republic vs ca, ccp

7/23/2019 Republic vs CA, CCP

1/21

G.R. No. 103882 November 25, 1998

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.THE HONORBLE COURT OF PPELS N! REPUBLIC REL ESTTE CORPORTION,re"#o$%e$&", CULTURL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor.

G.R. No. 1052'( November 25, 1998

PS) CIT) N! REPUBLIC REL ESTTE CORPORTION, petitioners,vs.COURT OF PPELS *$% REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

PURISI+, J.:

At bar are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the RevisedRules of Court. Here, the Court is confronted with a case commenced before the then Courtof First Instance (now Reional !rial Court" of Ri#al in $asa% Cit%, in &'&, more than )decades bac*, that has spanned si+ administrations of the Republic and outlasted the tenureof ten (&" Chief -ustices of the upreme Court.

In /.R. 0o. &)112, the Republic of the $hilippines, as petitioner, assails the 3ecision, dated-anuar% 2', &''2 and Amended 3ecision, dated April 21, &''2, of the Court of Appeals 1

which armed with modication the 3ecision of the former Court of First Instance of Ri#al(6ranch 7, $asa% Cit%" in Civil Case 0o. 222'8$, entitled 9Republic of the $hilippines vs. $asa%Cit% and Republic Real :state Corporation9.

!he facts that matter are, as follows;

Republic Act 0o. &1'' (9RA &1''9", which was approved on -une 22, &'57, authori#ed thereclamation of foreshore lands b% chartered cities and municipalities. ection I of said law,

reads;

ec. &. Authorit% is hereb% ranted to all municipalities and chartered cities tounderta*e and carr% out at their own e+pense the reclamation b% dredin,llin, or other means, of an% foreshore lands borderin them, and toestablish, provide, construct, maintain and repair proper and aden ?a% , &'51, invo*in the a forecited provision of RA &1'', the $asa% Cit% Council passed>rdinance 0o. &2&, for the reclamation of !hree Hundred ()" hectares of foreshore landsin $asa% Cit%, empowerin the Cit% ?a%or to award and enter into reclamation contracts,

and prescribin terms and conditions therefor. !he said >rdinance was amended on April 2&,&'5' b% >rdinance 0o. &51, which authori#ed the Republic Real :state Corporation (9RR:C9"to reclaim foreshore lands of $asa% Cit% under certain terms and conditions.

>n April 24, &'5', $asa% Cit% and RR:C entered into an Areement 2for the reclamation ofthe foreshore lands in $asa% Cit%.

>n 3ecember &', &'&, the Republic of the $hilippines (9Republic9" led a Complaint 3 forRecover% of $ossession and 3amaes with =rit of $reliminar% $reventive in@unction and

$ae 1of 21


2/21

?andator% In@unction, doc*eted as Civil Case 0o. 222'8$ before the former Court of FirstInstance of Ri#al, (6ranch 7, $asa% Cit%".

>n ?arch 5, &'2, the Republic of the $hilippines led an Amended Complaint


3/21

diddin, award contracts for the construction of such pro@ect, with the winninbidder shoulderin all costs thereof, the same to be paid in terms ofpercentae fee of the contractor which shall not e+ceed ft% percent of thearea reclaimed b% the contractor and shall represent full compensation for thepurpose, the provisions of the $ublic and aw concernin disposition ofreclaimed and foreshore lands to the contrar% notwithstandin; Provided,

fnally, that the oregoing provisions and those o other laws, executiveorders, rules and regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, existing rights,projects and/or contracts o city or municipal governments or the reclamationo oreshore and submerged lands shall be respected. . . . . (emphasis ours".

ince the aforecited law provides that e+istin contracts shall be respected, movantscontended that the issues raised b% the pleadins have become 9moot, academicand of no further validit% or eBect.9

?eanwhile, the $asa% aw and Conscience Gnion, Inc. (9$CG9" moved to intervene 11,allein as leal interest in the matter in litiation the avowed purpose of the orani#ationfor the promotion of ood overnment in $asa% Cit%. In its >rder of -une &, &'', the lowercourt of oriin allowed the said intervention 12.

