City of Manila v. Serrano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7833 authorizing the expropriation of certain properties in Manila's First District for the Land Use Development Program. Among the properties was Lot 1-C, with an area of 343.10 square meters. The ownership of Lot 1-C had a complex history involving several transfers and inheritance. The respondents, the Serrano siblings, claimed to be the heirs of Demetria De Guia, who allegedly acquired the lot from Lee Kian Hui, and asserted they had been bona fide occupants for over 40 years. They argued that expropriation would render them landless and that the lot was exempt from expropriation under RA 7279 because dividing it would result in each heir receiving only about 50 square meters. Procedural History: The City of Manila filed an amended complaint for expropriation. The trial court ordered the City to deposit P1,825,241.00 as the assessed value of the properties. Subsequently, the trial court issued an order dated December 15, 1998, directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the City. The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging that the expropriation violated RA 7279's exemption for small residential properties (not exceeding 300 square meters) and that the City had not exhausted other modes of land acquisition as required by the law. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, enjoining the expropriation, holding that while Lot 1-C exceeded the 300-square-meter exemption, the City had not first tried other modes of acquisition as mandated by RA 7279, citing the Filstream International Inc. v. Court of Appeals ruling. The Petition: The City of Manila filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the certiorari petition, in concluding that the City failed to comply with RA 7279 before the writ of possession was issued, and in permanently enjoining the trial court from proceeding with the expropriation complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents' remedy against the trial court's order granting a writ of possession was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deciding issues not raised in the trial court, specifically compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in presuming that Lot 1-C had been condemned and in enjoining the expropriation proceedings prematurely.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the order of the trial court dated December 15, 1998. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy, not a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition for review is an appeal from a final judgment or order, whereas the trial court's order granting a writ of possession was interlocutory. Certiorari is available when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The respondents' petition before the Court of Appeals alleged that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for the writ of possession. On issues decided by the Court of Appeals: The Court found that the respondents did raise the propriety of the expropriation in relation to RA 7279 in their petition before the Court of Appeals. While they focused on the 'small property' exemption, the Court of Appeals was justified in looking into other provisions of RA 7279 concerning expropriation proceedings to fully address the issues presented. The Court clarified that the issue was not whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the Filstream doctrine, but whether it was proper for them to consider the relevant provisions of RA 7279. On the premature determination of compliance with RA 7279: The Court found this contention to be well-taken. The Court explained that under Rule 67, Section 2, the issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial upon the filing of a sufficient complaint and the deposit of the assessed value of the property. The Court of Appeals erred in applying the Filstream ruling, which involved an order of condemnation that had already become final. In the present case, the trial court had not yet gone beyond issuing the writ of possession, and a hearing was still to be held to determine compliance with RA 7279. Therefore, it was premature to conclude that the City resorted to expropriation without first trying other modes of acquisition.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a writ of possession in expropriation proceedings is ministerial upon compliance with the requirements of Rule 67, Section 2. It is premature to determine compliance with RA 7279, Sections 9 and 10, before the condemnation hearing.