HRS.
OF SPS. LUCIANO and G.R.
No. 157972
CONSOLACION VENTURILLO,
Represented by ROWENA B. Present:
VENTURILLO-SUCALDITO,
Petitioners, QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
- versus
- TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
HON. JESUS V. QUITAIN, Promulgated:
Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 15,
11th Judicial
Region, Davao City and October 30, 2006
ENG’R. MEINRADO R. METRAN,
City Engineer and Building
Official of
The City of
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
The Heirs of Spouses Luciano and Consolacion Venturillo (Heirs of Venturillo),
represented by Rowena B. Venturillo-Sucaldito, assail
for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion the Order[1]
dated April 22, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao
City, Branch 15, which dismissed their petition for mandamus and denied their
prayer for injunctive relief.
The following statement
of facts is taken from the Court’s Resolution[2]
dated
Sometime in 1942, the Spouses Luciano and Consolacion Venturillo occupied a
678-square meter lot in Poblacion,
In 1974, the Davao
City Assessor’s Office directed the Venturillos to
file a Tax Declaration. They complied
with the said directive and paid the required taxes. The petitioners then continued the renewal of
the tax declarations and paying of taxes.
Sometime in 2000, Rowena Venturillo-Sucaldito filed a sales application with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the DENR wrote the
City Government for its comments regarding her application. In response, respondent City Engineer sent an
inspection team to check out the property.
On
On
The petitioners then hired an
engineer who prepared the necessary plans and other documents, which were
submitted to the respondent City Engineer.
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
The Heirs of Venturillo allege
that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed their
petition for mandamus and denied their prayer for injunction without: (1)
ruling on the admissibility of their admittedly tardy formal offer of exhibits;
(2) waiting for respondent City Engineer’s comment or objection to said formal
offer; and (3) without waiting for the answer of the City Engineer in the
mandamus case.
In the afore-cited Resolution dated
The Office of the City Legal Officer
filed a Comment[3] dated
Moreover, the Heirs of Venturillo allegedly failed to comply with the
indispensable requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before they
sought recourse to this Court via a petition for certiorari. Neither did they file an appeal of the trial
court’s final Order.
The Heirs of Venturillo
filed a Reply[4] dated
In the Resolution[5]
dated
The general rule is that the remedy
to obtain reversal or modification of a judgment on the merits is appeal. This
is true even if the error ascribed to the court which rendered judgment is its
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in
excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law
set out in the decision.[8]
In this case, the Heirs of Venturillo received the assailed Order of the trial court
on
Even assuming that the Heirs of Venturillo have a cause of action ripe for the
extraordinary writ of certiorari, they clearly disregarded the hierarchy of
courts when they directly filed their petition with this Court without adducing
any special and important reason or exceptional or compelling circumstance for
such a recourse. Considering that the special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is within the
concurrent original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals,
the petition should have been initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict
observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts.[10]
Moreover, the Heirs of Venturillo failed to file a motion for reconsideration of
the trial court’s Order, depriving the latter of the opportunity to correct
whatever error it may have committed. Rule
65 of the Rules of Court requires that petitioner be left with “no appeal, nor
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”[11]
A motion for reconsideration is a
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The
filing thereof is a condition precedent in order that a petition for certiorari
may be given due course.[12] Although there are certain recognized
exceptions to this rule, such as where the order is a patent nullity for lack
of jurisdiction on the part of the court which rendered it, or where the
questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed
upon in the lower court,[13]
we find no such exception in this case which would warrant a departure from the
rule.
Regional Trial Courts are fully clothed
with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be
enforced in any part of their respective regions. Moreover, the question of whether it should
have first ruled on the admissibility of the tardy formal offer of exhibits
filed by the Heirs of Venturillo, and waited for
respondent’s comment or objection to said formal offer and answer in the
mandamus case, were not raised and passed upon by the trial court precisely
because the Heirs of Venturillo failed to file a
motion for reconsideration. Had they
done so, the trial court would have been given the opportunity to correct any
factual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal
and factual aspects of the case.
