G.R. No. 210001. February 06, 2023.
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HENRY SY, JR., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Public Estates Authority (PEA) and Shoemart, Inc. (SM) entered into agreements for the development of Central Business Park-1 Island A. On May 12, 1994, PEA, Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), and SM entered into an Agreement. Subsequently, on August 9, 1994, PEA and SM entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). On June 29, 1995, they executed a Deed of Undertaking, wherein SM undertook to advance Php 85,000,000.00 for relocating squatters on the property. The Deed stated this advance “shall be paid by [PEA] with land at CBP-1 Island A based on current appraisal value of the land at CBP-1 Island A at the time of drawdown.” The current appraisal value was set at Php 4,410.00 per square meter. SM issued the check for Php 85 million on June 30, 1995. On November 10, 1999, PEA advised SM that the appraisal value at the time of drawdown was Php 4,410.00 per square meter, making the advance equivalent to 19,274 square meters. In 2004, SM identified Block D as the portion it wanted. PEA’s board approved this identification via Resolution No. 3398 on February 2, 2004. On August 18, 2004, SM assigned all its rights to Henry Sy, Jr. Sy requested conveyance on October 6, 2004. PEA responded on November 12, 2004, stating it would be prudent to refer the matter to the Commission on Audit (COA). PEA later asked COA’s opinion on whether the land value should be based on the date of drawdown or the present value, but COA declined, stating the matter was sub judice. Sy filed a complaint for specific performance on June 29, 2005. The trial court ruled in favor of Sy on February 28, 2008, ordering PEA to convey the 19,274 sqm lot. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. PEA filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Petition for Certiorari filed by PEA is the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals’ Decision which affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Sy.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the Petition for Certiorari. The remedies of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 and an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 are mutually exclusive. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. PEA filed a Rule 65 petition beyond the 15-day reglementary period to file a Rule 45 petition. The Court of Appeals Decision was received by PEA on October 23, 2013. Its motion for reconsideration was denied on November 18, 2013. PEA had until December 3, 2013, to file a Rule 45 petition. It filed the Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari only on January 2, 2014, which was beyond the period for appeal. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rules. PEA’s failure to timely appeal was due to its own negligence or mistake in the choice of remedy. Since the proper remedy of appeal was lost, the Rule 65 petition could not be entertained. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a replacement for an appeal, especially when the lapse is due to a party’s own negligence.