G.R. No.

171496 March 3, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE, r!"r!#!$%!& '( %h! )EP*RTMENT OF PUBLIC +OR, *N)
HIGH+*- .)P+H/, Petitioner,
vs.
ORTIG* *N) COMP*N- LIMITE) P*RTNERHIP, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Owners whose properties were taken for public use are entitled to ust co!pensation.
"his is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of Court, seekin% to nullif& and
set aside the Court of 'ppeals( resolution dated October )#, *++$. "he Court of 'ppeals( resolution
dis!issed petitioner Republic of the Philippines( appeal fro! the decision of the Re%ional "rial Court
%rantin% private respondent Orti%as( petition for authorit& to sell. "his petition also seeks to nullif& the
Court of 'ppeals, resolution dated -ebruar& ., *++/, which denied petitioner Republic of the
Philippines( !otion for reconsideration.
Respondent, Orti%as and Co!pan& 0i!ited Partnership, is the owner of a parcel of land known as
0ot $121* with an area of 3+,*34 s5uare !eters in Pasi% Cit&.
)
6pon the re5uest of the Depart!ent of Public 7orks and 8i%hwa&s, respondent Orti%as caused the
se%re%ation of its propert& into five lots and reserved one portion for road widenin% for the C1$
fl&over proect.
*
It desi%nated 0ot $121*1', a ),##$1s5uare1!eter portion of its propert&, for the road
widenin% of Orti%as 'venue.
9
Respondent Orti%as also caused the annotation of the ter! :road
widenin%: on its title. "he title was then inscribed with an encu!brance that it was for road widenin%
and subect to Section $+ of Presidential Decree No. )$*. or the Propert& Re%istration Decree.
#
"he C1$1Orti%as 'venue fl&over was co!pleted in )..., utili;in% onl& 9./ s5uare !eters of the
),##$1s5uare1!eter allot!ent for the proect.
$
Conse5uentl&, respondent Orti%as further subdivided 0ot $121*1' into two lots< 0ot $121*1'1), which
was the portion actuall& used for road widenin%, and 0ot $121*1'1*, which was the unutili;ed portion
of 0ot $121*1'.
/
On -ebruar& )#, *++), respondent Orti%as filed with the Re%ional "rial Court of Pasi% a petition for
authorit& to sell to the %overn!ent 0ot $121*1'1).
3
Respondent Orti%as alle%ed that the Depart!ent
of Public 7orks and 8i%hwa&s re5uested the conve&ance of the propert& for road widenin%
purposes.
4
"he case was raffled to 2ranch */3.
.
In an order dated =arch ., *++),
)+
the Re%ional "rial Court set the case for hearin% on 'pril *3,
*++), %ivin% opportunit& to an& interested person to appear, oppose, and show cause wh&
respondent Orti%as( petition !a& not be %ranted. In the sa!e order, respondent Orti%as was directed
to cause the publication of both the Re%ional "rial Court,s order and respondent Orti%as( petition.
"he trial court also directed the Sheriff to serve copies of its order and respondent Orti%as( petition to
the Office of the Solicitor >eneral, Office of the Cit& Prosecutor, Depart!ent of Public 7orks and
8i%hwa&s, Cit& En%ineer of Pasi%, and the Re%ister of Deeds of Pasi%.
Despite due notice to the public, includin% the Office of the Solicitor >eneral and the Depart!ent of
Public 7orks and 8i%hwa&s, no one appeared to oppose respondent Orti%as, petition in the hearin%
on 'pril *3, *++).
))
Respondent Orti%as was able to establish the urisdictional facts of the case and
was allowed to present evidence e? parte before the appointed Co!!issioner, the 2ranch Clerk of
Court, 'tt&. Edel&n =. =urillo.
)*
Respondent Orti%as presented =r. Ro!ulo Rosete to support its alle%ations in its petition for
authorit& to sell to the %overn!ent.
)9
Rosete was respondent Orti%as( liaison officer who represented
respondent Orti%as in %overn!ent transactions.
)#
8e testified that he was aware of respondent
Orti%as( ownership of the 3+,*341s5uare1!eter propert& in Pasi% and its subdivision for the purpose
of desi%natin% an area for the C1$1Orti%as 'venue fl&over proect.
)$
8e also testified that onl& 9./
s5uare !eters of the ),##$1s5uare1!eter desi%nated lot was actuall& utili;ed after the road had been
finished bein% constructed in )....
