GR 205544; (June, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205544 , June 29, 2016
MUNICIPALITY OF CORDOVA, PROVINCE OF CEBU; THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF CORDOVA; and THE MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CORDOVA, Petitioners, vs. PATHFINDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and TOPANGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
The Municipality of Cordova, through its Sangguniang Bayan, enacted Ordinance No. 003-2011 to expropriate portions of land owned by Pathfinder Development Corporation and Topanga Development Corporation for the construction of a road leading to a municipal port. The municipal mayor subsequently filed an expropriation complaint and a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. The respondent corporations opposed the expropriation and filed a separate action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City seeking to declare the expropriation ordinance null and void, arguing a violation of due process due to an alleged lack of a prior offer to purchase. They also filed an urgent motion to suspend the expropriation proceedings in the Lapu-Lapu RTC based on a prejudicial question.
The Lapu-Lapu RTC denied the motion to suspend and granted the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the municipality. The corporations moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Instead of appealing the order under the rules governing expropriation (Rule 67), they filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, reversed the RTC orders, and remanded the case for a full reception of evidence on the municipality’s authority and the propriety of the expropriation.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in giving due course to the respondents’ Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 despite the availability of the remedy of appeal under Rule 67.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA Decision. The Court held that the CA erred in entertaining the special civil action for certiorari. The proper remedy from the RTC’s order granting the writ of possession was an ordinary appeal under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. While exceptions exist to the rule that certiorari is not allowed when appeal is available—such as to prevent irreparable damage, address a pure question of law, or where there is grave abuse of discretion—none were present here.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing the writ of possession. In expropriation cases, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial upon the filing of a sufficient complaint and the deposit of an amount equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the property’s fair market value based on the current tax declaration. The municipality had complied with these mandatory requirements. The respondents’ claim of a prejudicial question arising from their separate action for nullity did not affect the ministerial duty to issue the writ, as the validity of the taking is a matter for determination in the main expropriation proceedings. Consequently, the RTC orders were reinstated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for the continuation of the expropriation proceedings.