Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > June 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24768 June 27, 1968 - GIL V. MARIBAO, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24768. June 27, 1968.]

GIL V. MARIBAO and ENRIQUETA. LLANILLO-MARIBAO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE NUMERIANO ESTENZO and THE CITY OF ORMOC, Respondents.

Petitioners in their own behalf.

No appearance for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS; ABSENCE OF PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL NOT JURISDICTIONAL. — The alleged absence of presidential or departmental approval of the exercise by the City of the power of eminent domain, assuming such approval to be necessary, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over expropriation proceedings. The absence of said approval, at most, affected the cause of action of the City, not the jurisdiction of the lower court.

2. ID.; ID.; ORDERS AND DECREES; INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS; REMEDY. — Alleged irregularities which are mere incidents in the exercise of jurisdiction may not be dealt with in an original action for certiorari, except in the absence of appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In case at bar the petitioners could have appealed as in fact, some of their co- defendants below have appealed to the Court of Appeals.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is an original action for certiorari. Petitioners Gil V. Maribao and his wife, Enriqueta Llanillo-Maribao — hereinafter referred to as the Maribaos — pray that certain orders issued by Hon. Numeriano Estenzo, as Judge of First Instance of Leyte, in Sp. Civil Case No. 711-O of said court, be annulled and that he be declared to be without jurisdiction to try said case, as well as "immediately enjoined from proceeding further with the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

The records show that, on January 25, 1965, the City of Ormoc instituted said Case No. 711-O for the expropriation of several tracts of land located within its territorial boundaries, to be used as "City Government Center." Among the defendants therein — altogether 31 in number — were petitioners herein, as owners of some of the lots sought to be expropriated. In its complaint, the City prayed, inter alia, for an order fixing the sum of P50,000 as the provisional value of all the properties involved in the case and directing the defendants to deliver immediately the possession of said properties to the City, upon the deposit of said sum with its treasurer. On February 3, 1965, Judge Estenzo issued an order fixing said provisional value at P50,000, and, a certification by said Treasurer, to the effect that this amount is provided for in the current annual budget of the City and is available for expenditure, having been forthwith submitted, Judge Estenzo ordered, on the same date, the issuance of the corresponding writ of possession.

The defendants other than the Maribaos filed motions to dismiss, which Judge Estenzo denied in an order dated February 23, 1965. Said order, moreover, declared that the City has the lawful right to expropriate the aforementioned properties, upon payment of just compensation, and appointed the City and Highway Engineer, the City Assessor and the Assistant City Auditor as Commissioners to ascertain the amount of said compensation and then report thereon. By an order dated March 27, 1965, Judge Estenzo appointed a new set of commissioners, composed of the District Supervisor, and two (2) barrio captains.

Soon thereafter, or on March 5, 1965, the Maribaos filed a motion to set aside said orders of February 3 and 23, 1965, upon the ground that the same were issued before the court had acquired jurisdiction over their persons by service of summons, which took place on February 23, 1965, and another motion to dismiss the complaint. These motions were denied by Judge Estenzo on March 13, 1965. Subsequently, the Maribaos filed three (3) motions for reconsideration: one, dated April 15, 1965, as regards the denial of the motion to set aside the orders of February 3 and 23, 1965; another, dated April 17, 1965, with respect to the denial of the motion to dismiss; and still another, dated April 19, 1965, urging the appointment, in lieu of the commissioners appointed in the order of March 27, 1965, of a commissioner to represent the plaintiff, another commissioner to represent the defendants, and a third commissioner to represent the court. These three (3) motions for reconsideration were denied by Judge Estenzo on April 30, 1965.

Meanwhile the commissioners had begun to perform their functions and to receive evidence, after which they submitted their report, copy of which was received by the Maribaos on June 11, 1965, recommending payment of P0.29 to P0.30 per square meter. Under date of June 19, 1965, the Maribaos filed their opposition to said report, alleging that they had no chance to present evidence as regards the value of their property and that the commissioners had not duly considered actual sales of portions of the land sought to be expropriated.

On June 30, 1965, Judge Estenzo rendered his decision fixing the value of the properties in litigation at P0.30 a square meter. Copy of this decision was, on July 8, 1965, served on the Maribaos, who, on July 17, 1965, moved for a reconsideration thereof. The motion for reconsideration was denied on July 23, 1965. Four (4) days later, the Maribaos filed a motion for new trial.

In the meantime, or on July 23, 1965, they had commenced the present original civil action for certiorari, based, mainly, upon the theory that Judge Estenzo had acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) In giving due course to the complaint in said Case No. 711-0, despite the absence of allegation that the President or the proper department head had approved or authorized the exercise of the right of eminent domain by the City;

(2) In issuing the writ of possession and appointing commissioners to ascertain the value of the properties sought to be expropriated, before the court had acquired jurisdiction over the person of said defendants by the service of summons upon them, and before their motion to dismiss had been denied;

(3) In not requiring the City to deposit "money" before the issuance of said writ of possession;

(4) In denying their motion to set aside the orders of February 3 and 23, 1965, as well as the motion to reconsider the order of denial of said motion to set aside;

(5) In appointing as commissioners city officers who are, consequently, biased and incompetent, and who gave the Maribaos no chance to present their evidence.

