THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202134. June 2, 2014.]
JOEL GARGANERA, petitioner, vs. TOMAS OSMEÑA, CEBU CITY COUNCIL, CEBU INVESTMENTS PROMOTIONS CENTER, INC. AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 2, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202134 ( * Joel Garganera vs. Tomas Osmeña, Cebu City Council, Cebu Investments Promotions Center, Inc. and Register of Deeds of Cebu City). — It appearing that the copy of the Resolution dated December 5, 2012 which noted respondents Tomas R. Osmeña and Cebu City Council's comment on the petition for review on certiorari, addressed to Atty. Julius Ceasar S. Entise, counsel for intervenor, with office address at ABC Building, SRP 6000 Cebu City, was returned unserved with postal carrier's notation on the envelope "RTS Not Found," the Court resolves to DEEM said resolution as SERVED on the addressee.
The Court further resolves to DISPENSE with Atty. Noel R. Adlawan's compliance with Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court required in the Resolution dated October 9, 2013.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to show sufficiently that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated April 26, 2011 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The CA was correct in dismissing the appeal for being the wrong remedy. As the present controversy involves only questions of law, petitioner should have interposed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, not an appeal under Rule 41. The dismissal of the appeal is thus warranted under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. 1ECcDAH
Even if the appeal were not procedurally flawed, the appellate court still did not err in dismissing it for lack of merit. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the assailed Proclamation No. (PN) 843 was issued pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7916, which called for the establishment of Special Economic Zones in the country. The validity of PN 843 and the consequent issuance of Special Patent No. (SP) 3693 and Original Certificate of Title No. (OCT) 3581 in favor of the City Government of Cebu is, therefore, beyond question.
Furthermore, as established in Chavez v. NHA, 2 the land involved in this case is patrimonial property that has been acquired by the City Government of Cebu as an end-user agency. As such, the subject property is susceptible of disposition to and appropriation by private persons subject to RA 7916 and its implementing rules.
It is best to emphasize that under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts of justice have no right to encroach on the prerogatives of the legislative and executive officials as long as it has not been shown that they have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. In this case, there is no reason to find grave abuse of discretion on the part of the legislative and the executive in the issuance of RA 7916, PNs 763 and 843, SP 3693, and OCT 3581.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court AFFIRMS the April 26, 2011 Decision and May 8, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03902, which in turn affirmed the November 29, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 in Cebu City. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Petitioner's first name changed from "Josel" to "Joel."
1. Section 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. — An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. (emphasis supplied)
2. G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 235.