GR 137537; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137537, January 28, 2000
SMI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH through the NATIONAL CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, respondent.
FACTS
The Republic, through the Department of Health, filed a complaint for eminent domain to expropriate three parcels of land owned by SMI Development Corporation adjacent to the National Children’s Hospital. After depositing an amount equivalent to the aggregate assessed value of the property, the Republic filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. SMI filed a Motion to Dismiss and Opposition, arguing the complaint lacked cause of action, the taking was unnecessary, and the government failed to negotiate. It also contested the constitutionality of the procedure allowing immediate possession upon mere deposit of the assessed value.
The Regional Trial Court granted SMI’s Motion to Dismiss, finding the factual allegations in the motion regarding the lack of necessity for expropriation to be uncontroverted. The Republic filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which annulled the RTC’s order. The CA ruled the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction by dismissing the complaint without receiving evidence, as the Motion to Dismiss under the then-prevailing Rule 67 partook of the nature of an answer. SMI elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) the propriety of the certiorari remedy; (2) the correctness of the RTC’s dismissal without receiving evidence; and (3) whether the complaint stated a cause of action.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied SMI’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On procedure, the Court held certiorari was the proper remedy because the RTC’s order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and an appeal would not have been an adequate remedy under the circumstances.
On the substantive issue, the Court clarified the nature of a motion to dismiss in eminent domain proceedings under the old rules (prior to the 1997 amendments). Citing Section 3 of the old Rule 67, the Court ruled that such a motion partook of the nature of an answer. Consequently, the factual allegations therein, particularly those contesting the necessity of the expropriation, were deemed denied by the plaintiff and required full trial for resolution. The RTC thus committed grave abuse of discretion by treating the motion as a standard Rule 16 motion and granting it based on the supposed uncontroverted factual allegations without conducting a hearing or receiving evidence. The only ground that could be resolved without evidence was lack of cause of action, which the Court found absent as the complaint sufficiently alleged the government’s right of eminent domain and the purpose for the taking. The determination of public use and necessity is a factual matter requiring a hearing. The Court also upheld the constitutionality of the procedure allowing immediate issuance of a writ of possession upon deposit of the assessed value.