G.R. No. 157972. October 30, 2006.
HEIRS OF SPS. LUCIANO AND CONSOLACION VENTURILLO, REPRESENTED BY ROWENA B. VENTURILLO-SUCALDITO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JESUS V. QUITAIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC-BR. 15, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION, DAVAO CITY AND ENGR. MEINRADO R. METRAN, CITY ENGINEER AND BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DAVAO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of spouses who occupied a 678-square meter public land in Davao City since 1942, erected a house and paid realty taxes. In 2000, Rowena Venturillo-Sucaldito filed a sales application with the DENR. The respondent City Engineer, after an inspection recommending approval, later required the petitioners to secure a building permit for the existing structure. The petitioners complied by submitting plans. However, in 2003, the City Engineer issued a Notice of Order of Removal, citing that the area was a road right-of-way, following a barangay resolution requesting the suppression of a road.
The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a TRO and preliminary injunction to compel the issuance of the building permit and prevent demolition. The RTC initially granted a TRO. After a hearing where the City Engineer did not oppose the injunction, the court ordered the petitioners to submit formal exhibits. On the day these exhibits were submitted, the trial court, without ruling on their admissibility or waiting for the City Engineer’s comment or answer, dismissed the mandamus petition and denied the injunction. The petitioners assailed this order via certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for mandamus and denying the prayer for injunctive relief without first resolving the admissibility of the petitioners’ formal offer of exhibits and without awaiting the respondent’s comment or answer.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion and remanded the case. The Court held that the trial court’s summary dismissal violated procedural due process and precluded a proper determination of the mandamus suit’s merits. A writ of mandamus issues to compel a ministerial duty only when the petitioner’s legal right is clear and the respondent has a corresponding duty to perform. The core factual issue was whether the land was a public road right-of-way, which would justify the City Engineer’s refusal to issue a permit, or if it remained public land pending the sales application, potentially creating a ministerial duty to issue the permit.
By dismissing the case without admitting evidence or awaiting the respondent’s pleading, the trial court cut short the proceedings necessary to establish these critical facts. This arbitrary action constituted a denial of the opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the RTC order and remanded the case for reception of additional evidence and proper resolution, directing the maintenance of the status quo pending final adjudication. The proper remedy from the RTC’s final order was appeal, but certiorari was allowed due to the patent denial of due process amounting to grave abuse of discretion.