>n ?arch 24, &'72, the trial court of oriin came out with a 3ecision, disposin, thus;

=H:R:F>R:, after carefull% considerin (&" the oriinal complaint, (2" the rstAmended Complaint, ()" the Answer of 3efendant Republic Real :stateCorporation to the rst Amended Complaint, (4" the Answer of 3efendant$asa% Cit% to the rst Amended Complaint, (5" the econd AmendedComplaint, (" the Answer of 3efendant Republic Real :state Corporation tothe econd Amended Complaint, (7" the Answer of 3efendant $asa% Cit% tothe econd Amended Complaint, (1" the ?emorandum in upport of$reliminar% In@unction of $laintiB, ('" the ?emorandum In upport of the>pposition to the Issuance of $reliminar% In@unction of 3efendant $asa% Cit%and 3efendant Republic Real :state Corporation, (&" the Answer in

Intervention of Intervenors 6autista, et. al., (&&" $laintiBs >pposition to?otion to Intervene, (&2" the Repl% to >pposition to ?otion to Intervene ofIntervenors 6autista, et. al., (&)" the tipulation of Facts b% all the parties,(&4" the ?otion for eave to Intervene of Intervenor $asa% aw andConscience Gnion, Inc., (&5" the >pposition to ?otion For eave to Interveneof Intervenors 6autista, et. al., (&" the Repl% of Intervenor $asa% aw andConscience Gnion, Inc., (&7" the upplement to >pposition to ?otion toIntervene of 3efendant $asa% Cit% and Republic Real :state Corporation (&1"the Complain in Intervention of Intervenor $asa% aw and Conscience Gnion,Inc., (&'" the Answer of 3efendant Republic Real :state Corporation, (2" theAnswer of Intervenor -ose . 6autista,et. al., to Complaint in Intervention, (2&"the ?otion to 3ismiss of 3efendant Republic Real :state Corporation, andIntervenors 6autista,et. al., (22" the >pposition of $laintiB to said ?otion to

3ismiss, (2)" the >pposition of Intervenor $asa% aw and Conscience Gnion,Inc., (24" the ?emorandum of the 3efendant Republic Real :stateCorporation, (25" the ?emorandum for the Intervenor $asa% aw andConscience Gnion, Inc., (2" the ?anifestation of $laintiB led b% the >ce ofthe olicitor /eneral, and all the documentar% evidence b% the parties to wit;(a" $laintiBs :+hibits 9A9 to 9DDD8 49, (b" 3efendant Republic Real :stateCorporations :+hibits 9&8RR:C9 to 948a9 and (c" Intervenor $asa% aw andConscience Gnion, Incs., :+hibits 9A8$ACG9 to 9C8$ACG9, the Court hereb%;

$ae 3of 21


4/21

(&" 3enies the 9?otion to 3ismiss9 led on -anuar% &, &'1, b% 3efendantRepublic Real :state Corporation and Intervenors 6autista,et. al., as it is thendin of this Court that Republic Act 0o. 5&17 was not passed b% Conress tocure an% defect in the ordinance and areement in n 0ovember 2, &'7), the Republic and the Construction 3evelopment Corporation of the$hilippines (9C3C$9" sined a Contract13for the ?anila8Cavite Coastal Road $ro@ect ($hases I

$ae of 21


5/21

and II" which contract included the reclamation and development of areas covered b% theAreement between $asa% Cit% and RR:C. !hen, there was issued $residential 3ecree 0o.&15 which transferred to the $ublic :state Authorit% (9$:A9" the rihts and obliations ofthe Republic of the $hilippines under the contract between the Republic and C3C$.

Attempts to settle amicabl% the dispute between representatives of the Republic, on the one

hand, and those of $asa% Cit% and RR:C, on the other, did not wor* out. !he parties involvedfailed to hammer out a compromise.

>n -anuar% 21, &''2, the Court of Appeals came out with a 3ecision 1dismissin the appealof the Republic and holdin, thus;

=H:R:F>R:, the decision appealed from is hereb% AFFIR?:3 with thefollowin modications;

&. !he rerderin the plaintiB8appellant to turn over to $asa% Cit% the ownership andpossession over all vacant spaces in the twent%8one hectare area alread%reclaimed b% $asa% Cit% and RR:C at the time it too* over the same. Areasthereat over which permanent structures has (sic" been introduced shall,includin the structures, remain in the possession of the present possessor,sub@ect to an% neotiation between $asa% Cit% and the said present possessor,as reards the continued possession and ownership of the latter area.

