SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207561. August 8, 2018.]
EXCELLENT HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, petitioner,vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, FELINA MANGABAT, EMTEX WORSTED SPINNING MILLS, INC., TECHNOLOGY AND LIVELIHOOD RESOURCES CENTER, AND DOLORES MUNDIN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated08 August 2018which reads as follows: EcTCAD
"G.R. No. 207561 (Excellent Holdings Incorporated v. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll Regulatory Board, Felina Mangabat, Emtex Worsted Spinning Mills, Inc., Technology and Livelihood Resources Center, and Dolores Mundin). — This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 29, 2012 and its Resolution dated June 5, 2013, and to direct the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 36, to order the respondent Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Toll Regulatory Board to release/pay the provisional amount of P4,862,550.00 to petitioner Excellent Holdings Incorporated, without prejudice to the final determination of the just compensation of its condemned property.
The controversy traces its roots to the Expropriation complaint filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), as represented by the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB), against five (5) landowners, namely: Felina Mangabat, Emtex Worsted Spinning Mills, Inc., Technology and Livelihood Resource Center, Dolores T. Mundin and petitioner Excellent Holdings, Inc. (Excellent). The expropriation case was raffled to then Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of the RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36.
In the process of implementing the South Luzon Tollway Extension Project, the Republic needed to acquire certain real properties in Barangay Makiling, Calamba, Laguna, which included Excellent's four thousand six hundred thirty-one (4,631) square meter (sq. m.) property registered under its name in Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-291096. The Republic, through the TRB and represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, later amended its complaint, which classified Excellent's property as an "industrial lot" under Tax Declaration No. 03-030-00699, while the other lots remained to be "agricultural." The Republic also reduced the zonal valuation of Excellent's property from P2,250.00 per sq. m. or a total zonal valuation of P10,419,750.00 in the original complaint dated June 8, 2005, to P1,050.00 per sq. m. or a total zonal value of P4,862,550.00 in the amended complaint dated April 11, 2007.
In an Omnibus Motion dated January 6, 2010, Excellent sought, among others, the release of the provisional value of the subject property amounting to P4,862,550.00 based on the current zonal valuation of P1,050.00 per sq. m.
In an Order 1 dated February 9, 2010, the RTC denied the Omnibus Motion and ordered the Republic to conduct an actual and physical inspection of Excellent's property to determine its real and correct classification of use and character. The RTC ruled as follows: HSAcaE
Upon queries and clarifications, it is established that the petitioner [Republic] is not aware or familiar with the status and nature of the subject property. It is admitted that, despite the classification of the land as industrial, there is no infrastructure or development made on the land and it remains in its original state of habitation — agricultural in nature. It is also admitted that there is no record or documentations to establish that the subject property has indeed been converted to industrial purposes with appropriate regulatory licenses and permits covering an industrial lot. For a period of 4 years and 8 months, the petitioner has not shown any diligent effort to ascertain whether there are facilities, telecom facilities, water and light communication and all other necessities on the subject lot for a proper classification as industrial lot.
In spite of this factual situation, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains it is a ministerial duty of the Court to immediately pay any zonal valuation indicated, without any further query, investigation and determination of land classification for zonal valuation as a scheme to unreasonably increase the price for the issuance of a writ of possession and determination of just compensation, to the prejudice of the government.
The Court believes it is not the mandate or the purpose of the law and adheres to the real intent of the statute is to facilitate the acquisition of the property subject to fair determination of just compensation.
Excellent filed a motion for reconsideration, citing Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8974 (An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for Other Purposes) which provides that "upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)." Excellent argued that despite the fact that there are no existing telecommunications, water and light facilities built on its property, such does not affect the fact that the property is classified as an industrial lot as shown by the tax declaration thereof, which was attached to the amended complaint.
In an Order 2 dated February 23, 2011, the RTC denied Excellent's motion for reconsideration, and gave the Commissioners thirty (30) days within which to submit their written report, otherwise, the Board of Commissioners shall be dissolved and the court shall in its plenary power receive the evidence in determining the just compensation due to the land owners. The RTC reasoned as follows:
Although, the law that commands immediate payment of zonal valuation was crafted in order not to prejudice the [landowners] whose property is immediately taken from their possession to allow immediate start of construction for public use of the government, it is not a[n] unbridled license for schemers and owners to jack up their cost of land by a mere paper reclassification without any introduction of improvements qualifying and classifying these properties as residential or industrial or commercial.
x x x [I]t is undeniable that the subject property of Excellent has not been changed in character [or] in nature as agricultural, it has remain[ed] in its prima tera quota character, thus, agricultural. In other words, the submission that this Court can be compelled to issue an Order for immediate payment to Excellent Holdings as an industrial lot is inconsumable. For this Court to close its eyes to the reality on the ground is to act like an ostrich which (sic) his head sank deeply in the sand. 3
Aggrieved, Excellent filed a petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC (1) when it refused to release the provisional value of its condemned property, contrary to law and jurisprudence; and (2) when respondent judge refused to inhibit himself from the expropriation case despite his manifest bias and partiality. 4 HESIcT
In a Decision dated February 29, 2012, the CA dismissed Excellent's petition for certiorari. The CA also denied its motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated February 29, 2012. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Excellent argues that the RTC and the CA seriously erred in (1) exercising its discretion in determining the provisional value of its condemned property, contrary to law and jurisprudence; (2) refusing to release the provisional value of its condemned property, since there was absolutely no paper scheme employed by it to defraud the government; and (3) in finding that there was supposedly a fraudulent classification of its property, since it is the local government which has the sole authority and discretion to classify/reclassify lands. 5
The Court resolves to dismiss the petition for being moot and academic.
