National Housing Authority v. Valenzuela
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The National Housing Authority (NHA), a government-owned corporation, filed a complaint for expropriation against private respondents for nine parcels of land in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. NHA subsequently filed a Motion for Immediate Possession after depositing ten percent (10%) of the estimated just compensation. Procedural History: Respondents Yatcos filed a Motion to Dismiss and an opposition to the Motion for Immediate Possession. The respondent court heard the Motion to Dismiss ex parte due to the absence of NHA's counsel and subsequently issued an order dismissing the complaint insofar as the Yatcos were concerned. NHA's motion for reconsideration remained unresolved. Respondents Ramon Li, Sison Li, and Nilda Sy also filed their own Motion to Dismiss, which was similarly granted by the respondent court, dismissing the complaint against them. NHA's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Petition: NHA filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul the orders of dismissal and to compel the respondent judge to allow the presentation of evidence and to prevent further proceedings. A Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in setting, hearing, and resolving the Motion to Dismiss filed by the private respondents. Whether a motion to dismiss in an expropriation case must be set for hearing.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in setting, hearing, and resolving the Motion to Dismiss filed by the private respondents: The Supreme Court held that the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction, in granting the private respondents' motion to dismiss in violation of Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that no order of condemnation may be entered if the motion to dismiss has not been passed upon and overruled, and no assessment of just compensation should be undertaken unless an order of condemnation has been entered. The appointment of commissioners without a prior order of condemnation was deemed an irregular exercise of judicial power amounting to an abuse of discretion. In the present case, the respondent court dismissed the complaint without first resolving the motion to dismiss, which deviated from the prescribed steps. Despite finding procedural irregularities, the Court noted that the petition had become academic as the land sought to be expropriated had already been acquired by a private entity and converted into a housing project. On the issue of whether a motion to dismiss in an expropriation case must be set for hearing: The Court clarified that a motion to dismiss in an expropriation case, as provided for in Section 3 of Rule 67, is the responsive pleading that joins the issues for trial on the merits and is not an ordinary motion that must be set for hearing. However, the Court also noted that the rule does not expressly prohibit setting such a motion for hearing, and the respondent court's order indicated that it was within its discretion to set motions for hearing to enable parties to expound their views. The Court cited Nieto vs. Yap which interpreted Section 4 of Rule 69 (now Rule 67) stating that the first step is the presentation of objections and defenses in a single motion to dismiss, followed by a hearing on the motion and an unfavorable resolution thereon by the court.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss in an expropriation case, like ordinary motions, must be set for hearing and acted upon by the court before any other action can be taken in the proceedings, and the appointment of commissioners without a prior order of condemnation constitutes an irregular exercise of judicial power amounting to an abuse of discretion.