). ustainin RR:Cs irrevocable option to purchase si+t% (" percent of the!went%8>ne (2&" hectares of land alread% reclaimed b% it, to be e+ercisedwithin one (&" %ear from the nalit% of this decision, at the same terms and

condition embodied in the $asa% Cit%8RR:C reclamation contract, anden@oinin appellee $asa% Cit% to respect RR:Cs option.

> >R3:R:3.

>n Februar% &4, &''2, $asa% Cit% and RR:C presented a ?otion for Reconsideration of such3ecision of the Court of Appeals, contendin, amon others, that RR:C had actuall%reclaimed Fift%8Five (55" hectares, and not onl% !went%8one (2&" hectares, and therespondent Court of Appeals erred in not awardin damaes to them, movants.

>n April 21, &''2, the Court of Appeals acted favorabl% on the said ?otion forReconsideration, b% amendin the dispositive portion of its @udment of -anuar% 21, &''2, toread as follows;

=H:R:F>R:, the dispositive portion of our 3ecision dated -anuar% 21, &''2 ishereb% A?:03:3 to read as follows;

&. !he re


6/21

2. >rderin plaintiB8appellant to turn over to $asa% Cit% the ownership andpossession of the above enumerated lots (& to '".

). ustainin RR:Cs irrevocable option to purchase si+t% (" percent of theland referred to in 0o. 2 of this dispositive portion, to be e+ercised within one(&" %ear from the nalit% of this 3ecision, at the same terms and condition

embodied in the $asa% Cit%8RR:C reclamation contract, and en@oinin $asa%Cit% to respect RR:Cs irrevocable option.

> >R3:R:3.

From the 3ecision and Amended 3ecision of the Court of Appeals aforementioned, theRepublic of the $hilippines, as well as $asa% Cit% and RR:C, have come to this Court to see*relief, albeit with diBerent pra%ers.

>n eptember &, &''7, the Court commissioned the former thirteenth 3ivision of Court ofAppeals to hear and receive evidence on the controvers%. !he correspondin CommissionersReport, dated 0ovember 25, &''7, was submitted and now forms part of the records.

>n >ctober &&, &''7, the Cultural Center of the $hilippines (9CC$9" led a $etition inIntervention, theori#in that it has a direct interest in the case bein the owner of sub@ectnine ('" lots titled in its (CC$" name, which the respondent Court of Appeals ordered to beturned over to $asa% Cit%. !he CC$, as such intervenor, was allowed to present its evidence,as it did, before the Court of Appeals, which evidence has been considered in theformulation of this disposition.

In /.R. 0o. &)112, the Republic of the $hilippines theori#es, b% wa% of assinment of errors,that;

I

!H: C>GR! >F A$$:A :RR:3 I0 G$H>3I0/ !H: JAI3I!D >F$AAD CI!D >R3I0A0C: 0>. &51 3A!:3 A$RI 2&, &'5' A03

!H: R:CA?A!I>0 C>0!RAC! :0!:R:3 I0!> 6:!=::0 $AADCI!D A03 RR:C

II

!H: C>GR! >F A$$:A :RR:3 I0 FI03I0/ !HA! RR:C HA3R:CAI?:3 55 H:C!AR: A03 I0 >R3:RI0/ !H: !GR08>J:R

!> $AAD CI!D >F !H: >=0:RHI$ A03 $>:I>0 >F 0I0:('" >! !I!:3 I0 !H: 0A?: >F CC$.

In /.R. 0o. &527, the petitioners, $asa% Cit% and RR:C, contend, that;

I

!H: C>GR! >F A$$:A :RR:3 I0 0>! 3:CARI0/$R:I3:0!IA 3:CR:: 0>. )8A G0C>0!I!G!I>0A

II

$ae (of 21


7/21

!H: C>GR! >F A$$:A :RR:3 I0 0>! A=AR3I0/ 3A?A/: I0FAJ>R >F $AAD CI!D A03 RR:C.

et us rst tac*le the issues posed in /.R. 0o. &)112.

>n the rst rdinance 0o. &51 dated April 2&,

&'5' and the Areement dated April 24, &'5' between $asa% Cit% and RR:C, we rule in theneative.

ec. & of RA &1'', reads;

ec. &. Authorit% is hereb% ranted to all municipalities andchartered cities to underta*e and carr% out at their owne+pense the reclamation b% dredin, llin, or other means, ofan% foreshore lands borderin them, and to establish, provide,construct, maintain and repair proper and ade


8/21

If we were to be strictl% literal the term foreshoreor foreshore lands should be conned to but aportion of the shore, in itself a ver% limited area.(p. , Intervenors8appellees brief".