These procedural errors,
notwithstanding, and in the interest of finally disposing of this case, we
reviewed its merits and found that indeed grave abuse of discretion attended
the issuance of the assailed Order of the trial court.
The remedy of mandamus lies to compel
the performance of a ministerial duty.[14] A
purely ministerial act or duty, in contradistinction to a discretionary act, is
one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without
regard to or the exercise of his own judgment, upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done. If the law
imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or
when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not
ministerial.[15]
The issuance of a building permit may
be considered a ministerial duty only when the application and the plans are in
conformity with the requirements of zoning and land use, lines and grades,
structural design, sanitary and sewerage, environmental health, electrical and
mechanical safety as well as with other rules and regulations promulgated in
accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code.[16]
In this case, the Heirs of Venturillo complied with all the requirements for the
procurement of a building permit enumerated under the National Building Code,
such as the description of the work to be covered by the permit applied for;
description and ownership of the lot on which the proposed work is to be done;
the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended; estimated cost of
the proposed work; and the plans and specifications prepared, signed and sealed
by a duly licensed engineer.[17] They also paid the requisite fees for the
application.[18]
Having done so, it became incumbent
upon respondent City Engineer to issue the building permit applied for. His refusal to perform an act which the law
enjoins him to do, upon the full compliance by the Heirs of Venturillo
of the conditions provided under the law, entitles the latter to the writ of
mandamus prayed for.
By the same token, the Heirs of Venturillo are entitled to a writ of injunction to prevent
the threatened summary demolition of their residence. The
requisites for an injunctive writ to issue are that: (1) the
petitioner/applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right; (2) there is a
material and substantial invasion of such right; and (3) there is an urgent and
permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[19]
Respondent City Engineer’s refusal to
issue the building permit and concomitant order for the Heirs of Venturillo to cause the demolition of their house or else
the same shall be summarily demolished[20]
are premised on the fact that the house which the Heirs of Venturillo
intended to refurbish stands in the middle of the proposed extension of Mt. Mayon Street, an area which had been declared as a road
right-of-way by the City Government.
It should be emphasized, however,
that the Heirs of Venturillo, through their parents,
have continuously possessed and occupied the land on which the house sought to
be refurbished stands since 1942. This
possession was with the tacit consent and authorization of the City
Government. In fact, the City Assessor’s
Office directed the Venturillos to file tax
declarations and pay real property taxes thereon which they have consistently
complied with.
In Estate of Gregoria
Francisco v. Court of Appeals,[21] the
municipal mayor of Isabela, Basilan
ordered the summary demolition, without judicial authority, of a quonset building which stood on a lot owned by the
Philippine Ports Authority. The
municipal mayor justified the demolition as an exercise of police power and for
reasons of health, safety and general welfare.
The Court awarded just compensation
the amount of which was for the trial court to determine in favor of the
petitioner whose building was demolished by the municipality even before a
proper tribunal could decide whether or not the building constituted a nuisance
in law. The ruling was premised on the ground that the owner of the building
was in lawful possession of the lot and the building by virtue of the permit
from the authorized government agency when the demolition was affected.
In the same vein, by virtue of the
City Government’s tacit consent, the Heirs of Venturillo
are not squatters on public land but are in lawful possession thereof,
including the house subject of the summary demolition order of respondent City
Engineer. The Heirs of Venturillo have a clear and unmistakable legal right not to
be disturbed in their lawful possession of the property unless the proper judicial
tribunal has determined that the same constitutes a nuisance in law.
The trial court should have issued an
injunctive writ to prevent the imminent threat of summary demolition of the Heirs
of Venturillo’s residence without judicial
proceedings. That it failed to safeguard
petitioners’ right to due process constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Order dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[8]Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140150,
[9]New Ever Marketing, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140555, July 14, 2005; Victoria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147550, January 26, 2005.
[12]Davao New Town Development Corporation v.
Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 141523,
[16]Director
of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-21059,
[19]Hutchison Ports Philippines, Ltd. v.