Municipality of San Pedro v. Castillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines initiated an expropriation proceeding (Civil Case No. 6875) to acquire a large parcel of land within the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan. The land was occupied by approximately 1,160 tenants. The government sought to provisionally fix the land's value at P171,808, deposit this sum, and obtain immediate possession, pending the appointment of commissioners to determine the final value. Procedural History: The Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna, intervened in the expropriation case, asserting it was the beneficiary of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan and the specific parcel to be expropriated, claiming its value was only P60,000. The defendants, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young, acknowledged the government's right to expropriate but contested the provisional value, asserting ownership and claiming damages totaling P1,500,000. The trial court denied the defendants' request to withdraw the provisional deposit due to the dispute over ownership. Subsequently, the respondent judge appointed three commissioners: one for the government, one for the defendants (Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young), and one chosen by the court. The petitioner objected to this order, arguing that its claim of adverse rights had not been resolved and that its proposed commissioner was not appointed. The Petition: The Municipality of San Pedro filed this petition for certiorari to nullify the respondent judge's order appointing commissioners. The petitioner argued that the judge should have first determined the conflicting claims of ownership and beneficiary rights before appointing appraisal commissioners. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that its proposed commissioner should have been appointed and that the judge abused his discretion by not resolving the ownership dispute prior to the appointment of the appraisal commission. The petitioner sought to compel the judge to first decide the adverse rights and then appoint commissioners representing all interested parties.
Issue(s)
Whether the remedy of certiorari lies against the order appointing commissioners on appraisal. Whether the respondent judge abused his discretion in appointing commissioners on appraisal despite the petitioner's claim of adverse rights and before determining the controversy between the parties. Whether the respondent judge was obliged to decide the controversy between the petitioner, Colegio de San Jose, and Carlos Young before appointing commissioners on appraisal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order appointing commissioners on appraisal is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and abuse of discretion in appointing commissioners: The remedy of certiorari is available only when a court lacks jurisdiction, exceeds its jurisdiction, or gravely abuses its discretion. Section 243 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the appointment of commissioners on appraisal if the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff's right to condemn or if the court finds such right exists. In this case, the defendants, Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young, expressly admitted the government's right to expropriate. Therefore, the respondent judge was authorized to appoint commissioners. The petitioner's claim of being a beneficiary by escheat constitutes an adverse right, but this does not prevent the court from proceeding with the appointment of commissioners, especially since the government recognized Colegio de San Jose as the owner for the purpose of the expropriation. The court's action was within its jurisdiction and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. On the obligation to determine adverse rights beforehand: The petitioner's claim that the respondent judge should have decided the controversy between it and the other parties before appointing commissioners is unfounded. Section 243 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not obligate the judge to resolve such disputes prior to appointing commissioners. The petitioner's assertion of being a beneficiary, without claiming ownership, does not impede the expropriation proceedings. The court is not prevented from appointing commissioners while a controversy regarding beneficial interest or ownership exists among other parties, as long as the right to expropriate itself is not contested by the record owner or is established. On the appointment of a specific commissioner: The selection of commissioners is left to the sound discretion of the court. Section 243 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that commissioners be judicious and disinterested landowners. It does not grant parties the right to select the commissioners. The petitioner's proposed commissioner was not appointed, but this does not invalidate the court's order, as the court has the prerogative to choose individuals it deems fit, provided they meet the statutory qualifications.
Main Doctrine
In expropriation proceedings, a court does not abuse its discretion in appointing commissioners on appraisal when the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff's right to expropriate, even if an intervenor claims adverse rights, as the court is not obliged to decide the controversy between the parties beforehand.