6earin in mind the (=ebsters and aw of

=aters" denitions of 9shore9 and of foreshorelands, one is struc* with the apparentinconsistenc% between the areas thus describedand the purpose to which that area, whenreclaimed under the provision of Republic Act 0o.&1'', shall be devoted. ection I (of said aw"authori#es the construction thereat of 9ade


9/21

one entire and continuous act, and not as an alomeration ofunrelated clauses. :ach clause or provision will be illuminatedb% those which are conate to it and b% the eneral tenor of thewhole statute and thus obscurities end ambiuities ma% oftenbe cleared up b% the most direct and natural means. econdl%eBect must be iven, if it is possible, to ever% word and clause

of the statute, so that nothin shall be left devoid of meanin ordestitute of force. !o this end, each provision of the statuteshould be read in the liht of the whole. For the eneralmeanin of the leislature, as athered from the entire act, ma%often prevail over the construction which would appear to bethe most natural and obvious on the face of a particular clause.If is b% this means that contradiction and repunance betweenthe diBerent parts of the statute ma% be avoided. (See 6lac*,Interpretation of aws, 2nd :d., pp. )&78)&'".

Resortin to e+trinsic aids, the 9:+planator% 0ote9 to House 6ill0o. )1), which was subsen the otherhand, with a reater autonom% man% charteredcities and provinces are nanciall% able to havecredit position which will allow them to underta*ethese pro@ects. ome cities, such as the Cit% of6acolod under R.A. &&, has been authori#ed toreclaim foreshore lands borderin it.

>ther cities end provinces have continuousl%been re


10/21

Cit% pattern9 appears to be composed of ) parts,namel%; Republic Ad 0o. &&, which rantsauthorit% to 6acolod Cit% to underta*e or carr%out . . . the reclamation . . . of an% LsicM carr% outthe reclamation pro@ect conformabl% withRepublic Act 0o. && and Republic Act 0o. &&)2

authori#in 6acolod Cit% to contract indebtednessor to issue bonds in the amount not e+ceedin si+million pesos to nance the reclamation of land insaid cit%.

Republic Act 0o. && did not in itself specif% theprecise space therein referred to as 9foreshore9lands, but it provided that doc*in and harborfacilities should be erected on the reclaimedportions thereof, while not conclusive wouldindicate that Conress used the word 9foreshore9in its broadest sense. inicantl%, the plan ofreclamation of foreshore drawn up b% the 6ureau

of $ublic =or*s maps out an area of appro+imatel% &,, s


11/21

the limited area described b% =ebster as9foreshore9 lands. . . . .

If it was reall% the intention of Conress to limit the area to thestrict literal meanin of 9foreshore9 lands which ma% bereclaimed b% chartered cities and municipalities, Conress

would have e+cluded the cities of ?anila, Iloilo, Cebu,Eamboana and 3avao from the operation of RA &1'' assuested b% enator Cuenco durin the deliberation of the billconsiderin that these cities do not have foreshore lands in thestrict meanin of the term. Det, Conress did not approve theproposed amendment of enator Cuenco, impl%in therefore,that Conress intended not to limit the area that ma% bereclaimed to the strict denition of 9foreshore9 lands.

!he opinion of the then ecretar% of -ustice ?abana, who wasat that time the chief law ocer and leal adviser of theovernment and whose oce is re


12/21

that the prior enactment had received, or in the liht of suche+istin @udicial decisions as have direct bearin upon it (see 5Am. -ur., ec. )2&, pp. )&28)&)". 6ut notwithstandin saidinterpretation b% the upreme Court of RA &1'' in the $oncecases, Conress enacted a law coverin the same areaspreviousl% embraced in a RA &1'' (as mentioned earlier, cities

without foreshore lands which were souht to be e+cluded fromthe operation of RA &1'' were not e+cluded", providin thatrespect be iven the reclamation of not onl% foreshore lands butalso of submered lands sinif%in its non8conformit% to the

@udicial construction iven to RA &1''. If Conress was in accordwith the interpretation and construction made b% the upremeCourt on RA &1'', it would have mentioned reclamation of9foreshore lands9 onl% in RA 5&17, but Conress included9submered lands9 in order to clarif% the intention on the rantof authorit% to cities and municipalities in the reclamation oflands borderin them as provided in RA &1''. It is, therefore,our opinion that it is actuall% the intention of Conress in RA&1'' not to limit the authorit% ranted to cities andmunicipalities to reclaim foreshore lands in its strict dictionar%meanin but rather in its wider scope as to include submeredlands.