)/
"his caused respondent Orti%as to further subdivide the
desi%nated propert& into two lots.
)3
Rosete presented a certified true cop& of the title of the utili;ed
portion of the lot to prove respondent Orti%as( ownership.
)4
8e also alle%ed that respondent Orti%as
was not co!pensated for the use of its propert&, and respondent Orti%as was re5uested b& the
Depart!ent of Public 7orks and 8i%hwa&s to conve& the utili;ed propert& to the
%overn!ent.
).
8ence, to facilitate the processin% of its co!pensation, respondent Orti%as filed a
petition with the Re%ional "rial Court.
*+
-indin% !erit in respondent Orti%as( petition, the Re%ional "rial Court issued an order on @une )),
*++), authori;in% the sale of 0ot $121*1'1) to petitioner Republic of the Philippines.
*)
On @une *3, *++), petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented b& the Office of the Solicitor
>eneral, filed an opposition, alle%in% that respondent Orti%as( propert& can onl& be conve&ed b& wa&
of donation to the %overn!ent, citin% Section $+ of Presidential Decree No. )$*., also known as the
Propert& Re%istration Decree.
**
On @une *., *++), petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a !otion for reconsideration of the
Re%ional "rial Court order dated @une )), *++), reiteratin% its ar%u!ent in its opposition.
*9
In an order dated October 9, *++), the Re%ional "rial Court denied petitioner Republic of the
Philippines( !otion for reconsideration.
*#
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a notice of appeal on October *#, *++), which reads<
"he REP620IC O- "8E P8I0IPPINES, b& counsel, hereb& respectfull& serves notice of appeal to
the Court of 'ppeals fro! this 8onorable Court(s Order dated October 9, *++) Acop& of which was
received b& the Office of the Solicitor >eneral on October )$, *++)B on the %round that said Order is
contrar& to law and evidence.
*$
AE!phasis suppliedB
In its appellant(s brief, petitioner Republic of the Philippines ar%ued that the Re%ional "rial Court
erred in %rantin% respondent Orti%as the authorit& to sell its propert& to the %overn!ent because the
lot can onl& be conve&ed b& donation to the %overn!ent.
*/
In a resolution dated October )#, *++$, the Court of 'ppeals dis!issed petitioner Republic of the
Philippines, appeal on the %round that an order or ud%!ent den&in% a !otion for reconsideration is
not appealable.
*3
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a !otion for reconsideration of the Court of 'ppeals(
resolution. In its !otion for reconsideration, petitioner Republic of the Philippines pointed out that its
reference in the notice of appeal to the October 9, *++) order den&in% the !otion for reconsideration
of the trial court,s decision was !erel& due to inadvertence. In an& case, Rule 93, Section . of the
Rules of Procedure conte!plates as non1appealable onl& those orders which are not &et final. "he
October 9, *++) order was alread& final as it confir!ed the @une )), *++) ud%!ent of the court.
*4
In its resolution dated -ebruar& ., *++/, the Court of 'ppeals denied the !otion for reconsideration
on the %round of lack of urisdiction. "he Court of 'ppeals noted that even if the order den&in% the
!otion for reconsideration was appealable, the appeal was still dis!issible for lack of urisdiction
because petitioner Republic of the Philippines raised onl& a 5uestion of law.
*.
"he issues for our consideration are the followin%<
9+
aB 7hether the Court of 'ppeals %ravel& erred in den&in% petitioner Republic of the
Philippines, appeal based on technicalitiesC
bB 7hether the Court of 'ppeals %ravel& erred in dis!issin% the appeal fro! the trial court
order %rantin% respondent Orti%as authorit& to sell the land to the Republic of the Philippines.
"he Office of the Solicitor >eneral ar%ued that strict application of the rules of procedure overrides
substantial ustice, in this case, to the detri!ent of petitioner Republic of the Philippines.
9)
On the trial court(s %rant of authorit& to respondent Orti%as to sell its propert& to the %overn!ent, the
Office of the Solicitor >eneral stated while citin% Doun% v. Cit& of =anila
9*
that respondent Orti%as(
subdivision of its land for road widenin% auto!aticall& withdrew the land fro! the co!!erce of
!an.
99
-urther, a piece of land se%re%ated b& a private owner for public use !a& onl& be conve&ed
b& donation to the %overn!ent based on Section $+ of Presidential Decree No. )$*..
