Case Digest Ortega
Case Digest Ortega
Case Digest Ortega
FACTS:
Petitioner Zenaida Ortega comes directly to this Court assailing the validity of Quezon City Ordinance No. SP 1304, Series of
2003, and praying that the following agencies, National Housing Authority (NHA), Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), Department of Environment and Natural Resources Bureau of Land Management, National Home Mortgage
Financing Corporation, and Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation, be restrained from implementing the said ordinance.
On August 5, 2003, the Quezon City government enacted Ordinance No. SP-1304, Series of 2003 (the ordinance), which is
being challenged in the present petition,[3] reclassifying "as residential or converted from its original classification to
residential for distribution or for sale to its informal settlers" a "parcel of land which may be considered an accretion/excess
lot and previously conceived and referred to in Proposed Ordinance No. 2002-07 and Proposed [Resolution] 2002-13 as
portion of [an] easement situated between Block 14, Psd-39577 of the original subdivision plan and Culiat Creek, Barangay
Vasra, Quezon City.
HELD: This Court can thus only review, revise, reverse, modify on appeal or certiorari final judgments and orders
of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of, among other things, an ordinance is in question.
Foremost, therefore, is that there must be first a final judgment rendered by an inferior court [17] before this Court can assume
jurisdiction over a case of this nature.
Verily, this Court does not conduct original and full trial of a main factual issue like what petitioner is raising in the present
petition.[18] It does not analyze or weigh evidence brought before it at the first instance, otherwise, it would preempt the
primary function of the lower court to try the case on the merits, receive evidence, and decide the case definitively. [19] Its
jurisdiction in cases which assail the validity of an ordinance is limited to reviewing or revising final judgments or orders of
lower courts and applying the law based on their findings of facts brought before it. [20]
In another vein, if this petition was to be considered as one for declaratory relief, as observed by the OSG, it is not embraced
within the original jurisdiction of this Court.[21] Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other government regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determineany question of construction
or validity arising from, and for a declaration of his rightsor duties, thereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, or to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate
ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code may be brought under this Rule.
Respecting petitioner's contention that since the ordinance violates national laws, the present petition delves on questions of
law over which this Court has original jurisdiction, [22] the same fails.
As reflected above, petitioner's assertion that the invalidity of the ordinance is premised on her claim that she has a better
right to the parcel of land referred to in the ordinance is a factual issue.
At all events, even if this petition delves on questions of law, there is no statutory or jurisprudential basis for according to
this Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory relief which advances only questions of law. [23]
Finally, while a petition for declaratory relief may be treated as one for prohibition if it has far reaching implications and
raises questions that need to be resolved,[24] there is no allegation of facts by petitioner tending to show that she is entitled to
such a writ. The judicial policy must thus remain that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it, except when the redress
sought cannot be obtained in the proper courts or when exceptional and compelling circumstances warrant availment of a
remedy within and calling for the exercise of this Courts primary jurisdiction. [25]