE DY SUN

    105 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-12695 March 23, 1959 - CITY OF ILOILO v. REMEDIOS SIAN VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-12698 March 23, 1959 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY

    105 Phil 344

  • G.R. Nos. 11928-11930 March 24, 1959 - VEDASTO JESALVA, ET AL. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-10883 March 25, 1959 - TERESA REALTY v. STATE CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY CO., ET AL.

    105 Phil 353

  • G.R. Nos. L- 12078-79 March 25, 1959 - MATIAS BELARMINO v. PANTALEON F. ALIHAN

    105 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-12703 March 25, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMA ORPILLA-MOLINA

    105 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-11472 March 30, 1959 - OBDULIA ARAGON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL.

    105 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-11569 March 30, 1959 - ROGERIO GENDRALA v. TEOFISTO CORDOVA

    105 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. L-12729 March 30, 1959 - ARSENIO R. REYES v. MARCIAL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    105 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. L-12944 March 30, 1959 - MARIA NATIVIDAD VDA. DE TAN v. VETERANS BACKPAY COMMISSION

    105 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-13298 March 30, 1959 - JOSE U. OCHATE v. DIEGO H. TY DELING, ET AL.

    105 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-7954 March 31, 1959 - B. A. CRUMB v. MARGARITO RODRIGUEZ

    105 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-10884 March 31, 1959 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PHILIPPINE LEATHER CO. INC.

    105 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-11785 March 31, 1959 - GABINO BACHOCO v. IGNACIA ESPERANCILLA

    105 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-12064 March 31, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    105 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-12104 March 31, 1959 - CASIMIRO GARGANTA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-12128 March 31, 1959 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ANTONIO NOBLEJAS

    105 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-12282 March 31, 1959 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    105 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-12592 March 31, 1959 - TIBURCIO SOMERA, ET AL. v. AGRIPINO GALMAN, ET AL.

    105 Phil 431