9#
:Presentl&,
said land is alread& bein% used b& the public as part of the Ewidened, road beside the C1$ Ffl&overG ? ?
?.:
9$
In its co!!ent dated @ul& *$, *++/, respondent Orti%as ar%ued that the Office of the Solicitor
>eneral co!!itted a fatal !istake when it brou%ht b& wa& of appeal the denial of its !otion for
reconsideration before the Court of 'ppeals.
9/
"his petition lacks !erit.
'ppeals fro! the Re%ional "rial Court to the Court of 'ppeals under Rule #) !ust raise both
5uestions of fact and law
Section * of Rule $+ of the Rules of Court provides that appeals taken fro! the Re%ional "rial Court
to the Court of 'ppeals raisin% onl& pure 5uestions of law are not reviewable b& the Court of
'ppeals. In which case, the appeal shall not be transferred to the appropriate court. Instead, it shall
be dis!issed outri%ht.
'ppeals fro! the decisions of the Re%ional "rial Court, raisin% purel& 5uestions of law !ust, in all
cases, be taken to the Supre!e Court on a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule
#$.
93
'n appeal b& notice of appeal fro! the decision of the Re%ional "rial Court in the e?ercise of its
ori%inal urisdiction to the Court of 'ppeals is proper if the appellant raises 5uestions of fact or both
5uestions of fact and 5uestions of law.
94
"here is a 5uestion of law when the appellant raises an issue as to what law shall be applied on a
%iven set of facts.
9.
Huestions of law do :not involve an e?a!ination of the probative value of the
evidence presented.:
#+
Its resolution rests solel& on the application of a law %iven the
circu!stances.
#)
"here is a 5uestion of fact when the court is re5uired to e?a!ine the truth or falsit&
of the facts presented.
#*
' 5uestion of fact :invites a review of the evidence.:
#9
"he sole issue raised b& petitioner Republic of the Philippines to the Court of 'ppeals is whether
respondent Orti%as, propert& should be conve&ed to it onl& b& donation, in accordance with Section
$+ of Presidential Decree No. )$*.. "his 5uestion involves the interpretation and application of the
provision. It does not re5uire the Court of 'ppeals to e?a!ine the truth or falsit& of the facts
presented. Neither does it invite a review of the evidence. "he issue raised before the Court of
'ppeals was, therefore, a 5uestion purel& of law. "he proper !ode of appeal is throu%h a petition for
review under Rule #$. 8ence, the Court of 'ppeals did not err in dis!issin% the appeal on this
%round.
Nevertheless, we take ti!e to e!phasi;e that Rule #), Section ), para%raph AaB of the Rules of
Court, which provides that :FnGo appeal !a& be taken fro! FaGn order den&in% a ? ? ? !otion for
reconsideration,: is based on the i!plied pre!ise in the sa!e section that the ud%!ent or order
does not co!pletel& dispose of the case. "he pertinent portion of Rule #), Section ) provides<
Section ). Subect of appeal. I 'n appeal !a& be taken fro! a ud%!ent or final order that
co!pletel& disposes of the case, or of a particular !atter therein when declared b& these Rules to
be appealable.
In other words, what Section ) of Rule #) prohibits is an appeal taken fro! an interlocutor& order. 'n
interlocutor& order or ud%!ent, unlike a final order or ud%!ent, does :not co!pletel& dispose of the
case Fbecause it leaves to the courtG so!ethin% else to be decided upon.:
##
'ppeals fro!
interlocutor& orders are %enerall& prohibited to prevent dela& in the ad!inistration of ustice and to
prevent :undue burden upon the courts.:
#$
Orders den&in% !otions for reconsideration are not alwa&s interlocutor& orders. ' !otion for
reconsideration !a& be considered a final decision, subect to an appeal, if :it puts an end to a
particular !atter,:
#/
leavin% the court with nothin% else to do but to e?ecute the decision.
:'n appeal fro! an order den&in% a !otion for reconsideration of an order of dis!issal of a
co!plaint is effectivel& an appeal of the order of dis!issal itself.:
#3
It is an appeal fro! a final
decision or order.
