SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242029. April 10, 2019.]
WILFREDO OBEÑA, petitioner, vs.BARANGAY MAHABANG PARANG, ANGONO, RIZAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242029 — Wilfredo Obeña versus Barangay Mahabang Parang, Angono, Rizal
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated May 3, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated September 13, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 154089, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of petitioner Wilfredo Obeña (petitioner Obeña) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
According to Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, if a defendant in an expropriation case has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged in the answer. In the instant case, after already filing an Answer, petitioner Obeña filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Dismiss (Omnibus Motion), raising a matter not previously alleged in his Answer, i.e., alleged lack of a Barangay ordinance authorizing the expropriation. 3
As held by the Court in Masikip v. The City of Pasig, 4 while the old Rules of Court allowed a defendant in an expropriation case to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, such rule "was amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, x x x Section 3, Rule 67 [of which] now expressly mandates that any objection or defense to the taking of the property of a defendant must be set forth in an answer, [and not in a motion to dismiss]." 5 Such holding was likewise stressed in Robern Development Corp. v. Quitain. 6 Even if the Regional Trial Court 7 (RTC) takes cognizance of petitioner Obeña's Omnibus Motion, it must be stressed that under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss may be filed only within the time for but before filing the answer. In the instant case, petitioner Obeña filed his Omnibus Motion only after he had already filed his Answer. Therefore, no error was committed by the RTC when it denied petitioner Obeña's Omnibus Motion. SDAaTC
In any case, the instant Petition is unmeritorious because petitioner Obeña's factual premise is incorrect. Contrary to petitioner Obeña's contention that there is no barangay ordinance which authorizes respondent Barangay Mahabang Parang (respondent) to initiate expropriation proceedings, respondent was clearly able to present before the RTC Ordinance No. 39 dated January 26, 2017, which was issued by the Sangguniang Barangay of respondent authorizing the latter's Barangay Chairman to initiate expropriation proceedings over the subject property. In the instant Petition, without providing any substantiating evidence whatsoever, petitioner Obeña claims that such ordinance is not a valid ordinance, and that it is a mere barangay resolution. As correctly held by the RTC and the CA, citing Robern Development Corp. v. Quitain, 8 such allegations may not be properly raised in a motion to dismiss and will have to be fully ventilated in a full-blown trial and hearing.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 21-35. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.Id. at 43-44.
3. See rollo, pp. 15, 81.
4. 515 Phil. 364 (2006).
5.Id. at 372.
6. 373 Phil. 773 (1999).
7. Branch 69, Binangonan, Rizal in SCA Case No. 17-005.
8.Id. at 791-792.