G.R. No. 194247; June 19, 2013
BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. ROSA REYES, CENANDO REYES and CARLOS REYES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) filed three complaints for expropriation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dinalupihan, Bataan, against respondents Rosa Reyes, Cenando Reyes, and Carlos Reyes. The expropriation was for parcels of land needed for the construction of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEx). BCDA deposited amounts representing 100% of the zonal value of the properties, based on a Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) valuation of ₱20.00 per square meter for irrigated riceland. In their Answers, respondents did not object to the expropriation but claimed the offered compensation was too low, asserting their properties had been reclassified from agricultural to residential in 2003, with a BIR zonal value ranging from ₱3,000.00 to ₱6,000.00 per square meter. They expressed willingness to accept ₱3,000.00 per square meter as just compensation. Respondents filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing no genuine issues remained except the amount of just compensation. BCDA opposed, contending that summary judgment under Rule 35 applies only to ordinary civil actions and that the mandatory appointment of commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court precludes summary judgment. The RTC granted the motion for summary judgment and ordered BCDA to pay just compensation at ₱3,000.00 per square meter. BCDA filed a motion for reconsideration, raising factual issues including the validity of the reclassification, the correct zonal valuation (arguing the lots were “interior lots” with lower value), the necessity of appointing commissioners, and an alleged overlap of titles with the Philippine National Bank. The RTC denied the motion. BCDA filed a notice of ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). Respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it raised only questions of law and thus the proper mode was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The CA dismissed BCDA’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the appeal raised only questions of law regarding the propriety of the summary judgment, and declared the RTC’s order final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that the CA erred in dismissing BCDA’s appeal. While the CA correctly noted that an appeal from a summary judgment generally raises only questions of law, BCDA’s appeal in this case raised both questions of law and fact. The factual issues raised by BCDA in its motion for reconsideration and appeal—specifically, the validity of the reclassification of the properties, the correct classification and zonal valuation of the lots as “interior lots,” and the alleged overlap of titles—were genuine factual issues that required the presentation and evaluation of evidence. These issues precluded the rendition of a summary judgment. A summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Since these factual issues existed, the RTC should have conducted a full trial. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation in expropriation cases is mandatory under Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. The RTC’s failure to appoint commissioners was a reversible error. Consequently, the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings, including the appointment of commissioners and the reception of evidence on the factual issues raised.