G.R. No. 161400 , September 2, 2005
ZENAIDA ORTEGA, represented by Her Attorney-in-Fact OCTAVIO ALVAREZ and/or ZEMVE ORTEGA ALVAREZ, Petitioners, vs. THE QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT, THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY & THE NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE CORP., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zenaida Ortega filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court assailing the validity of Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1304, Series of 2003. The ordinance reclassified a parcel of land, described as an accretion/excess lot or a portion of an easement situated between Block 14, Psd-39577 and Culiat Creek in Barangay Vasra, Quezon City, as residential land for distribution or sale to informal settlers. The ordinance stemmed from earlier proposed measures (Proposed Ordinance No. 2002-07 and Proposed Resolution No. 2003-13) related to a socialized housing project under the Community Mortgage Program. Petitioner claimed to be the rightful owner of the land subject of the ordinance, alleging that it overlapped with her properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title. She argued that the enactment violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, as her letter-protests to the City Council were not heeded. She further contended that, under Articles 457 and 620 of the Civil Code, any accretion belonged to her as the adjoining landowner, and that the intended beneficiaries were not informal settlers but her lessees who had been ordered ejected. The Quezon City Government, in its Comment, argued the petition was premature and raised factual questions, asserting its ownership evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 735. The National Housing Authority (NHA) prayed for dismissal, characterizing the petition as one for declaratory relief over which the Supreme Court lacks original jurisdiction. The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) adopted the Quezon City government’s position and stated it was not a party to the transactions.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can exercise original jurisdiction over the petition directly assailing the validity of Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1304.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court held that under Article VIII, Section 5(2)(a) of the Constitution, its power to review the constitutionality or validity of an ordinance is exercised only “on appeal or certiorari” from “final judgments and orders of lower courts.” There was no final judgment from any lower court in this case. The Court does not conduct original trials or receive evidence on factual issues at first instance; its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing or revising final judgments of lower courts based on their findings of fact.
The petition could not be treated as one for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, as such actions must be brought in the appropriate Regional Trial Court, not the Supreme Court. The Court found no statutory or jurisprudential basis for assuming original and exclusive jurisdiction over a declaratory relief action, even if it raised only questions of law.
Furthermore, the petition did not warrant being treated as one for prohibition. The judicial policy remains that direct resort to the Supreme Court is not allowed except when redress cannot be obtained in lower courts or under exceptional and compelling circumstances, which were not alleged or present here. The core of petitioner’s challenge—her claim of superior ownership—was a factual issue requiring evidentiary determination by a trial court. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.