G.R. No. 177611. 177611. April 18, 2012. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES UNI!ERSIT" OF THE PHILIPPINES#, petitioner, petitioner ,
RO$OLFO L. LEGASPI, SR., %UEROBIN L. LEGASPI, OFELIA LEGASPI&'UELA,
vs.
PURISI'A LEGASPI !$A. $E 'ON$E(AR, !ICENTE LEGASPI, RO$OLFO LEGASPI II, )*+ SPOUSES ROSALINA LIBO&ON )*+ $O'INA$OR LIBO&ON, respondents. respondents .
N)-r o/ C) PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS Rosalina sold 40,!!"s#uare $eter propert% to &niversit% of the Philippines in the 'isa%as (&P') for the consideration of P*+,4-.*0. As a conse#uence, &P' i$$ediatel% too possession of the propert% and, in line with its educational develop$ent plan, started /uildin thereon road networs, infrastructure and school facilities. The record shows that further use and develop$ent of the propert% was intended /% &P'. Rosalina infor$ed &P' that she wanted to rescind the sale of the propert% on the round that she was no loner the owner of the propert% at the ti$e she sold it to &P'. Prior to the e1ecution of deed of sale in favor of &P', she had alread% conve%ed it /% wa% of /arter in favor of 2easpi, et al. The su/3ect lot or 2ot was su/divided su/divided into ten lots and separatel% reistered reistered under the na$e of 2easpi, 2easpi, et al.
2ot was su/divide su/divided d into 5+0-"A, 5+0-"A, 5+0-"6, 5+0-"6, 5+0-"C, 5+0-"C, 5+0-"7, 5+0-"7,
5+0-"E, 5+0-"8, 5+0-"9, 5+0-":, 5+0-"I, and 5+0-";.
On < Auust --, petitioner, thru &P', =led a co$plaint for e$inent do$ain aainst 2easpi, et al. &P' souht con=r$ation of its riht of conde$nation as well as the =1in of the 3ust co$pensation for the propert%. The RTC issued an order of conde$nation dated April --5, upholdin &P'>s riht to e1propriate said three parcels which had /een deno$inated as 2ot Nos. 5+0-"6, 5+0-" C and 5+0-"E. Considerin that the foreoin conde$nation order covered onl% three (!) of the ten (0) lots co$prisin the su/3ect propert%, petitioner $oved for the continuation of the conde$nation proceedins insofar as the re$ainin seven lots were concerned. ?ithout resolvin the $otion, however, the RTC went on to issue of =1in the 3ust co$pensation for 2ot Nos. 5+0-"6, 5+0-"C and 5+0-"E, /ased on the evidence adduced /% the parties and the report su/$itted /% the co$$issioners. On Nove$/er 500!, the RTC further issued a conde$nation order of the sa$e date, upholdin petitioner>s authorit% to e1propriate the re$ainin seven lots co$prisin the propert%, na$el%, 2ot Nos. 5+0-"A, 5+0-"7, 5+0-"8, 5+0-"9, 5+0-":, 5+0-"I and 5+0-";. E1cludin therefro$ the area occupied /% the 'illa @arina 6each. &P' =led $otions for reconsideration on the round that the e1clusion of the 'illa @arina 6each Resort area fro$ the conde$ned lots is /ereft of leal /asis and contrar% to the evidence presented in the case which showed that the sa$e is an interal part of the &P'>s develop$ental plan for research and educational use. On the other hand, respondents also =led their $anifestation and partial $otion for reconsideration of the sa$e order allein, a$on other $atters, that 2ot Nos. 5+0-"8, 5+0-"9, 5+0-":, 5+0-"I and 5+0-"; co$prise the area occupied /% 'illa @arina 6each Resort. The RTC issued the order dated ! @a% 5004, den%in the $otion for reconsideration =led /% &P' and ranted the $anifestation and partial $otion for reconsideration =led /% 2easpi, et al. The 3ud$ent denied the e1propriation of su/3ect 2ots Nos. 5+0-"A, 5+0-"7, 5+0-"8, 5+0-"9, 5+0-" :, 5+0-"I and 5+0-";. &P' =led a petition for certiorari and $anda$us under Rule+* /efore the Court of Appeals. It was assailin the RTC>s order dated ! @a% 5004 on the round that rave a/use of discretion attended the denial of the e1propriation of the su/3ect lots after the riht to e1propriate the sa$e was earlier upheld in the liewise assailed order dated Nove$/er 500!. The CA denied the petition on the round that, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure , the proper re$ed% fro$ said assailed orders was an ordinar% appeal which, once lost, cannot /e su/stituted /% a Rule +* petition for certiorari and mandamus.
