THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238458. September 29, 2021.]
JOSE V. LAGON REP. BY HIS WIFE, NENITA LAGON AND THEIR CHILDREN, MARIA JOCELYN LAGON-RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., AND SULTAN KUDARAT REALTY AND AGRI-INDUSTRIAL CORP., petitioners, vs.NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (NGCP), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238458 (Jose V. Lagon rep. by his wife, Nenita Lagon and their children, Maria Jocelyn Lagon-Rodriguez, et al., and Sultan Kudarat Realty and Agri-Industrial Corp., Petitioners, v. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), Respondent.) — The instant petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated 09 June 2017 and Resolution dated 02 April 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 04219-MIN, reversing the Order dated 04 August 2014 and Resolution dated 10 August 2015 of Branch 20, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacurong City in Civil Case No. 821, is DENIED.
By dismissing the Complaint for Expropriation by virtue of a Motion to Dismiss 1 filed by herein Petitioners, the RTC committed reversible error, as this is no longer allowed under Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The grounds raised by Petitioners in the Motion to Dismiss should have been ventilated in a full-blown trial and hearing, with the reception of evidence for Petitioners.
The amendment of Rule 67 as included in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure has dispensed with the filing of an extraordinary Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer. As expressed, Rule 67 requires that all objections and defenses to the taking of the property should be adduced by the defendants in the Answer to the Complaint for expropriation, to be filed within the time stated in the Summons. This Court has clarified that the Complaint together with the objections or defenses shall be fully ventilated in a full-blown trial and hearing, especially if the issues raised cannot be decided without a trial of the case on the merits. 2 AcICHD
In the case of City of Manila v. Te, 3 the defendants in an expropriation case similarly filed a Motion to Dismiss which was granted by the trial court. Given the amendment of Rule 67 under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court characterized the Order of Dismissal as a nullity as the issues raised should have been ventilated in a full-blown trial with the presentation of evidence allunde. As such, it referred the case back to the trial court for the continuation of the proceedings.
Not only is the filing of a Motion to Dismiss proper, Petitioners in this case also filed multiple pleadings to allege their claims and defenses. Petitioners filed a first Motion to Dismiss upon receipt of the Complaint of NGCP, raising that (1) the Complaint is barred by res judicata since a previous similar complaint was already filed by NGCP's predecessor-in-interest, which was dismissed by the courts; and (2) NGCP's Complaint failed to show its authority to expropriate and the factual basis why the Subject Properties were not singled out for expropriation among the other properties similarly situated. The RTC found the grounds raised untenable, thus, it dismissed the first Motion to Dismiss and Petitioners proceeded to file an Answer to the Complaint.
Upon conclusion of the reception of evidence of NGCP, Petitioners filed a second Motion to Dismiss raising matters not covered by the first Motion to Dismiss nor in their Answer, namely: (1) that NGCP failed to comply with the conditions precedent for the authority to expropriate, as opposed to the contention of NGCP that there was sufficient compliance; and (2) that NGCP failed to show that the Subject Properties are the most appropriate and convenient for the Project, contrary to the allegation of NGCP that the route covering the Subject Properties would result to the least damages and expenses to the Government.
The Omnibus Motion Rule provided under Section 8, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the movant must raise and include all objections available at the time of the filing of a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding. This Court has pronounced that this applies to Motion to Dismiss 4 and to an Answer filed in an expropriation case. 5 Therefore, all objections and defenses which Petitioners could have raised should have at least been included in their Answer, since an extraordinary Motion to Dismiss is no longer allowed under Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Moreover, Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for the following grounds: 1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2) litis pendencia; 3) res judicata; and 4) prescription of the action. 6 The grounds not falling under these four exceptions may be considered as waived in the event that they are not timely invoked. 7
Here, Petitioners' arguments in their second motion to dismiss do not fall within the previously mentioned exceptions to the Omnibus Motion Rule. Thus, considering these grounds were not raised in their Answer, and even in the first motion to dismiss, these are deemed waived for failure to timely invoke the same.
In any case, the matters raised in the second Motion to Dismiss would have properly been resolved with the presentation of evidence of Petitioners, the RTC committed reversible error when it dismissed the Complaint without the benefit of a full-blown hearing.
The contention of Petitioners that a full-blown trial was actually conducted and that the first stage of expropriation proceedings before the RTC has already concluded has no basis. As noted by the CA, 8 the RTC actually cancelled the presentation of evidence for Petitioners in order to be able to resolve the Motion to Dismiss. Thus, full-blown proceedings were not held, contrary to the assertions of Petitioners.
It is noted that the CA likewise ruled the RTC has already confirmed NGCP's authority to expropriate. 9 However, a reading of the Order dated 04 August 2014 would reveal RTC merely stated that NGCP's right to exercise the power to expropriate is undoubted, it being afforded to it by law. As to whether such exercise was proper and if NGCP complied with the conditions precedent, the RTC made no confirmation. Thus, Petitioners should not be precluded from establishing these matters upon the continuation of proceedings.
Consequently, the additional arguments raised by Petitioners should be matters of defense to be established during the presentation of their evidence.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 09 June 2017 and Resolution dated 02 April 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 04219-MIN are AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to RTC Branch 20 of Tacurong City for the continuation of the expropriation proceedings. ICHDca
SO ORDERED." Leonen, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 193-201.
2.Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain, 373 Phil. 773 (1999); City of Municipal v. Te, 673 Phil. 562 (2011).
3.Id.
4.Spouses De Guzman, Jr. v. Spouses Ochoa, 664 Phil. 107 (2011).
5.Supra note 2.
6.Pacaña-Contreras v. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., 722 Phil. 460 (2013); Treyes v. Larlar, G.R. No. 232579, 08 September 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].
7.Id.
8.Rollo, p. 48.
9.Id. at 50.