Cordova v. Pathfinder
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Pathfinder Development Corporation and Topanga Development Corporation are owners of several parcels of land in Cordova, Cebu. The Municipality of Cordova, through its Sangguniang Bayan and Mayor, enacted Ordinance No. 003-2011, expropriating portions of these properties for the construction of a road access to a municipal roll-on/roll-off (RORO) port. The ordinance authorized the Mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings. Procedural History: Following the enactment of the ordinance, the Mayor filed an expropriation complaint. Pathfinder and Topanga subsequently filed an action for the Declaration of Nullity of the Expropriation Ordinance, arguing it violated their due process and equal protection rights due to the lack of a prior offer to buy. They also moved to suspend the expropriation proceedings. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied their motion for suspension and granted the municipality's motion for a writ of possession. The respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. The Petition: The CA reversed the RTC's orders, remanding the case for de novo reception of evidence on the municipality's authority and the propriety of the eminent domain exercise. The petitioners, the Municipality, Sangguniang Bayan, and Mayor of Cordova, filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in giving due course to the respondents' Rule 65 petition when an appeal under Rule 67 was available. They contend the CA should not have found the RTC to have acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in giving due course to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 despite the availability of an appeal under Rule 67. Whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order of Condemnation and the Writ of Possession.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the Orders of the Regional Trial Court. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that while a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is generally not allowed when an appeal under Rule 67 is available, exceptions exist. Certiorari may be allowed when the broader interest of justice demands it to avoid a grossly unjust result, or when the RTC order evidently constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The Court cited previous rulings where certiorari was considered proper despite the availability of appeal, particularly when the appeal would be slow, inadequate, or insufficient, or when public interest is involved. The Court emphasized that it is the inadequacy of the remedy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies, that determines the propriety of certiorari. In this case, the Court found that the CA erred in holding that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. On the exercise of eminent domain and issuance of writ of possession: The Court reiterated that eminent domain is an indispensable attribute of sovereignty, exercisable by local government units pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act 7160. The exercise of this power is subject to constitutional requirements of just compensation and due process. Judicial review of eminent domain is limited to the adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking, and public use character of the purpose. The Court clarified that expropriation proceedings have two stages: determination of the authority and propriety of the taking, and determination of just compensation. The first stage concludes with an order of condemnation. The Court noted that no hearing is required for the issuance of a writ of possession, which only demands a sufficient complaint and the required provisional deposit. The Court found that the complaint was sufficient in form and substance, and the necessity for the taking was established by the need for road access to the RORO port, which would benefit the public. Since the complaint was sufficient and the deposit was made, the issuance of the writ of possession became ministerial on the part of the RTC, and thus, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be allowed to question an order of condemnation in expropriation proceedings if the broader interest of justice demands it to avoid a grossly unjust result, or if the RTC order evidently constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, even if an appeal under Rule 67 is available. The issuance of a writ of possession in expropriation cases is ministerial upon compliance with the sufficiency of the complaint and the required provisional deposit.