ISSUE ?hether or not an ordinar% appeal, under Rule +, can /e su/stituted /% a Rule +* petition for certiorari and mandamus.
HEL$ es, in certain instances. Althouh certiorari cannot /e enerall% used as a su/stitute for a lapsed appeal, the CA lost siht of the fact, however, that the rule had /een rela1ed on a nu$/er of occasions, where its riid application will result in a $anifest failure or $iscarriae of 3ustice. This
Court has allowed the issuance of a writ of certiorari despite the availa/ilit% of appeal where the latter re$ed% is not ade#uate or e#uall% /ene=cial, speed% and suBcient or there is need to pro$ptl% relieve the arieved part% fro$ the in3urious eects of the acts of an inferior court or tri/unal. In SMI Development Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines , the Court sini=cantl% upheld the CA>s rant of the Rule +* petition for certiorari =led in lieu of an ordinar% appeal which was not considered a speed% and ade#uate re$ed% that can suBcientl% address the urent need of the National Childrens !ospital to e1pand and e1tend #ualit% $edical and other health services to indient patients. Indeed, certiorari and appeal are not $utuall% e1clusive re$edies in certain e1ceptional cases, such as when there is rave a/use of discretion or when pu/lic welfare so re#uires. Petitioner has $ore than a$pl% de$onstrated that the RTC>s issuance of the assailed orders dated Nove$/er 500! and ! @a% 5004 was attended with rave a/use of discretion. In the conte1t of a Rule +* petition for certiorari, rave a/use of discretion is $eant such capricious and whi$sical e1ercise of 3ud$ent as is e#uivalent to lac of 3urisdiction. It has /een ruled that the a/use of discretion $ust /e so patent and ross as to a$ount to an evasion of a positive dut% or a virtual refusal to perfor$ a dut% en3oined /% law or to act at all in conte$plation of law, as where the power is e1ercised in an ar/itrar% and despotic $anner /% reason of passion or hostilit%. To Dupre$e Court>s $ind, the rave a/use of discretion i$puta/le aainst the RTC was $anifested as earl% in the assailed Nove$/er 500! order where, without ivin an% rationale therefor, and while it upheld petitioner>s riht of e1propriation over 2ot Nos. 5+0-"A, 5+0-"7, 5+0-"8, 5+0-"9, 5+0-":, 5+0-"I and 5+0-";, it e1cluded the area occupied /% the 'illa @arina 6each Resort owned and operated /% respondent Rodolfo 2easpi, Dr. No less than the Constitution $andates that (n)o decision shall /e rendered /% an% court without e1pressin therein clearl% and distinctl% the facts and the law on which it is /ased.
G.R. No. 177611. April 18, 2012. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES UNI!ERSIT" OF THE PHILIPPINES#, piio*r,
RO$OLFO L. LEGASPI, SR., %UEROBIN L. LEGASPI, OFELIA LEGASPI&'UELA,
vs.
PURISI'A LEGASPI !$A. $E 'ON$E(AR, !ICENTE LEGASPI, RO$OLFO LEGASPI II, )*+ SPOUSES ROSALINA LIBO&ON )*+ $O'INA$OR LIBO&ON, rpo*+*.
N)-r o/ C) Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari =led pursuant to Rule 4* of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the 7ecision dated 5+ April 500 rendered /% the Eihteenth 7ivision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA"9.R. DP No. <*!*, den%in for lac of $erit the Rule +* petition for certiorari =led /% petitioner Repu/lic of the Philippines, thru the &niversit% of the Philippines in the 'isa%as (&P'), for the nulli=cation of the orders dated Nove$/er 500! and ! @a% 5004 issued /% the :on. Roer 6. Patricio, Presidin ;ude of 6ranch !< of the Reional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo Cit%, in the e1propriation case doceted thereat as Civil Case No. --5. FACTS
In 7ece$/er -<, Rosalina 2i/o"on acco$plished a letter of intent sinif%in her willinness to sell to &P' 2ot No. of Psu"-!-5 A$d., situated at @ia"ao, Iloilo reistered in her na$e under OCT No. 8"50050 of the Iloilo provincial reistr%. A 7eed of 7e=nite Dale was e1ecuted /% the parties where/% Rosalina, with the confor$it% of her then tenant, 'icente 2i/o"on, sold the su/3ect parcel of land to &P' for P*+,4-.*0. &P' i$$ediatel% too possession of the propert% and, in line with its educational develop$ent plan, started /uildin thereon road networs, infrastructure and school facilities. The record shows further use and develop$ent of the propert% was su/se#uentl% taen up at the 0-!rd $eetin of the &P 6oard of Reents held in FueGon Cit% on 7ece$/er *, --*.