"he trial court,s order den&in% petitioner Republic of the Philippines, !otion for reconsideration of the
decision %rantin% respondent Orti%as the authorit& to sell its propert& to the %overn!ent was not an
interlocutor& order because it co!pletel& disposed of a particular !atter. 'n appeal fro! it would not
cause dela& in the ad!inistration of ustice. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, appeal to the
Court of 'ppeals, however, was properl& dis!issed because the for!er used the wron% !ode of
appeal.
In an& event, we resolve the substantive issue on whether respondent Orti%as !a& not sell and !a&
onl& donate its propert& to the %overn!ent in accordance with Section $+ of Presidential Decree No.
)$*..
Section $+ of Presidential Decree No. )$*. does not appl& in a case that is the proper subect of an
e?propriation proceedin%
Respondent Orti%as !a& sell its propert& to the %overn!ent. It !ust be co!pensated because its
propert& was taken and utili;ed for public road purposes.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines insists that the subect propert& !a& not be conve&ed to the
%overn!ent throu%h !odes other than b& donation. It relies on Section $+ of the Propert&
Re%istration Decree, which provides that delineated boundaries, streets, passa%ewa&s, and
waterwa&s of a subdivided land !a& not be closed or disposed of b& the owner e?cept b& donation
to the %overn!ent. It reads<
Section $+. Subdivision and consolidation plans. 'n& owner subdividin% a tract of re%istered land
into lots which do not constitute a subdivision proect as defined and provided for under P.D. No.
.$3, shall file with the Co!!issioner of 0and Re%istration or the 2ureau of 0ands a subdivision plan
of such land on which all boundaries, streets, passa%ewa&s and waterwa&s, if an&, shall be distinctl&
and accuratel& delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it si!ple or co!ple?, dul& approved b& the Co!!issioner of 0and
Re%istration or the 2ureau of 0ands to%ether with the approved technical descriptions and the
correspondin% owner,s duplicate certificate of title is presented for re%istration, the Re%ister of Deeds
shall, without re5uirin% further court approval of said plan, re%ister the sa!e in accordance with the
provisions of the 0and Re%istration 'ct, as a!ended< Provided, however, that the Re%ister of Deeds
shall annotate on the new certificate of title coverin% the street, passa%ewa& or open space, a
!e!orandu! to the effect that e?cept b& wa& of donation in favor of the national %overn!ent,
province, cit& or !unicipalit&, no portion of an& street, passa%ewa&, waterwa& or open space so
delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed of b& the re%istered owner without the
approval of the Court of -irst Instance of the province or cit& in which the land is situated. AE!phasis
suppliedB
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, reliance on Section $+ of the Propert& Re%istration Decree is
erroneous. Section $+ conte!plates roads and streets in a subdivided propert&, not public
thorou%hfares built on a private propert& that was taken fro! an owner for public purpose. ' public
thorou%hfare is not a subdivision road or street.
=ore i!portantl&, when there is takin% of private propert& for so!e public purpose, the owner of the
propert& taken is entitled to be co!pensated.
#4
"here is takin% when the followin% ele!ents are present<
). "he %overn!ent !ust enter the private propert&C
*. "he entrance into the private propert& !ust be indefinite or per!anentC
9. "here is color of le%al authorit& in the entr& into the propert&C
#. "he propert& is devoted to public use or purposeC
$. "he use of propert& for public use re!oved fro! the owner all beneficial eno&!ent of the
propert&.
#.
'll of the above ele!ents are present in this case. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, construction
of a road J a per!anent structure J on respondent Orti%as, propert& for the use of the %eneral
public is an obvious per!anent entr& on petitioner Republic of the Philippines, part. >iven that the
road was constructed for %eneral public use sta!ps it with public character, and coursin% the entr&
throu%h the Depart!ent of Public 7orks and 8i%hwa&s %ives it a color of le%al authorit&.
's a result of petitioner Republic of the Philippines, entr&, respondent Orti%as !a& not eno& the
propert& as it did before. It !a& not an&!ore use the propert& for whatever le%al purpose it !a&
desire. Neither !a& it occup&, sell, lease, and receive its proceeds. It cannot an&!ore prevent other
persons fro! enterin% or usin% the propert&. In other words, respondent Orti%as was effectivel&
deprived of all the bundle of ri%hts
$+
attached to ownership of propert&.