!he $etition is impressed with merit.

!o bein with, erroneous and unsustainable is the opinion of respondent court that under RA&1'', the term 9foreshore lands9 includes submered areas. As can be leaned from itsdis


13/21

0either is there an% valid round to disreard the Resolution of this Court dated Februar% ),&'5 in Ponce v. ome! (82&17" and Ponce v. "ity o "ebu (822'" despite theenactment of Republic Act 0o. 5&17 (9RA 5&179", the relevant portion of which, reads;

ec. ). ?iscellaneous $ro@ects

+++ +++ +++

m. For the construction of seawall and limited access hihwa%from the south boundar% of the Cit% of ?anila to Cavite Cit%, tothe south, and from the north boundar% of the Cit% of ?anila tothe municipalit% of ?ariveles, province of 6ataan, to the north,includin the reclamation of the foreshore and submeredareas; Provided, !hat priorit% in the construction of suchseawalls, hihwa% and attendant reclamation wor*s shell beiven to an% corporation andor corporations that ma% oBer tounderta*e at its own e+pense such pro@ects, in which case the$resident of the $hilippines ma%, after competitive biddin,award contracts for the construction of such pro@ects, with the

winnin bidder shoulderin all costs thereof, the same to bepaid in terms of percentae fee of the contractor which shall note+ceed ft% percent of the area reclaimed b% the contractor andshall represent full compensation for the purpose, the provisionsof the $ublic and aw concernin disposition of reclaimed andforeshore lands to the contrar% notwithstandin; Provided,nall%, that the foreoin provisions and those of other laws,e+ecutive orders, rules and reulations to the contrar%notwithstandin, e+istin rihts, pro@ects andor contracts ofcit% or municipal overnments for the reclamation of foreshoreand submered lands shall be respected. . . . .

!here is nothin in the foreoin provision of RA 5&17 which can be interpreted to broaden

the scope of 9foreshore lands.9 !he said law is not amendator% to RA &1''. It is anAppropriations Act, entitled N 9A0 AC! A$$R>$RIA!I0/ FG03 F>R $G6IC =>RO,D0CHR>0IEI0/ !H: A?: =I!H $R:JI>G $G6IC =>RO A$$R>$RIA!I>0.9

All thins viewed in proper perspective, we reiterate what was said in Ponce v. ome! (82&17" andPonce v. "ity o "ebu (822'" that the term 9foreshore9 refers to 9that part ofthe land ad@acent to the sea which is alternatel% covered and left dr% b% the ordinar% Kow ofthe tides.9 As opined b% this Court in said cases;

=H:R:A, si+ (" members of the Court (-ustices 6autistaAnelo, Concepcion, Re%es, 6arrera, 3i#on and -ose $. 6en#on"opine that said cit% ordinance and contracts are ultra vires andhence, null and void, insoar as the remaining #$% o the areaaorementioned, because the term &oreshore lands& as used in'epublic (ct )o. *+ should be understood in the senseattached thereto by common parlance (emphasis ours"

!he aforesaid rulin was applied b% then ecretar% of -ustice Claudio !eehan*ee, in hisopinion dated 3ecember 22, &', in a case with analoous facts as the present one, to wit;

3ecember 22, &'

$ae 13of 21


14/21

!he ecretar% of Ariculture

and 0atural Resources

3iliman, Pue#on Cit%

ir;

+++ +++ +++

I. -actsN

&. >n -anuar% &', &'&, pursuant to the provisions of RepublicAct 0o. &1'', the ?unicipalit% of 0avotas enacted >rdinance0o. & authori#in the ?unicipal ?a%or to enter into areclamation contract with ?r. Chuanico.

2. >n ?arch &5, &'&, a reclamation contract was concluded

between the ?unicipalit% of 0avotas, represented b% the?unicipal ?a%or, and ?r. Chuanico in accordance with theabove ordinance. !hereunder, ?r. Chuanico shall be theattorne%8in8fact of the ?unicipalit% in prosecutin thereclamation pro@ect and shall advance the mone% neededtherefor that the actual e+penses incurred shall be deemed aloan to the ?unicipalit% that ?r. Chuanico shall have theirrevocable option to bu% 7 of the reclaimed area at $7.per s


15/21

Ponce et al. vs. ome! (Februar% ), &'", ve @ustices of theupreme Court voted to annul the contract between Cebu3evelopment Corporation and Cebu Cit% for the reclamation offoreshore lands because 9the provisions of said . . . contract arenot . . . in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act 0o.&1'',9 as aainst one -ustice who opined that the contract

substantiall% complied with the provisions of the said law. (Five-ustices e+pressed no opinion on this point."

