Remulla V Maliksi

Remulla v.
Maliksi
G.R. No. 171633 September 18, 2013
Facts:
De Villa, in her personal capacity and as administratix of the estate of her late husband
Guillermo, ceded, through a deed of donation, 134,957 sqm (donated portion) of their 396,622 sqm
property (subject property) in favor of the Province of Cavite, on which now stands various government
offices and facilities. Subsequently, The Province of Cavite sought to expropriate the subject property
for the amount of ₱215,050.00. De Villa alleged that the fair market value of the subject property should
be pegged at the amount of ₱11,272,500.00.
While the expropriation case was still pending, de Villa sold, for the amount of ₱2,000,000.00,
the subject property to Goldenrod Inc. Subsequently, Mathay and Pascual intervened in the
expropriation case.
Respondent then Cavite Governor Maliksi issued EO 004 authorizing the creation of a committee
which recommended the terms and conditions for the proper settlement of the expropriation case. The
said committee thereafter submitted its Committee Report recommending that:
(a) the just compensation be pegged at the amount of ₱495.00 per sq. m. plus 6% annual
interest for 22 years, for a total net consideration of ₱50,000,000.00, which amount shall be
equally shouldered by the Province of Cavite and Trece Martires City;
(b) the total area to be expropriated be limited to only 116,287 sq. m. and the donated portion
be reduced to 48,429sq. m.; and
(c) 193,662 sq. m. of the subject property be reverted to Goldenrod
The foregoing recommendations were then adopted/embodied in a Compromise Agreement.

Thereafter, the subject compromise was approved by the RTC and were ratified by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Trece Martires City.
Remulla, in his personal capacity as taxpayer and as then Vice-Governor and, hence, Presiding
Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite, filed a petition for annulment of
judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the CA, arguing that the subject compromise is
grossly disadvantageous to the government because: (a) the agreed price for the subject property was
excessive as compared to its value at the time of taking in 1981; (b) the government stands to lose prime
lots; and (c) it nullifies/amends the 1957 deed of donation. Moreover, Maliksi entered into the subject
compromise without authority from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite and sans
any certification on the availability of funds as required by law.
Remulla claimed that extrinsic fraud tainted the expropriation proceedings considering that
there was collusion between the parties and that respondent Ignacio deliberately withheld crucial
information regarding the property valuation and certain incidents prior to the expropriation case when
he presented the subject compromise for ratification before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Cavite.
On motion of respondents, however, the CA dismissed Remulla’s petition for annulment of judgment
based on the following grounds: ( a ) there was yet no disbursement of public funds at the time of its
filing; thus, it cannot be considered as a taxpayer's suit; and (b) Remulla was not a real party in interest
to question the propriety of the subject compromise as he was not a signatory thereto.
Issue: Whether or not the CA properly denied Remulla’s petition for annulment of judgment due to his
lack of legal standing.
Held: No, the CA should not have dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment on account of
Remulla’s lack of legal standing. Consequently, the case should be remanded to the said court for
further proceedings.
Records bear out that Remulla filed his petition for annulment of judgment in two capacities:
first, in his personal capacity as a taxpayer; and, second , in his official capacity as then presiding officer
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cavite.
With respect to the first, jurisprudence dictates that a taxpayer may be allowed to sue where
there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any
improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional law or ordinance.
In this case, public funds of the Province of Cavite stand to be expended to enforce the
compromise judgment. As such, Remulla – being a resident-taxpayer of the Province of Cavite – has the
legal standing to file the petition for annulment of judgment and, therefore, the same should not have
been dismissed on said ground. Notably, the fact that there lies no proof that public funds have already
been disbursed should not preclude Remulla from assailing the validity of the compromise judgment.
Lest it be misunderstood, the concept of legal standing is ultimately a procedural technicality

which may be relaxed by the Court if the circumstances so warrant. As observed in Mamba v. Lara, the
Court did not hesitate to give standing to taxpayers in cases where serious legal issues were raised or
where public expenditures of millions of pesos were involved. Likewise, it has also been ruled that a
taxpayer need not be a party to the contract in order to challenge its validity, or to seek the annulment
of the same on the ground of extrinsic fraud. Indeed, for as long as taxes are involved, the people have a
right to question contracts entered into by the government, as in this case.
Anent the second, Remulla equally lodged the petition for annulment of judgment in his official
capacity as then Vice-Governor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of
Cavite. As such, he represents the interests of the province itself which is, undoubtedly, a real party in
interest since it stands to be either benefited or injured40 by the execution of the compromise
judgment.

Remulla V Maliksi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remulla V Maliksi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remulla V Maliksi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remulla v.

G.R. No. 171633 September 18, 2013

(c) 193,662 sq. m. of the subject property be reverted to Goldenrod

The foregoing recommendations were then adopted/embodied in a Compromise Agreement.

Lest it be misunderstood, the concept of legal standing is ultimately a procedural technicality

You might also like