It is true that the lot reserved for road widenin%, to%ether with five other lots, for!ed part of a bi%%er
propert& before it was subdivided. 8owever, this does not !ean that all lots delineated as roads and
streets for! part of subdivision roads and streets that are subect to Section $+ of the Propert&
Re%istration Decree. Subdivision roads and streets are constructed pri!aril& for the benefit of the
owners of the surroundin% properties. "he& are, thus, constructed pri!aril& for private use J as
opposed to delineated road lots taken at the instance of the %overn!ent for the use and benefit of
the %eneral public.
In this case, the lot was reserved for road widenin% at the instance of petitioner Republic of the
Philippines. 7hile the lot se%re%ated for road widenin% used to be part of the subdivided lots, the
intention to separate it fro! the delineated subdivision streets was obvious fro! the fact that it was
located at the frin%es of the ori%inal lot
$)
J e?actl& at petitioner Republic of the Philippines, intended
location for the road widenin% proect. =oreover, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, intention to
take the propert& for public use was obvious fro! the co!pletion of the road widenin% for the C1$
fl&over proect and fro! the fact that the %eneral public was alread& takin% advanta%e of the
thorou%hfare.
Delineated roads and streets, whether part of a subdivision or se%re%ated for public use, re!ain
private and will re!ain as such until conve&ed to the %overn!ent b& donation or throu%h
e?propriation proceedin%s.
$*
'n owner !a& not be forced to donate his or her propert& even if it has
been delineated as road lots because that would partake of an ille%al takin%.
$9
8e or she !a& even
choose to retain said properties.
$#
If he or she chooses to retain the!, however, he or she also
retains the burden of !aintainin% the! and pa&in% for real estate ta?es.
'n owner of a subdivision street which was not taken b& the %overn!ent for public use would retain
such burden even if he or she would no lon%er derive an& co!!ercial value fro! said street. "o
re!ed& such burden, he or she !a& opt to donate it to the %overn!ent. In such case, however, the
owner !a& not force the %overn!ent to purchase the propert&. "hat would be tanta!ount to allowin%
the %overn!ent to take private propert& to benefit private individuals. "his is not allowed under the
Constitution, which re5uires that takin% !ust be for public use.
$$
-urther, since the Constitution proscribes takin% of private propert& without ust co!pensation,
$/
an&
takin% !ust entail a correspondin% appropriation for that purpose. Public funds, however, !a& onl&
be appropriated for public purpose.
$3
E!plo&!ent of public funds to benefit a private individual
constitutes !alversation.
$4
"herefore, private subdivision streets not taken for public use !a& onl& be
donated to the %overn!ent.
In contrast, when the road or street was delineated upon %overn!ent re5uest and taken for public
use, as in this case, the %overn!ent has no choice but to co!pensate the owner for his or her
sacrifice, lest it violates the constitutional provision a%ainst takin% without ust co!pensation, thus<
Section .. Private propert& shall not be taken for public use without ust co!pensation.
$.
's with all laws, Section $+ of the Propert& Re%istration Decree cannot be interpreted to !ean a
license on the part of the %overn!ent to disre%ard constitutionall& %uaranteed ri%hts.
"he ri%ht to co!pensation under 'rticle III, Section . of the Constitution was put in place to protect
the individual fro! and restrain the State,s soverei%n power of e!inent do!ain,
/+
which is the
%overn!ent,s power to conde!n private properties within its territor& for public use or purpose.
/)
"his
power is inherent and need not be %ranted b& law.
/*
"hus, while the %overn!ent,s power to take for
public purpose is inherent, i!!ense, and broad in scope, it is deli!ited b& the ri%ht of an individual
to be co!pensated. In a nutshell, the %overn!ent !a& take, but it !ust pa&.
Respondent Orti%as, i!!ediatel& upon the %overn!ent,s su%%estion that it needed a portion of its
propert& for road purposes, went so far as to %o throu%h the process of annotatin% on its own title
that the propert& was reserved for road purposes. 7ithout 5uestion, respondent Orti%as allowed the
%overn!ent to construct the road and occup& the propert& when it could have co!pelled the
%overn!ent to resort to e?propriation proceedin%s and ensure that it would be co!pensated. Now,
the propert& is bein% utili;ed, not for the benefit of respondent Orti%as as a private entit& but b& the
public. Respondent Orti%as re!ains unco!pensated. Instead of acknowled%in% respondent Orti%as,
obli%in% attitude, however, petitioner Republic of the Philippines refuses to pa&, tellin% instead that
the propert& !ust be %iven to it at no cost. "his is unfair.