Inasmuch as the 0avotas reclamation contract is substantiall%similar to the Cebu reclamation contract, it is believed that theformer is li*ewise fatall% defective.

2. !he 0avotas reclamation pro@ect envisaes the constructionof a channel alon the ?anila 6a% peripher% of that town andthe reclamation of appro+imatel% 5 hectares of land from saidchannel to a seaward distance of one *ilometer. In the basicletter it is stated that 9practicall%, all the 5 hectares of landsproposed to be reclaimed under the areement9 do not

constitute foreshore lands and that 9the reater portion of thearea . . . is in fact naviable and presentl% bein used as ashin harbor b% deep8sea shin operators as well as a shinround of sustenance sherman. Assumin the correctness ofthese averments, the 0avotas reclamation contract evidentl%transcends the authorit% ranted under Republic Act 0o. &1'',which empowers the local overnments to reclaim nothin morethan 9foreshore lands,i.e., 9that part of the land ad@acent to thesee which is alternatel% covered and left dr% b% the ordinar%Kow of the tides.9 (2 C.-. 1'." It was for this reason that in thecited casePoncecase, the upreme Court, b% a vote of 8 withve -ustices abstainin, declared ultra vires and void thecontractual stipulation for the reclamation of submered lands

oB Cebu Cit%, and permanentl% en@oined its e+ecution underRepublic Act 0o. &1''.

+++ +++ +++

In accordance with the foreoin, I have the honor to submit theview that the 0avotas reclamation contract is not bindin andshould be disrearded for non8compliance with law.

Jer% trul% %ours,

(/3" CAG3I> !::HA0O::

ecretar% of -ustice

!he said opinion of -ustice ecretar% !eehan*ee who became Associate -ustice, and laterChief -ustice, of this Court, did, in our considered view, supersede the earlier opinion offormer @ustice ecretar% Ale@o ?abana, aforestated, as the cases, in connection with whichsub@ect opinions were souht, were with similar facts. !he said !eehan*ee opinion accordswith RA &1''.

$ae 15of 21


16/21

It bears stressin that the sub@ect matter of $asa% Cit% >rdinance 0o. &2&, as amended b%>rdinance 0o. &51, and the Areement under attac*, have been found to be outside theintendment and scope of RA &1'', and thereforeultra viresand null and void.

=hat is worse, the same Areement was vitiated b% the larin absence of a public biddin.

>bviousl%, there is a complete dearth of evidence to prove that RR:C had reall% reclaimed55 hectares. !he letter of ?inister 6alta#ar A


17/21

Considerin that on April 2, &'2 RR:C was en@oined from proceedin an% further with itsreclamation wor*, it had barel% ve (5" months, from 0ovember, &'& to April, &'2, to wor*on sub@ect reclamation pro@ect. It was thus ph%sicall% impossible for RR:C to reclaim 55hectares, with the stipulated specications and elevation, in such a brief span of time. In thereport of RR:C (:+hibit 9339 for CC$", it was conceded that due to the writ of preliminar%in@unction issued on April 2, &'2, C and A Construction Co., Inc. had suspended its

dredin operation since ?a%, &'2.

!he 9raphical report9 on the $asa% Reclamation pro@ect, as of April ), &'2, attached tothe $roress Report mar*ed :+hibit 9339, is a schematic representation of the wor*accomplishment referred to in such $roress Report, indicatin the various elevations of theland surface it embraced, ranin from . meters to the hihest elevation of 2.5 metersabove ?=. uch portra%al of wor* accomplished is crucial in our determination of whetheror not RR:C had actuall% 9reclaimed9 an% land as under its Contract for 3redin =or* withC and A Construction Compan% (:+hibit 9::9, the ren this point, the testimonies of Architect Ruben ?. $rotacio, Architect and ?anainpartner of eandro J. ocsin and partners, Architect and Cit% $lanner ?anuel !. ?aQo#a, -r. of$lannin Resources and >peration %stem, Inc., Rose 3. Cru#, :+ecutive Assistant, >ce ofthe $resident, from &' to &'7, and 3r. ucrecia Oasila, 0ational Artist and member ofCC$ Advisor% Committee, come to the fore. !hese credible, impartial and *nowledeablewitnesses recounted on the witness stand that when the construction of the ?ain 6uildin ofthe Cultural Center of the $hilippines (CC$" bean in &', the onl% surface land availablewas the site for the said buildin (!0, ept. 2', &''7, paes 1, &4 and 5", what could beseen in front of and behind it was all water (!0, ept. 2', &''7 paes &278&21". =hen the

