REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGION X, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, PETITIONER, VS. BENJOHN FETALVERO,
RESPONDENT.
G.R No. 198008, February 4, 2019

Leonen, J.

Case Doctrine: It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an

erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition
for certiorari and it has been repeatedly stressed that a petition
for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.

Facts: Fetalvero (Defendant) owned a 2,787-meter parcel of land which

the Department of Public Works and Highways, Region X took 569-meters
from the defendant to be sued in its flood control project. The defendant
then stated that that the portion of the land left was rendered useless
because of the project and such demanded 15,000 pesos per square
meter. However, as per Presidential Administration Order No. 50 series of
1999, the defendant was only entitled to 2,500 pesos per square meter OR
1.4 Million pesos plus 10% thereof. Negotiations happened and no
progress was made, and the Republic filed to the RTC a complaint for
expropriation against the petitioner.

The OSG then in a letter deputized Atty. Lorea to assist in the case then in
another letter to state that the office authorized Atty. Lorea to appear on
behalf of the OSG. The defendant then filed in the RTC a motion to
approve the Compromise Agreement and for the issuance of judgment,
which was approved by the court and the Republic received a copy of the
Order.

Issue: Whether or not the Compromise Agreement is void for not having
being submitted to the Office of the Solicitor General for review
Held: Yes. The Solicitor General is assumed to have known of the
Compromise Agreement since, as principal counsel, she was furnished a
copy of the trial court's June 27, 2008 Order, which referred the case to
mediation. Despite the lack of the Solicitor General's approval, this Court
holds that the government is still bound by the Compromise Agreement due
to laches. It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous
mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has
been repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for
a lost appeal. This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition
for certiorari which lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." It is
elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is
cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been repeatedly
stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
This is due to the nature of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari which lies only
where there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law."

As a general rule on the basis of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it becomes

improper for this court to consider factual issues: the findings of fact of the
trial court, as affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on
this court. "The reason behind the rule is that this Court is not a trier of facts
and it is not its duty to review, evaluate, and weigh the probative value of
the evidence adduced before the lower courts."