In the parallel case of 'lfonso v. Pasa& Cit&
/9
wherein 'lfonso was deprived of his propert& for road
purposes, was unco!pensated, and was left without an& e?propriation proceedin% undertaken, this
court said<
7hen a citi;en, because of this practice loses faith in the %overn!ent and its readiness and
willin%ness to pa& for what it %ets and appropriates, in the future said citi;en would not allow the
>overn!ent to even enter his propert& unless conde!nation proceedin%s are first initiated, and the
value of the propert&, as provisionall& ascertained b& the Court, is deposited, subect to his disposal.
"his would !ean dela& and difficult& for the >overn!ent, but all of its own !akin%.
/#
:"here is nothin% that can !ore speedil& and effectivel& e!bitter a citi;en and ta?pa&er a%ainst his
>overn!ent and alienate his faith in it, than an inustice and unfair dealin% like the present case.:
/$
"itle to the subect lot re!ains under respondent Orti%as, na!e. "he %overn!ent is alread& in
possession of the propert& but is &et to ac5uire title to it. "o le%iti!i;e such possession, petitioner
Republic of the Philippines !ust ac5uire the propert& fro! respondent Orti%as b& institutin%
e?propriation proceedin%s or throu%h ne%otiated sale, which has alread& been reco%ni;ed in law as
a !ode of %overn!ent ac5uisition of private propert& for public purpose.
//
In a ne%otiated sale, the %overn!ent offers to ac5uire for public purpose a private propert&, and the
owner !a& accept or reect it. ' reection of the offer, however, would !ost likel& !erel& result in the
co!!ence!ent of an e?propriation proceedin% that would eventuall& transfer title to the
%overn!ent. 8ence, the %overn!ent(s offer to ac5uire for public purpose a private propert& !a& be
considered as an act preparator& to an e?propriation proceedin%. "herefore, a private owner(s
initiative to se%re%ate a propert& to acco!!odate %overn!ent needs saves the %overn!ent fro! a
lon% and arduous e?propriation proceedin%. "his is a co!!endable act on the part of the owner. It
!ust be encoura%ed, not da!pened b& threats of propert& deprivation without co!pensation.
Respondent Orti%as, which !erel& acco!!odated petitioner Republic of the Philippines( re5uest,
re!ains unco!pensated for the takin% of its propert&. Respondent Orti%as could have brou%ht action
to recover possession of the propert&, but it instead chose to sell its propert& to petitioner Republic of
the Philippines. "his is both fair and convenient as the road construction had lon% been co!pleted,
and the road is alread& bein% utili;ed b& the public.
"akin% of private propert& without ust co!pensation is a violation of a person(s propert& ri%ht.1wphi1 In
situations where the %overn!ent does not take the trouble of initiatin% an e?propriation proceedin%,
the private owner has the option to co!pel pa&!ent of the propert& taken, when ustified. "he trial
court should continue to proceed with this case to deter!ine ust co!pensation in accordance with
law.
78ERE-ORE, the petition is DENIED. "he decision of the Court of 'ppeals is '--IR=ED. "he trial
court is directed to proceed with the case with due and deliberate dispatch in accordance with this
decision.
SO ORDERED.
M*R0IC M*RIO 0ICTOR F. LEONEN
'ssociate @ustice
7E CONC6R<
PREBITERO 1. 0EL*CO, 1R.
'ssociate @ustice
Chairperson
)IO)*)O M. PER*LT*
'ssociate @ustice
LUC* P. BER*MIN2
'ssociate @ustice
1OE C*TR*L MEN)O3*
'ssociate @ustice
' " " E S " ' " I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assi%ned to the writer of the opinion of the Court(s Division.
PREBITERO 1. 0EL*CO, 1R.
'ssociate @ustice
Chairperson, "hird Division
C E R " I - I C ' " I O N
Pursuant to Section )9, 'rticle KIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson(s 'ttestation, I
certif& that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assi%ned to the writer of the opinion of the Court(s Division.
*NTONIO T. C*RPIO
'ctin% Chief @ustice
Foo%$o%!#
L 'ssociate @ustice 0ucas P. 2ersa!in was desi%nated as 'ctin% =e!ber of the "hird
Division, vice 'ssociate @ustice Roberto '. 'bad, per Special Order No. )/#+ dated -ebruar&
)., *+)#.
)
Rollo, p. 3.