On ;anuar% 4, -<0, Rosalina wrote a letter infor$in &P' that she was rescindin the sale on the round that she was no loner the owner of the propert%. That she had conve%ed the propert% on Depte$/er *, -< /% wa% of /arter or e1chane in favor of the respondents. &P' learned that 2ot was su/divided into ten lots deno$inated and reistered in the na$e of respondents. The Dolicitor 9eneral =led aainst the respondents the co$plaint for e$inent do$ain /efore the Reional Trial Court. Petitioner alleed, a$on other $atters, that the su/3ect parcel is within the approved and delineated ca$pus of the &P' which had well"esta/lished its presence in the area /% /uildin its la/oratories, classroo$s, facult% and student centers, a$on other facilitiesH and, that it had /een constrained to resort to e1propriation in view of the failure of its eorts to neotiate with respondents for the retention of the propert% on which it constructed considera/le i$prove$ents alread% /ein used for acade$ic purposes. @aintainin that the fair $aret value of the propert% at the ti$e of its entr% was P4-,5-<.00, &P' souht con=r$ation of its riht of conde$nation as well as the =1in of the 3ust co$pensation for the propert%. On 5 Depte$/er --, the RTC issued an order rantin petitioner>s $otion to allow &P' to continue its possession of the su/3ect parcel upon deposit with the Iloilo Provincial Treasurer of the su$ of P*0,00.00, representin the provisional valuation of the propert%. In their answer the respondents averred that petitioner>s riht of e1propriation should onl% /e li$ited to the three lots covered /% Transfer Certi=cate of Title (TCT) Nos. T"<-!, <-4 and <-+, =ndin no opposition, the RTC issued an order of conde$nation upholdin &P'>s riht to e1propriate said three parcels of land. Petitioner $oved for the continuation of the conde$nation proceedin insofar as the re$ainin seven parcels of land were concerned. Petitioner also =led an a$ended co$plaint on Nove$/er 0, --4, i$pleadin additional defendants the Rural 6an of @ia"ao (Iloilo), Inc. (R6@I), the Philippine National 6an (PN6) and the Iloilo 8inance Corporation (I8C), in view of the $ortaes constituted in their favor /% respondents over so$e of the lots into which the 2ot had /een su/divided. Clai$in to have relied on the certi=cates of title presented to the$ /% the $ortaors, however, R6@I, PN6 and I8C =led their individual answers $aintainin that the said $ortaes were entered into for value and in ood faith. The issues thus 3oined and the pre"trial conference su/se#uentl% ter$inated, the RTC
went on to issue the ;ul% , -- pre"trial order su$$ariGin the parties> ad$issions, their respective positions as well as the issues to /e tried in the case. On April !, --<, the OBce of the &P' Chancellor sent respondent Rodolfo 2easpi a letter, protestin aainst the latter>s occupation of a portion of the propert% in litiation. Callin the RTC>s attention to its Depte$/er 5, -- Order which allowed &P'>s continued possession of the propert%, petitioner also =led its ;ul% --< $anifestation and $otion pra%in for the rant of a writ of possession over the entiret% of 2ot . ?ithout resolvin the $otion, however, the RTC went on to issue the ;une +, 5000 order, =1in the 3ust co$pensation for 2ot Nos. 5+0-"6, 5+0-"C and 5+0-"E, /ased on the evidence adduced /% the parties and the report su/$itted /% the co$$issioners. On Nove$/er , 500!, the RTC further issued the conde$nation order of the sa$e date, upholdin petitioner>s authorit% to e1propriate the re$ainin seven lots co$prisin the propert%. E1cludin the area occupied /% the 'illa @arina 6each Resort which respondent Rodolfo 2easpi Dr. operated in the pre$ises. On 7ece$/er -, 500!, petitioner and &P' =led $otions for reconsideration of the foreoin order on the round that the e1clusion of the 'illa @arina 6each Resort fro$ the conde$ned lots is /ereft of leal /asis and contrar% to the evidence presented in the case which showed that the sa$e is an interal part of the &P'>s develop$ental plan for research and educational use. On which the court ranted. Arieved, petitioner =led on Auust +, 5004 the Rule +* petition for certiorari and $anda$us with the Court of Appeals, assailin the RTC>s order dated ! @a% 5004 on the round that rave a/use of discretion attended the denial of the e1propriation of the su/3ect lots after the riht to e1propriate the sa$e was earlier upheld in the liewise assailed order dated Nove$/er , 500!. On April 5+, 500, the CA denied the petition on the round that, under Rule + of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the proper re$ed% fro$ said assailed orders was an ordinar% appeal which, once lost, cannot /e su/stituted /% a Rule +* petition for certiorari and mandamus. Even if petitioner>s choice of re$ed% were, $oreover, to /e considered proper under the circu$stances, the CA ruled that the RTC>s issuance of said assailed orders was well within its power and dut% to review, a$end or reverse its =ndins and conclusions if it dee$s it necessar% for the ad$inistration of 3ustice within the scope of its 3urisdiction. ?ithout $ovin for a reconsideration of the foreoin decision, petitioner =led the petition at /ench on 5* ;une 500. ISSUE The court of appeals erred on a #uestion of law in den%in the petition for certiorari and aBr$in the order dated @a% !, 5004 of /ranch !< of the Reional Trial Court of Iloilo cit% which did not state the facts and the law on which it is /ased. RULING Narrow in scope and une1i/le in character, a petition for certiorari is, concededl%, intended to correct errors of 3urisdiction or rave a/use of discretion a$ountin to lac or e1cess of 3urisdiction and lies onl% when there is no appeal nor an% plain, speed% and ade#uate re$ed% in the ordinar% course of
law. :ence, the CA denied the petition =led /% petitioner on the principle that certiorari cannot /e used as su/stitute for an appeal that has /een lost. Dince it is a re#uire$ent of due process that the parties to a litiation /e infor$ed of how it was decided, with an e1planation of the factual and leal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court, the rule is settled that a decision that does not confor$ to the for$ and su/stance re#uired /% the Constitution and the law is void and dee$ed leall% ine1istent. Petitioner has $ore than a$pl% de$onstrated that the RTC>s issuance of the assailed orders dated Nove$/er 500! and ! @a% 5004 was attended with rave a/use of discretion. In the conte1t of a Rule +* petition for certiorari, rave a/use of discretion is $eant such capricious and whi$sical e1ercise of 3ud$ent as is e#uivalent to lac of 3urisdiction. It has /een ruled that the a/use of discretion $ust /e so patent and ross as to a$ount to an evasion of a positive dut% or a virtual refusal to perfor$ a dut% en3oined /% law or to act at all in conte$plation of law, as where the power is e1ercised in an ar/itrar% and despotic $anner /% reason of passion or hostilit%. $ipoii3 Porio* ?:ERE8ORE, pre$ises considered, the CA>s 7ecision dated 5+ April 500 is RE'ERDE7 and DET ADI7E. In lieu thereof, another is entered N&22IN9 the assailed orders dated Nove$/er 500! and ! @a% 5004 and directin the Reional Trial Court of Iloilo Cit%, 6ranch !< to resolve the case in co$pliance with Dection 4, Article 'III of the Constitution and in accordance with the evidence on record. No.JTo deter$ine 3ust co$pensation, the trial court should =rst ascertain the $aret value of the propert%, to which should /e added the conse#uential da$aes after deductin therefro$ the conse#uential /ene=ts which $a% arise fro$ the e1propriation, and if the conse#uential /ene=ts e1ceed the conse#uential da$aes, these ite$s should /e disrearded altoether as the /asic value of the propert% should /e paid in ever% case. ( Republic vs. Court of "ppeals, *-+ DCRA * K500-L) It is error to treat a particular piece of land as residential and to accept the chane in the character of the propert% without an% proof that authoriGed land conversion had taen placeJin e1propriation cases (includin cases involvin lands for ararian refor$), the propert%>s character refers to its actual use at the ti$e of tain, not its potential uses. (#and $an% of the Philippines vs. #ivioco, +! DCRA <+ K500L)