CC$ ?ain 6uildin was bein constructed, from &'1 to &'', the land above sea levelthereat was onl% where the CC$ ?ain 6uildin was erected and the rest of the surroundinswere all under water, particularl% the bac* portion frontin the ba%. (!0, ept. &), &''7, pp.&1&, &12, &15, &1, &11". 3r. ucrecia R. Oasila stressed that on April &, &', durin theround brea*in for the CC$ ?ain 6uildin, it was water all around (!0, ept. ), &''7, pp.)2, )24, )25".

!here was indeed no leal and factual basis for the Court of Appeals to order and declarethat 9the re


18/21

6ut on -une &, &'1&, uided b% the cost data, wor* volume accomplished and otherrelevant information athered b% the former ?inistr% of $ublic Hihwa%s, the olicitor/eneral informed RR:C that the value of what it had accomplished, based on &'2 pricelevels, was onl% $1,)44,74&.2', and the e+penses for mobili#ation of e


19/21

24 $ar*in space for &,)52 s


20/21

part%, or that it is not necessar% to protect the rihts of thepart% who caused it to be recorded.

Gnder the aforecited provision of law in point, a notice oflis pendens is necessar% when theaction is for recover% of possession or ownership of a parcel of land. In the present litiation,RR:C and $asa% Cit%, as defendants in the main case, did not counterclaim for the turnover

to $asa% Cit% of the titled lots aforementioned.

=hat is more, a torrens title cannot be collaterall% attac*ed. !he issue of validit% of a torrenstitle, whether fraudulentl% issued or not, ma% be posed onl% in an action brouht to impunor annul it. (Halili vs. 0ational abor Relations Commission, 257 CRA &74, Cimafranca vs.Intermediate Appellate Court, &47 CRA &&." Gnmista*able, and cannot be inored, is theermane provision of ection 41 of $.3. &52', that a certicate of title can never be thesub@ect of a collateral attac*. It cannot be altered, modied, or cancelled e+cept in a directproceedin instituted in accordance with law.

Althouh $asa% Cit% and RR:C did not succeed in their underta*in to reclaim an% areawithin sub@ect reclamation pro@ect, it appearin that somethin compensable wasaccomplished b% them, followin the applicable provision of law and hear*enin to the

dictates of erdinance 0o. &51, dated April 2&,&'5', as well as the Reclamation Areements entered into b% $asa% Cit% and Republic Real:state Corporation (RR:C" as authori#ed b% said cit% ordinances, are declared 0G andJ>I3 for beinultra vires, and contrar% to Rep. Act &1''.

!he writ of preliminar% in@unction issued on April 2, &'2 b% the trial courta quo in CivilCase 0o. 222'8$ is made permanent and the notice of lis pendens issued b% the Court of

Appeals in CA /.R. CJ 0o. 5&)4' ordered CA0C::3. !he Reister of 3eeds of $asa% Cit% isdirected to ta*e note of and annotate on the certicates of title involved, the cancellation ofsub@ect notice oflis pendens.

!he petitioner, Republic of the $hilippines, is hereb% ordered to pa% $asa% Cit% and RepublicReal :state Corporation the sum of !:0 ?II>0 0I0: HG03R:3 !=:0!D8I !H>GA03:J:0!D8>0: A03 !=:0!D80I0: C:0!AJ> ($&,'2,7&.2'" $:>, plus interest thereonof si+ (" percent per annum from ?a% &, &'2 until full pa%ment, which amount shall bedivided b% $asa% Cit% and RR:C, share and share ali*e.

$ae 20of 21


21/21

In /.R. 0o. &527, the $etition is hereb% 3:0I:3 for lac* of merit.

0o pronouncement as to costs.

> >R3:R:3.

$ae 21of 21

republic vs ca, ccp

Documents