*
Id. at ./.
9
Id. at 3.
#
Id. at .9.
$
Id.
/
Id. at 4.
3
Id.
4
Id. at 4 and 4*.
.
Id. at 4.
)+
Id. at .).
))
Id. at .*.
)*
Id.
)9
Id. at .9.
)#
Id.
)$
Id.
)/
Id.
)3
Id.
)4
Id.
).
Id.
*+
Id.
*)
Id. at ., .*1.#.
**
Id. at .C Presidential Decree No. )$*. A).34B, Sec. $+ reads<
Section $+. Subdivision and consolidation plans. 'n& owner subdividin% a tract of re%istered
land into lots which do not constitute a subdivision proect has defined and provided for
under P.D. No. .$3, shall file with the Co!!issioner of 0and Re%istration or with the 2ureau
of 0ands a subdivision plan of such land on which all boundaries, streets, passa%ewa&s and
waterwa&s, if an&, shall be distinctl& and accuratel& delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it si!ple or co!ple?, dul& approved b& the Co!!issioner of 0and
Re%istration or the 2ureau of 0ands to%ether with the approved technical descriptions and
the correspondin% owner(s duplicate certificate of title is presented for re%istration, the
Re%ister of Deeds shall, without re5uirin% further court approval of said plan, re%ister the
sa!e in accordance with the provisions of the 0and Re%istration 'ct, as a!ended< Provided,
however, that the Re%ister of Deeds shall annotate on the new certificate of title coverin% the
street, passa%ewa& or open space, a !e!orandu! to the effect that e?cept b& wa& of
donation in favor of the national %overn!ent, province, cit& or !unicipalit&, no portion of an&
street, passa%ewa&, waterwa& or open space so delineated on the plan shall be closed or
otherwise disposed of b& the re%istered owner without the approval of the Court of -irst
Instance of the province or cit& in which the land is situated. AE!phasis suppliedB
*9
Rollo, p. )+.
*#
Id. at .$1./.
*$
Id. at )+.
*/
Id. at )+9.
*3
Id. at 31)*.
*4
Id. at )91)..
*.
Id. at *+1*$.
9+
Id. at 93194.
9)
Id. at 9.1#).
9*
39 Phil. $93, $$* A).#)B.
99
Rollo, pp. #$1#/.
9#
Id. at #$.
9$
Id. at #*.
9/
Id. at )9/1)94.
93
R60ES O- CO6R", Rule #), sec. * AcB.
94
See 2adillo v. Court of 'ppeals, $34 Phil. #+#, #)/1#)3 A*++4B FPer @. Carpio, -irst
DivisionC C.@. Puno, @@. Corona, ';cuna, and 0eonardo1De Castro, concurG, citin% Sevilleno
v. Carilo, $$. Phil. 34., 3.)13.* A*++3B FPer @. Sandoval1>utierre;, -irst DivisionG.
9.
See =acababbad, @r. v. =asira%, $./ Phil. 3/, 4. A*++.B FPer @. 2rion, Second DivisionG.
#+
See 0or;ano v. "aba&a%, @r., >.R. No. )4./#3, -ebruar& /, *+)*, //$ SCR' 94, #/ FPer @.
Re&es, Second DivisionC @@. Carpio, 2rion, Pere;, and Sereno, concurG.
#)
Id. at #/1#3.
#*
See =acababbad, @r. v. =asira%, $./ Phil. 3/, .+ A*++.B FPer @. 2rion, Second DivisionG.
#9
0or;ano v. "aba&a%, @r., >.R. No. )4./#3, -ebruar& /, *+)*, //$ SCR' 94, #3 FPer @.
Re&es, Second DivisionC @@. Carpio, 2rion, Pere;, and Sereno, concurG.
##
@ose v. @avellana, et al., >.R. No. )$4*9., @anuar& *$, *+)*, //# SCR' )), ). FPer @.
2ersa!in, -irst DivisionC @@. Corona, 0eonardo1De Castro, 'bad, and Killara!a, concurG,
5uotin% Pahila1>arrido v. "o r to % o, >.R. No. )$/9$4, 'u%ust )3, *+)), /$$ SCR' $$9.
#$
See Nabua v. 0u D!, $.# Phil. $)$, $*3 A*++4B FPer @. Re&es, R."., "hird DivisionC @@.
