G.R. No. 155126, November 9, 2004
GABI MULTI PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of titles against several individuals, alleging that their titled parcels of land encroached upon the Sudlon National Park, a public land classified as inalienable and not disposable. The Republic later amended its complaint to implead petitioner GABI Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., to which the original defendants had sold the subject properties. To ascertain the truth of the encroachment allegation, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered a relocation survey of the disputed area. The survey was conducted by a private geodetic engineer appointed by the court and was witnessed by representatives from both the petitioner and the Republic’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The resulting survey report indicated that the titled properties were indeed located outside the boundaries of the Sudlon National Park.
Subsequently, the Republic filed an objection to the survey report, alleging irregularities in its conduct. Without conducting a hearing to substantiate these allegations, the RTC issued an order setting aside the completed relocation survey and directing the conduct of a new one. The RTC justified this by stating that the survey was “inconclusive” and that a new survey was necessary to settle the issue of encroachment. Petitioner GABI filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting it to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. The CA granted the petition, reversing the RTC order. The Republic then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the completed relocation survey and ordering a new one based on unsubstantiated allegations of irregularity?

RULING

Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a relocation survey faithfully executed pursuant to a court order carries a presumption of regularity. The survey in question was conducted by a court-appointed expert in the presence of representatives from both contending parties, which safeguarded the interests of each side. The Republic’s bare allegations of irregularity, unsupported by evidence presented in a hearing, are insufficient to overcome this presumption. A court cannot capriciously reject the results of a survey it itself ordered without factual and legal basis. The RTC’s act of ordering a new survey, based merely on an “inconclusive” finding and on objections not proven, was arbitrary and constituted an evasion of a positive duty to proceed with the case based on the evidence already at hand. Such arbitrariness is a hallmark of grave abuse of discretion, correctible by certiorari. The Supreme Court thus upheld the CA’s directive for the RTC to continue the proceedings with dispatch, utilizing the existing survey report.