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 6 the Court held that a moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. While courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness, the "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade them in resolving a case. Courts will nevertheless decide moot and academic cases if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 7
No such exceptional reasons obtain in this petition.
During the pendency of this petition, Acting Presiding Judge Louis P. Acosta rendered a Decision 8 dated August 25, 2015, confirming the expropriation of Excellent's property, among others, and ordering the Republic to pay Excellent final compensation of P6,946,500.00 for its 4,631 sq. m. property covered by TCT No. T-291096. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
(a) confirming the expropriation of the subject lands in favor of the plaintiff;
(b) ordering the plaintiff to pay the following defendants final compensation of P1,500/sq.m. for the 13,747 sq.m. affected area (covered by TCT Nos. T-34143, T-227249, T-291096 and T-96287 of the Registry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna or a total amount of Twenty Million Six Hundred Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P20,620,500.00) which is tabulated as follows:
|
Owner |
TCT No. |
Lot No. |
Affected Area |
Final Compensation |
|
Heirs of Felina Mangabat (Adelaida Medalla, Regalado Medalla and Ramon Medalla) |
T-34143 |
7-B |
467 sq. m. |
P700,500.00 |
|
Technology Resource Center |
T-227249 |
8-A |
2,008 sq. m. |
P3,012,000.00 |
|
Excellent Holdings, Inc. |
T-291096 |
2175-X-2-B |
4,631 sq. m. |
P6,946,500.00 |
|
Dolores T. Mundin |
T-96287 |
2175-X-1-B |
6,641 sq. m. |
P9,961,500.00 |
less the amount of P2,125,120.00 withdrawn by defendant Mundin with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Calamba City, Laguna.
SO ORDERED. 9
Although there is no indication that the RTC Decision dated August 25, 2015 is now final and executory, but since the trial court has already determined the final compensation of Excellent's 4,631 sq. m. property in the total amount of P6,946,500.00 based on the zonal value of P1,500/sq. m. for the entire affected area of 13,747 sq. m., the Court no longer finds any necessity to resolve the main issue of whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing its assailed interlocutory orders, which denied Excellent's prayer for the release of the provisional value of its property amounting to P4,862,550.00 based on the zonal valuation of P1,050.00 per sq. m. caITAC
The issues raised in this petition, which merely involve an incident on the expropriation case filed before the RTC, have already become moot and academic, considering that the trial court, in its decision on the merits in the main case, has already ruled partly in favor of Excellent, as follows:
The Court concurs partly with plaintiff's position as the same is supported by more credible factual basis, particularly with the finding that even if the subject property owned by defendant Excellent is to be regarded as industrial in nature, which it is not, its zonal value, as indicated in the Amended Complaint, is only one thousand fifty pesos per square meter (Php1,050.00 per sq. m.) and the subject properties were barren, vacant, and unused agricultural lots when they were taken by the Government as per ocular inspection conducted on August 29, 2008. And considering also that the subject properties may be of industrial use, the Court finds P1,500.00 per square meter to be the most appropriate value of the subject lands. 10
Well settled is the rule that where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value. 11
It is not amiss to state that in a Resolution 12 dated October 7, 2015, the Court noted Excellent's Manifestation/Motion dated September 17, 2015, stating that in the Decision of August 25, 2015, the RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36, has already determined the just compensation of its condemned property, and praying for the release of the amount of P4,862,550.00, representing the provisional value of the said property, without prejudice to the final determination of just compensation. Considering that Excellent had also manifested that it intended to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 25, 2015 RTC Decision, and assuming arguendo that its expropriation case is still pending appeal, the proper recourse would be to move for discretionary execution under Section 2, 13 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, but not for the release of the provisional value of the property, for that would be contrary to the tenor of the RTC Decision, which has already determined the final compensation.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED." Caguioa, J., on wellness leave.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 135.
2.Id. at 183-184.
3.Id. at 184.
4.Id. at 44.
5.Id. at 19-20.
6. 522 Phil. 705, 753-754 (2006).
7.Id.
8.Rollo, pp. 357-366.
9.Id. at 366. (Emphasis added).
10.Id.
11.City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo, 726 Phil. 9, 17 (2014).
12.Rollo, p. 367.
13.Section 2.Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. — On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. — A several, separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.