Dnares1Santia%o, 'ustria1=artine;, Chico1Na;ario, Nachura, concurG.
#/
Id. at $*4.
#3
Id., citin% Huelnan v. K8- Philippines, Inc., >.R. No. )#$.)), @ul& 3, *++#, #99 SCR' /9),
/94.
#4
See DES'=' v. >o;un, $*+ Phil. #$3, #33 A*++/B FPer @. Chico1Na;ario, -irst DivisionC
C.@. Pan%aniban, @@. Dnares1Santia%o, 'ustria1=artine;, Calleo, Sr., concurG.
#.
Republic v. Kda. de Castellvi, et al., )$3 Phil. 9*., 9#$19#3 A).3#B FPer @. Maldivar, En
2ancG.
$+
CIKI0 CODE, 'rt. #*4. "he owner has the ri%ht to eno& and dispose of a thin%, without
other li!itations than those established b& law.
"he owner has also a ri%ht of action a%ainst the holder and possessor of the thin% in order to
recover it. See '. "O0EN"INO, CO==EN"'RIES 'ND @6RISPR6DENCE ON "8E CIKI0
CODE O- "8E P8I0IPPINES, * #$1#/ F*++#G enu!erates the bundle of ri%hts< )B the ri%ht to
eno& which includes the ri%ht to receive fro! the thin% what it produces or us utendi, and
the ri%ht to consu!e the thin% b& its use or us abutendiC *B the ri%ht to dispose or us
disponendiC and 9B the ri%ht to e?clude others fro! the possession of the thin% or us
vindicandi.
$)
See !ap, rollo, p. 3$.
$*
See also 7hite Plains v. Court of 'ppeals, 9$4 Phil. )4#, *+3 A)..4B FPer @. =artine;,
Second DivisionC A'ctin%B C.@. Re%alado, @@. =elo, and =endo;a, concurG F@. Puno, no part
due to close relation with so!e partiesG, citin% Doun% v. Cit& of =anila, 39 Phil. $93 A).#)B.
$9
Id. at *+).
$#
Id. at *+9.
$$
CONS"I., art. III, sec. .C See also 2r%&. Sindalan v. Court of 'ppeals, $#3 Phil. $#*, $$4
A*++3B FPer @. Kelasco, @r., Second DivisionC @@. Huisu!bin% AChairpersonB, Carpio, Carpio1
=orales, and "in%a, concurG.
$/
CONS"I., art. III, sec. ..
$3
Pascual v. Secretar& of Public 7orks, ))+ Phil. 99), 9#+ A)./+B FPer @. Concepcion, En
2ancC C. @. ParNs, @@. 2en%;on, Padilla, 2autista 'n%elo, 0abrador, Re&es, @. 2. 0., 2arrera,
>utiOrre; David, Paredes, and Di;on, concurG.
$4
See also 2r%&. Sindalan v. Court of 'ppeals, $#3 Phil. $#*, $$. A*++3B FPer @. Kelasco, @r.,
Second DivisionC @@. Huisu!bin% AChairpersonB, Carpio, Carpio1=orales, and "in%a, concurG.
$.
CONS"I., art. III.
/+
See =anapat v. Court of 'ppeals, $/* Phil. 9), #3 A*++3B FPer @. Nachura, "hird DivisionC
@@. Dnares1Santia%o AChairpersonB, 'ustria1=artine;, Chico1Na;ario, and Re&es, concurG.
/)
DES'=' v. >o;un, $*+ Phil. #$3, #3/ A*++/B FPer @. Chico1Na;ario, -irst DivisionC C.@.
Pan%aniban, @@. Dnares1Santia%o, 'ustria1=artine;, Calleo, Sr., concurG.
/*
Id.C See =anapat v. Court of 'ppeals, $/* Phil. 9), #3 A*++3B FPer @. Nachura, "hird
DivisionC @@. Dnares1Santia%o AChairpersonB, 'ustria1=artine;, Chico1Na;ario, and Re&es,
concurG.
/9
)+/ Phil. )+)3 A)./+B FPer @. =onte!a&orG.
/#
Id. at )+*).
/$
8errera v. 'uditor >eneral, )+* Phil. 43$, 44* A).$4B FPer @. =onte!a&orG.
//
See for e?a!ple Republic 'ct No. 4.3# A*+++B, Sec. 9C E?ecutive Order No. )+9$ A).4$B,
Secs. /13.