REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. LADISLAO PASICOLAN, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA (BRANCH II), JOSE P. INGAL AND MARCELIANO CALIUAG, RES…

Original action for certiorari and mandamus, to annul an order of respondent
Judge and to enjoin him to cause petitioner to be placed in possession of
certain parcels of land.

On September 27, 1954, petitioner herein, the Republic of the Philippines,
instituted Civil Case No. 763 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga,
entitled “Republic of the Philippines vs. Justice Jose Gutierrez David,
et al.”, for the expropriation of an estate of about 2,054 hectares, situated in
San Luis, Pampanga, and more particularly described in the complaint therein
filed, to be subdivided into home lots and family sized farms, in order to
provide homes and means of livelihood to some 570 families of about 3,000
individuals and drive away dissidence and restore peace in the area. The
complaint was amended on November 26, 1955, to include additional defendants and
additional properties to be expropriated. On December 3, 1956, the complaint was
further amended by the inclusion therein of Lots Nos. 2599, 2609 and 2625 of the
San Luis Cadastre, San Luis, Pampanga, among the properties sought to be taken,
and that of Cecilia Lagman Vda. de Salas, and Leonides, Josefa, Alberto, Pastora
and Luz, all surnamed Salas—and hereinafter referred to as the Salases as
alleged owners of said properties pursuant to a decision rendered in Cadastral
Case No. 56 (L. R. C. Rec. No. 1979), dated November 26, 1956, and Original
Certificate of Title No. 1898 of the office of the Register of Deeds of
Pampanga. Forthwith, the Salases moved that the sum of P3,240, deposited by the
Government as the provisional value of said lots, be paid to them, which was
granted, whereupon the movants collected said amount.

Over two (2) months later, or on February 11, 1957, respondents herein, Jose
P. Ingal and Marceliano Caliuag hereinafter referred to as intervenors—moved to
intervene in the case and filed an opposition to the expropriation of the lots
aforementioned. Meanwhile, or on or about January 19, 1957, the intervenors had
filed in Cadastral Case No. 56 a petition for review of the said decision of
November 26, 1956, adjudicating to the Salases the lots in question, upon the
ground that the same belong to them (the intervenors). Before this petition for
review could be heard, or on July 14, 1957, the Salases and the intervenors
entered into a compromise agreement in both cases, whereby—after making
reference to the aforementioned decision, to the provisional value received by
the Salases in the expropriation proceedings, to the motion for review of said
decision in the cadastral case and to the motion to intervene in the
expropriation proceedings—they stipulated, inter alia:

“That, the parties herein desire to buy peace and stop the troubles of
litigation in both Cadastral Case No. 56 and Civil Case No. 763, the object of
which are cadastral Lots Nos. 2599, 2609, and 2625 of the San Luis Cadastre;

“That, the claimants, herein, represented by Leonides Salas, for himself and
as attorney-in-fact of his co-parties, for having received from the Republic of
the Philippines in Civil Case No. 763 the provisional value of the said parcels
of land, do hereby waive, quitclaim, transfer, and convey, all the claimants’
rights, interests, shares, and participations on Lots Nos. 2599, 2609, and 2625
of the San Luis Cadastre, in favor of the petitioners-intervenors, Marceliano
Caliuag and Jose P. Ingal, share and share alike;

“That, petitloners-intervenors Marceliano Caliuag and Jose P. Ingal consider
the payment by the Republic of the Philippines of the said provisional value as
legal and valid payment;

x x x x

“That, claimants Cecilia Lagman Vda. de Salas, et als., shall not claim any
further claim from the Republic of the Philippines affecting the said three (3)
parcels of land; and petitioners-intervenors shall not claim against the
Republic of the Philippines for the same provisional value paid to the herein
claimants;

“That, the petitioners-intervenors shall remain party-defendants in Civil
Case No. 763-for Expropriation; and the herein claimants shall withdraw
therefrom as party-litigants:

“That, by virtue of this COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, all parties herein agree to
have the three (3) parcels of land, namely Lots Nos. 2299, 2609, and 2625 of the
San Luis Cadastre adjudicated to:

MARCELIANO CALIUAG, of legal age, married to Donata Ingal, Filipino, with
residence and postal address at San Luis, Pampanga, and

JOSE P. INGAL, of legal age, married to Isabel Feliciano, Filipino, with
residence and postal address at Calero, Morong, Rizal, share and share
alike.”

