THE MUNICIPALITY OP SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, PETITIONER, VS. MODESTO CASTILLO, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE AND CARLOS YOUNG, RESPONDENTS.

This petition was instituted by the
petitioner to set aside the order entered by the respondent judge on
August 31, 1937, appointing commissioners on appraisal in civil case
No. 6875 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, on expropriation; to
compel the respondent judge to determine beforehand the right of the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, plaintiff in said
case, to expropriate certain portions of land and the adverse rights
invoked by the petitioner, as intervenor, and by the defendants; and to
appoint commissioners on appraisal to represent each of the parties in
interest.

Pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 20 and by
authority of the President of the Philippines, the Government of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines instituted civil case No. 6875 in the
Court of First Instance of Laguna, with the Colegio de San Jose and
Carlos Young as defendants. It was stated in the complaint filed that
the Colegio de San Jose claimed to be the owner of the big tract of
land known as Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan; that Carlos
Young claimed to be entitled to the possession thereof and that the
government desired to expropriate a big parcel included in said
hacienda, occupied by about 1,160 tenants; and it was prayed that the
sum of P171,808 be provisionally fixed as the value of the land; that
the deposit of this sum be authorized, and that delivery to the
plaintiff government of the possession of the parcel of land sought to
be expropriated be forthwith ordered, without prejudice to the
immediate appointment of commissioners on appraisal who would proceed
to appraise and determine the correct value of the land. Before the
Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young presented their answers, the
petitioner municipality of San Pedro, with authority of the court,
filed a complaint in intervention against all the parfies, alleging in
substance that the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan, as well as
the big parcel of land sought to be expropriated by the Commonwealth
Government, belonged to the latter, or as alleged by it, to the
Philippine State by right of escheat; that it was and is the
beneficiary of the entire hacienda and of the big parcel in question,
and that the value of said big parcel of land is merely P60,000; and by
way of remedies, asked for the appointment of Jose H. Guevara as
commissioner to represent it and for the delivery and payment to it,
instead of the defendants, of any amount of money the court may fix as
the value of or indemnity for the land expropriated. The Colegio de San
Jose and Carlos Young filed answers and amended answers to the
government’s complaint and acknowledged therein the latter’s right to
expropriate the big parcel of land in question, but alleged, as
defenses, that the value thereof is P1,000,000, and that the amount of
the damages that such expropriation would cause would not be less than
P500,000. Carlos Young asked that he be finally adjudicated the sum of
P750,000 to which he was entitled by way of damages incurred by him by
reason of the expropriation and that the provisional value of the land
fixed by the court be raised to P1.500,000. The Government of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, the Colegio de San Jose and Carlos
Young likewise filed answers to the petitioner’s complaint in
intervention. The Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines
stated that it had no objection to the court’s determining the adverse
rights of the intervenor and of the defendants. The Colegio de San Jose
absolutely denied that the municipality of San Pedro had any right or
interest in the hacienda or in the portion thereof soueht to be
expropriated by the government, alleging that it is the registered
owner of the entire Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan and that
its title and possession have been recognized from time immemorial.
Carlos Young likewise impugned the right claimed hy the petitioner
alleging that he is the lessee of the Harienda de San Pedro Tunasan by
virtue of a contract entered into between him and the Colegio de San
Jose which is the true and only owner of the entire hacienda. By an
order of March 31, 1937, the court denied the petitions of the Colegio
de San Jose and of Carlos Young for the delivery to them of the sum of
P171,808 deposited by the government as provisional value of the land
sought to be expropriated, on the ground that the ownership thereof was
in dispute between the petitioner and the Colegio de San Jose. On
August 31, 1937, the court entered the order, which pave rise to the
present appeal, appointing Mariano A. Garcia, Fernando Quisumbinor and
Alfonso Farcon as commissioners, the first in representation of the
government, the second in representation of the Colegio de San Jose and
Carlos Young and the third as the court’s own choice. Because the
controversy between it and the Colegio de San Jose had not been
previously determined and because Jose H. Guevara, who had been
proposed by it, had not been appointed commissioner, the petitioner
excepted to and filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
order of August 31, 1937, which motion was denied.