The petition herein is clearly devoid of merit. The alleged absence of presidential or departmental approval of the exercise by the City of the power of eminent domain — assuming such approval to be necessary, on which we need not and do not express our view — did not affect the jurisdiction of the lower court. The same unquestionably had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the proceedings, over the Maribaos — who, admittedly, had been duly served with summons — and over the properties sought to be expropriated, which are within the Province of Leyte. On the assumption above referred to, the absence of said approval, at most, affected the cause of action of the City, not the jurisdiction of the lower court. 1

Neither did the other alleged irregularities complained of by the Maribaos divest said court of its aforementioned jurisdiction or constitute a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. Said alleged irregularities are mere incidents in the exercise of said jurisdiction, on which the parties are free to disagree with the court. They may seek a review of its rulings thereon, but, on appeal, after the rendition of final judgment, not by original action of certiorari, which may not be availed of except in the absence of appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 2 In the case at bar, the Maribaos could have availed of said appeal. In fact, some of their co-defendants in Case No. 711-0 have appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The basic flaw in the position taken by the Maribaos is that it is predicated upon the erroneous premise that the lower court had no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the case, because the City had not secured the approval thereto of either the President or the proper department secretary. All of the issues raised by the Maribaos in the lower court were founded mainly upon this mistaken notion. Such was the basis of their motion to dismiss and their motion for reconsideration of the order denying said motion to dismiss.

The grounds upon which their other motions were based were foreign to the matter of jurisdiction of the Court. This is true even as regards the orders issued before the Maribaos had been summoned, for, after service of summons upon them, they had ample opportunity to be heard, and were actually heard, in connection therewith. In short, the irregularities complained of may not be dealt with in this original action for certiorari. 3 The review thereof may be sought only by appeal. 4

WHEREFORE, the petition herein should be, as it is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L. Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Republic v. Venturanza, L-20417, May 30, 1966.

2. Rule 65, Section 1, Rules or Court; Claudio v. Zandueta, 64 Phil. 812; Haw Pia v. San Jose, 78 Phil. 238: Silvestre v. Torres, 57 Phil. 885; 890; Pachoco v. Tumangday, L-14500, May 25, 1960.

3. Tirona v. Nañawa, L-22107, Sept. 30, 1967; Layag v. Gerardo, L- 19896, April 30, 1964; De la Cruz v. Sta. Maria, L-17928, April 30, 1963.

4. Giron v. Caluag, L-17995, June 27, 1963; Republic v. Perez, L-16112, June 29, 1963; De la Rea v. Subido, L-26082, 27246 and 27248, March 1, 1968.




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






June-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20660 June 13, 1968 - REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21975 June 13, 1968 - MANUEL C. RAMOS v. ARDANT TRADING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22050 June 13, 1968 - PAN PACIFIC COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE ADVERTISING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24219 June 13, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28573 June 13, 1968 - RUFINO A. CRUZ, ET AL. v. CIPRIANO B. PRIMICIAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23906 June 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN MONTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24454 June 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO MANANGUITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24429 June 22, 1968 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-21800 June 22, 1968 - ESTANISLAO M. LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24494 June 22, 1968 - JULIA D. CARIAGA v. MARIA JUSTO-GUERRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25572 June 22, 1968 - VICTORIA VDA. DE BUNGKAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. Nos. L-25624-31 June 22, 1968 - PEDRO RALLA v. PABLO RALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26791 June 22, 1968 - TOMAS M. PEREZ v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28593 June 25, 1968 - JUAN YSASI v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21151 June 26, 1968 - LOURDES MUNSAYAC v. BENEDICTA DE LARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24428 June 26, 1968 - PETRONILA BULAN, ET AL. v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24258 June 26, 1968 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. GENEROSA S. VDA. DE JOVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26256 June 26, 1968 - PUA YI KUN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25389 June 27, 1968 - LIBERATION STEAMSHIP CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24837 June 27, 1968 - JULIAN C. SINGSON, ET AL. v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24932 June 27, 1968 - ENRIQUE B. DOMINGO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24768 June 27, 1968 - GIL V. MARIBAO, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19627 June 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ARMANDO L. ABAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21498 June 27, 1968 - ENCARNACION TEVES v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22978, L-24345, L-24770 June 27, 1968 - VALERIANO C. BUENO v. MONTANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25643 June 27, 1968 - JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA, ET AL. v. JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21061 June 27, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RUPERTO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-24796 & L-25459 June 28, 1968 - DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24069 June 28, 1968 - LA FUERZA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22475 June 28, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MILAGROS M. VDA. DE GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-24193 June 28, 1968 - MAURICIO AGAD v. SEVERINO MABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25354 June 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. L-24447 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY OBSANIA

  • G.R. Nos. L-21559-21560 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN MAGALLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28378 June 29, 1968 - FRANCISCO P. FELIX, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24397 June 29, 1968 - PROVINCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL v. ALFREDO CATOLICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24339 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX LAVARIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24346 June 29, 1968 - JUAN E. TUASON v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20490 June 29, 1968 - IN RE: RAMON CU KING NAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21510 June 29, 1968 - JOHN I. NEVANS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22378 June 29, 1968 - CLEMENTE FORTUS, ET AL. v. ROSARIO NOVERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23540 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO DOSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24039 June 29, 1968 - TEODORO PADILLA v. CITY OF PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24065 June 29, 1968 - MATIAS RANILLO, JR. v. PERSHING TAN QUETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24177-85 June 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BITULOK SAWMILL, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28869 June 29, 1968 - PANTALEON V. PELAYO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28346 June 29, 1968 - URDANETA RURAL BANK v. FELIX SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25442 June 29, 1968 - HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.