In view of this compromise agreement, on July 26, 1957, the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga amended its above mentioned decision, in Cadastral Case No.
56, so as to adjudicate the lots in question to the intervenors, and Original
Certificates of Title No. 1898 was cancelled, and, in lieu thereof, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 17396—R was issued in favor of said intervenors. Prior
thereto, or on July 21, 1957, petitioner had filed in the expropriation case a
motion praying for the delivery of several lots covered by said proceedings,
including the lots in question. On February 8, 1960, petitioner filed another
motion reiterating its prayer for the delivery of said lots, the provisional
value thereof having already been collected by the Salases. Subsequently, or on
March 21, 1960, petitioner moved that the intervenors be substituted in lieu of
the Salases as parties-defendants, upon the ground that the former had stepped
into the shoes of the latter in consequence of the compromise agreement
aforementioned. The intervenors objected to both motions, which were denied by
respondent Judge, in an order dated April 23, 1960. A reconsideration of this
order having been, likewise, denied, petitioner instituted the present action
for certiorari and mandamus upon the ground that in denying the motion for
delivery of the possession of said lots, respondent Judge had acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction and with abuse of discretion, and that there is no
appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law against the order of denial adverted to above.

Such order appears to be based mainly upon the premise that the intervenors,
not the Salases, are the real parties in interest, insofar as the lots in
question are concerned, because the original decision, in the cadastral case, in
favor of the Salases, had been vacated, and the intervenors were declared
therein lawful owners of the said lots. However, it appears, also, that
respondent Judge had failed to give due weight and effect to the fact that said
adjudication in favor of the intervenors was (as alleged in paragraph 10 of the
petition herein and admitted by respondents herein) made “by virtue of the
compromise agreement—and, hence, in compliance therewith, or as a consequence
thereof—whereby the Salases waived, quitclaimed, transferred and
conveyed all their “rights, interests, shares and participations in and
to the lots in question in favor of the intervenors, and that (pursuant to said
paragraph 10 of the petition herein, the allegations of which are admitted in
respondents’ answer) by virtue of said compromise agreement, “Original
Certificate of Title No. 1898”, in favor of the Salases, “was cancelled and the
ownership of Lots Nos. 2599, 2609 and 2625 were transferred” to the
intervenors, “in whose favor Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17396—R
was issued by the Register of Deeds of Pampanga”, thus, the title of the
intervenors in and to said lots was merely derived from the Salases.
Otherwise, the former would have been issued an original certificate of title,
instead of the transfer certificate of title they got.

Again it was explicitly stipulated in the compromise agreement that the
intervenors considered as “legal and valid” the payment to the Salases of
P3,240, as the provisional value of said lots, and that said intervenors would
not claim such provisional value from the Government. Said payment to the
Salases could not be valid, but the aforementioned sum would have to be refunded
by them to the Government, under the principle of solutio indebti, and
the intervenors would be entitled to collect it from the Government, if the lots
in question did not belong to the Salases at the time of the aforementioned
payment. Said provisions of the compromise agreement necessarily imply,
therefore, a recognition by the intervenors that the Salases owned the lots in
question at such time.

In other words, in consequence of the compromise agreement, the intervenors
became the successors in interest to the rights of the Salases, so that the
admission made by the latter of petitioner’s right to expropriate said lots is
binding upon the former and their (intervenors’) rights in the expropriation
proceedings are now limited to the collection of the difference between the
provisional value aforementioned and such amount as may eventually be fixed as
the just compensation for the taking of the lots in question.

Lastly, being “legal and valid” said payment to the Salases should produce
its legal effects. And what are they. The sum of P3,240 was deposited by the
Government as a condition precedent to its right to take possession of said
lots, pursuant to Rule 69, section 3, of the Rules of Court. The collection of
said sum by the Salases was a recognition not merely of that right, which was
perfected upon the making of said deposit, unless the court fixed another amount
as the provisional value of the lots, but, also, of the compliance with said
condition. It thus rendered such right effective and executory. As a
consequence, in denying petitioner’s motion for the delivery of the lots in
question, respondent Judge has gravely abused his discretion and unlawfully
excluded the petitioner from the use and enjoyment of a right to which it is
entitled (Rule 67, sections 1 and 3, and Rule 69, section 3, of the Rules of
Court).

Wherefore, the aforementioned order of April 23, 1960, is set aside and
respondent Judge is hereby enjoined to cause petitioner herein, the Republic of
the Philippines, to be placed in possession of Lots Nos. 2599, 2609 and 2625 of
the San Luis Cadastre and to substitute Jose P. Ingal and Marceliano Caliuag, in
lieu of Cecilia Lagman Vda. de Salas, and Leonides, Josefa, Alberto, Pastora and
Luz, all surnamed Salas, as defendants in Civil. Case No. 763 of the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga, with costs against said Jose P. Ingal and Marceliano
Caliuag. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.