G.R. No. L-12064; March 31, 1959
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ETC., respondent.

FACTS

The City Fiscal of Iloilo instituted condemnation proceedings to acquire lands for widening the Iloilo South Road. The petitioner (Republic) filed an ex-parte motion and was granted authority to take possession of the lands sought to be expropriated. The Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos filed a motion, pointing out that its property, Lot No. 662 (covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 342 and valued at about P1,800), was not included in the complaint for expropriation nor in the ex-parte motion, and no deposit of its provisional value had been made as required by the Rules of Court. It prayed that the petitioner be directed to deposit the provisional value or restore possession. The respondent Court of First Instance of Iloilo ordered the petitioner to amend its complaint to include Lot No. 662 and to submit the appraised value for provisional deposit. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, claiming the lot had been occupied as a sidewalk since time immemorial and was outside the owner’s fence, and that the authority from the President to institute condemnation proceedings did not expressly include Lot No. 662. The respondent court denied the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order directing the petitioner to amend its complaint to include Lot No. 662 in the condemnation proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. First, the petition was procedurally defective because the Corporacion de los Padres Agustinos, the entity interested in sustaining the order, was not included as a co-respondent as required by the Rules of Court. Second, even overlooking the procedural defect, the petition must be denied on the merits. Condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance. The order directing the amendment of the complaint to include a lot owned by and registered in the name of the Corporacion, and of which the petitioner had taken possession without including it in the complaint or making a deposit, did not constitute an abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner’s claims regarding the nature of its possession and the scope of its authority were factual matters properly to be determined by the trial court after hearing evidence. Moreover, the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim about the limits of the presidential authority, as it did not attach a copy of the relevant indorsement to its petition, and did not deny the respondent court’s assertion that the indorsement did not specifically enumerate the lots to be expropriated.