1. The first question to arise in view of the above-stated facts is
   whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the remedy of certiorari
   applied for by it. This court has invariably held, and it is the
   fundamental doctrine in this jurisdiction, that the remedy of
   certiorari lies only when the court that has rendered the judgment or
   issued the order in question is without jurisdiction, has exceeded the
   same or has abused its sound discretion (Springer vs. Odlin, 3 Phil., 344; Gala vs. Cui and Rodriguez, 25 Phil., 522; Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Judge of First Instance of Iloilo and Bantillo, 34 Phil., 157; Bustos vs. Moir and Fajardo, 35 Phil., 415; De la Cruz vs. Moir, 36 Phil., 213; Jaranillo vs. Jacinto and Hart, 43 Phil., 588; Conde vs. Judge of First Instance and Fiscal of Tayabas, 45 Phil., 173; Gonzalez and Javellana vs. Salas, 49 Phil., 1; Ello vs. Judge of First Instance of Antique and Valdevin, 49 Phil., 152; Santos vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite, 49 Phil., 398; Tuason vs. Concepcion, 54 Phil., 408).

Section 243 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which treats of the
appointment of commissioners in condemnation proceedings, provides as
follows:

“SEC. 243. Appointment of commissioners.—If
the defendant concede that the right of condemnation exists on the part
of the plaintiff, or if, upon trial, the court finds that such right
exists, the court shall appoint three judicious and disinterested
landowners of the province in which the land to be condemned, or some
portion of the same, is situated, to be commissioners to hear the
parties and view the premises, and assess damages to be paid for the
condemnation, and to report their proceedings in full to the court, and
shall issue a commission under the seal of the court to the
commissioners authorizing the performance of the duties herein
prescribed.”

According to said section, when the defendant acknowledges the
plaintiff’s right to expropriate, the court may immediately appoint
commissioners to assess the properties and determine the damages. In
the present case, the Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young, the
defendants, expressly admitted in their answers the right of the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines to expropriate the
portion of land described in the complaint and in the plan attached
thereto, for which reason the respondent judge was perfectly authorized
to proceed with the appointment of commissioners. While it is true that
the petitioner, as intervenor in said case, claimed to be the holder of
rights adverse to those of the Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young,
all the right invoked by it consists in that of an alleged beneficiary,
as may be inferred from its complaint in intervention as well as from
the petition filed by it in the present proceedings. From the beginning
of the expropriation proceedings to date the petitioner admits that the
ownership of or title to the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan
resides in the Commonwealth of the Philippines. On the other hand, the
Commonwealth of the Philippines has instituted this expropriation
proceeding recognizing the Colegio de San Jose as the owner of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan
and of the portion it seeks to expropriate. Under such circumstances
this court deems it clear and so holds that the petitioner can neither
obstruct the expropriation proceedings nor prevent the court from
naming commissioners on appraisal pursuant to the provisions of section
243 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court refrains from dwelling
at length on the claims of the petitioner relative to the hacienda and
the portion thereof sought to be expropriated, so as not to pass
premature judgment upon the controversy raised by it in the Court of
First Instance having jurisdiction over the expropriation proceedings.
However, this court holds that, in view of the pledings presented in
civil case No. 6875 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, the
respondent judge had jurisdiction and neither exceeded the same nor
abused his sound discretion in issuing the order of August 31, 1937,
appointing the commissioners on appraisal.

2. The petitioner alleges, as another ground, the
   fact that the respondent judge did not appoint commissioner the person
   proposed by it. Section 243 of the Code of Civil Procedure leaves the
   selection of the persons who should be appointed commissioners entirely
   to the sound discretion of the court having jurisdiction over an
   expropriation case. All that it requires is that the persons appointed
   be competent and disinterested landowners. Said section does not confer
   upon the parties to an expropriation proceeding the right to select the
   commissioners.

3. It is finally contended
   by the petitioner that the respondent judge should not have appointed
   the commissioners until after he has decided the controversy between
   it, on the one hand, and the Colegio de San Jose and Carlos Young, on
   the other, and that it lies to compel him to decide said controversy
   beforehand. In view of the fact that the petitioner has never
   questioned and does not dispute the right of the Government of the
   Commonwealth of the Philippines to expropriate the big portion of the Hacienda de San Pedro Tunasan,
   and taking into consideration furthermore the fact that the petitioner
   does not invoke any right of ownership over said hacienda or any
   portion thereof, this court holds that, under said section 243, the
   respondent judge is not obliged to decide beforehand the controversy
   between the said parties.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied, with costs to the petitioner. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.