CASE DIGEST: Republic vs. DPWH
G.R. No.171496 March 3, 2014
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH),Petitioner,v. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,Respondents.
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent, Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, is the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 5-B-2 with an area of 70,278 square meters in Pasig City. Upon the request of the Department of Public Works and Highways, respondent Ortigas caused the segregation of its property into five lots and reserved one portion for road widening for the C-5 flyover project. Respondent Ortigas filed with the RTC of Pasig a petition for authority to sell to the government part of its segregated property. RTC, finding merit to the petition issued an order authorizing the sale of the property to Republic of the Philippines.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an opposition alleging that respondent Ortigas' property can only be conveyed by way of donation to the government, citing Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration Decree. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision but the same was denied. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to the CA but the CA dismissed the motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, stating that even if the order denying the motion for reconsideration is appealable, the same was still dismissible for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner raised only a question of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in denying the motion for reconsideration
Whether or not CA erred in affirming trial courts order granting authority to sell to Ortigas
HELD:
Remedial Law: Appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 must raise both questions of fact and law.
There is a question of law when the appellant raises an issue as to what law shall be applied on a given set of facts. Questions of law do "not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented."
The sole issue raised by petitioner Republic of the Philippines to the Court of Appeals is whether respondent Ortigas property should be conveyed to it only by donation, in accordance with Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. This question involves the interpretation and application of the provision. It does not require the Court of Appeals to examine the truth or falsity of the facts presented. Neither does it invite a review of the evidence. The issue raised before the Court of Appeals was, therefore, a question purely of law. The proper mode of appeal is through a petition for review under Rule 45. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal on this ground.
Political Law: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines reliance on Section 50 of the Property Registration Decree is erroneous. Section 50 contemplates roads and streets in a subdivided property, not public thoroughfares built on a private property that was taken from an owner for public purpose. A public thoroughfare is not a subdivision road or street.
More importantly, when there is taking of private property for some public purpose, the owner of the property taken is entitled to be compensated. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines construction of a road a permanent structure on respondent Ortigas property for the use of the general public is an obvious permanent entry on petitioner Republic of the Philippines part. Given that the road was constructed for general public use stamps it with public character, and coursing the entry through the Department of Public Works and Highways gives it a color of legal authority.
In this case, the lot was reserved for road widening at the instance of petitioner Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines intention to take the property for public use was obvious from the completion of the road widening for the C-5 flyover project and from the fact that the general public was already taking advantage of the thoroughfare. When the road or street was delineated upon government request and taken for public use, as in this case, the government has no choice but to compensate the owner for his or her sacrifice, lest it violates the constitutional provision against taking without just compensation.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH),Petitioner,v. ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,Respondents.
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent, Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership, is the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 5-B-2 with an area of 70,278 square meters in Pasig City. Upon the request of the Department of Public Works and Highways, respondent Ortigas caused the segregation of its property into five lots and reserved one portion for road widening for the C-5 flyover project. Respondent Ortigas filed with the RTC of Pasig a petition for authority to sell to the government part of its segregated property. RTC, finding merit to the petition issued an order authorizing the sale of the property to Republic of the Philippines.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed an opposition alleging that respondent Ortigas' property can only be conveyed by way of donation to the government, citing Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration Decree. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision but the same was denied. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to the CA but the CA dismissed the motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, stating that even if the order denying the motion for reconsideration is appealable, the same was still dismissible for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner raised only a question of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in denying the motion for reconsideration
Whether or not CA erred in affirming trial courts order granting authority to sell to Ortigas
HELD:
Remedial Law: Appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 must raise both questions of fact and law.
There is a question of law when the appellant raises an issue as to what law shall be applied on a given set of facts. Questions of law do "not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented."
The sole issue raised by petitioner Republic of the Philippines to the Court of Appeals is whether respondent Ortigas property should be conveyed to it only by donation, in accordance with Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. This question involves the interpretation and application of the provision. It does not require the Court of Appeals to examine the truth or falsity of the facts presented. Neither does it invite a review of the evidence. The issue raised before the Court of Appeals was, therefore, a question purely of law. The proper mode of appeal is through a petition for review under Rule 45. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal on this ground.
Political Law: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines reliance on Section 50 of the Property Registration Decree is erroneous. Section 50 contemplates roads and streets in a subdivided property, not public thoroughfares built on a private property that was taken from an owner for public purpose. A public thoroughfare is not a subdivision road or street.
More importantly, when there is taking of private property for some public purpose, the owner of the property taken is entitled to be compensated. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines construction of a road a permanent structure on respondent Ortigas property for the use of the general public is an obvious permanent entry on petitioner Republic of the Philippines part. Given that the road was constructed for general public use stamps it with public character, and coursing the entry through the Department of Public Works and Highways gives it a color of legal authority.
In this case, the lot was reserved for road widening at the instance of petitioner Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines intention to take the property for public use was obvious from the completion of the road widening for the C-5 flyover project and from the fact that the general public was already taking advantage of the thoroughfare. When the road or street was delineated upon government request and taken for public use, as in this case, the government has no choice but to compensate the owner for his or her sacrifice, lest it violates the constitutional provision against taking without just compensation.
