VOL. 399, MARCH 18, 2003 277: Republic vs. Court of Appeals
VOL. 399, MARCH 18, 2003 277: Republic vs. Court of Appeals
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
278
CORONA, J.:
279
1
1
dated March 15, 1999 of the Court of Appeals which
dismissed (1) the petition for certiorari filed by the
petitioner Republic of the Philippines for having been filed
out of time and (2) the subsequent resolution which denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts follow.
In line with the centennial celebration of Philippine
Independence on June 12, 1998, the government embarked
on several commemorative Centennial Freedom Trail
(CFT) projects. One of these projects was the construction
of the Tejeros Convention Center and the founding site of
the Philippine Army on the 3,497 sq. m. property of
respondent Fe Manuel located in Tejeros, Rosario, Cavite.
The said property was declared by the National Historical
Institute (NHI) as a historical
2
landmark in its Resolution
No. 2 dated April 19, 1995.
To carry out the Tejeros Convention Project, the
government, through the National Centennial Commission
(NCC), filed on December 4, 1997 a complaint for
expropriation against respondents Fe Manuel 3 and
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank). The
land was mortgaged by Fe Manuel to Metrobank and was
extrajudicially
4
foreclosed by the latter on November 20,
1997. Respondent Fe Manuel interposed no objection5 to
the expropriation as long as just compensation was paid.
On May 27, 1998, Presiding Judge Christopher Lock of
the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 88,
dismissed the complaint for expropriation on the ground of
lack of cause of action. The trial6 court ruled that, based on
the 1987 Administrative Code, there were: (1) no prior
determination by the President as to the necessity or
wisdom of the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and
(2) no prior written authority for the Solicitor General to
institute the expropriation case. Without such conditions
precedent, the trial court ruled that plaintiff had no cause
of action to file the
______________
280
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
7
expropriation case. The trial court also ruled that
8
the NCC
had no power under Executive Order No. 128 to acquire
real estate properties through negotiated sale, nor to
recommend to the President the propriety of taking
property through condemnation proceedings. It explained
that since the NCC’s life was only up to the June 12, 1998
celebrations, the fear of defendant Metrobank that there
would be no more entity to process its claim for just
compensation was perfectly valid. Accordingly, 9
the trial
court dismissed the complaint for expropriation.
On June 17, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the trial court’s order dismissing its
complaint. The trial court denied the motion in its order
dated October 6, 1998, a copy of10
which was received by the
petitioner on October 12, 1998.
On December 11, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse
of discretion on the part of Judge Christopher Lock for
summarily dismissing 11
its complaint and denying its motion
for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, in its
resolution dated March 15, 1999, for having been filed out
of time. It also denied petitioner’s motion 12
for
reconsideration in its January 13, 2000 resolution.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition for
review, arguing that the Court of Appeals should not have
applied to its case the amendment made to Section 4, Rule
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect
on September 1, 1998. Procedural rules, petitioner argued,
should not be given retroactive effect where their
application would result in injustice. Petitioner invoked
Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
which provides that liberality should be observed in
construing the Rules of Court in order to promote its
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. Petitioner also
called the Court’s attention to the case of Solar
______________
281
______________
282
283
______________
284
______________
285
——o0o——