FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the administrative control and management of Plaza Rizal, a property located in the City of Naga. The City of Naga filed a complaint seeking control and management over the property, while Camarines Sur claimed ownership and the right to maintain, manage, control, and supervise Plaza Rizal. The trial court denied Camarines Sur's motion to dismiss and eventually ruled in favor of the City of Naga.

The Province of Camarines Sur initially claimed the right to control and supervise the plaza but later admitted during the pre-trial conference that the property is within the jurisdiction of the City of Naga. The City of Naga argued that under Republic Act No. 305, it has the power to control and manage all properties within its territory. The trial court interpreted the law to mean that administrative control and management of Plaza Rizal belongs to the City of Naga, and not to Camarines Sur.

Camarines Sur filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the trial court. The province then attempted to file appeals with the court but both notices of appeal were disapproved for non-compliance with the reglementary period. Camarines Sur eventually filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, stating that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.

The Municipality of Naga, now a city, filed a petition for certiorari as a substitute remedy for the lost appeal, believing that the alleged errors committed by the trial court could be corrected through appeal. However, the petition failed due to the absence of grave abuse of discretion. The trial court declared that Naga, as a political subdivision within Camarines Sur, had acquired title to all the property, powers, rights, and obligations within its territorial limits. When Naga became a city, all properties within its territorial jurisdiction, including Plaza Rizal, became vested in it. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari and dismissed it. Camarines Sur sought reconsideration of the decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in treating the Petition for Review as a Petition for Certiorari.

2. Whether the filing of the Complaint for Declaratory Relief and/or Quieting of Title was proper.

3. Whether the City of Naga has administrative control and management over Plaza Rizal.

4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Camarines Sur's petition for review on certiorari for failure to allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;

5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in mistaking Camarines Sur's petition for review on certiorari as a petition for certiorari; and

6. Whether the City of Naga properly resorted to the filing of an action for declaratory relief.

7. Whether Plaza Rizal is considered a property for public use or patrimonial property.

8. Which local government unit has the right to administer and possess Plaza Rizal.

9. Whether Plaza Rizal is part of Camarines Sur's patrimonial property.

10. Whether the tax declaration and certification presented by Camarines Sur are sufficient evidence of ownership.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in treating the Petition for Review as a Petition for Certiorari. The Court also found that the filing of the Complaint for Declaratory Relief and/or Quieting of Title was improper as there was no actual controversy between Camarines Sur and the City of Naga. Lastly, the Court ruled that the City of Naga did not have administrative control and management over Plaza Rizal.

2. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Camarines Sur's petition for review on certiorari. The petition was properly filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as it raised pure questions of law. Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is not required in a petition for review on certiorari.

3. The Court of Appeals erred in mistaking Camarines Sur's petition for review on certiorari as a petition for certiorari. Camarines Sur actually filed a petition for review under Rule 45.

4. The City of Naga properly resorted to the filing of an action for declaratory relief. The controversy involved the construction of the provisions of Republic Act No. 305, the Charter of the City of Naga. The requisites of an action for declaratory relief were met, as there was a justiciable controversy between adverse parties, the City of Naga had a legal interest in the controversy, and the issue was ripe for judicial determination.

5. Plaza Rizal is considered a property for public use. It is classified as a public park or promenade and its improvements, such as monuments and memorial structures, were constructed, operated, and maintained by the Province of Camarines Sur. Therefore, Plaza Rizal is not considered patrimonial property.

6. The City of Naga has the right to administer and possess Plaza Rizal. Prior to the conversion of the then Municipality of Naga into the independent City of Naga, Plaza Rizal was under the administration of the Province of Camarines Sur as it was part of their territorial jurisdiction. However, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 305, Plaza Rizal was transferred to the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Naga. Therefore, the City of Naga is the proper agent of the Republic of the Philippines to administer and possess Plaza Rizal.

7. Plaza Rizal is not part of Camarines Sur's patrimonial property. The tax declaration and certification presented by Camarines Sur are not conclusive evidence of ownership or the right to possess land.

8. The tax declaration and certification do not constitute categorical proof of Camarines Sur's alleged ownership of Plaza Rizal.

PRINCIPLES:

• A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and must allege grave abuse of discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• In order for the filing of a Complaint for Declaratory Relief and/or Quieting of Title to be proper, there must be an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other.

• Conversion of a municipality into a city does not automatically vest administrative control and management over properties within its territorial jurisdiction to the city, especially if the city does not intend to acquire ownership of said properties.

• Grave abuse of discretion is present when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

• A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raises only questions of law and does not require the allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

• Certiorari cannot be substituted for the lost remedy of appeal when a party files a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in lieu of a petition for review under Rule 45.

• Declaratory relief is an action by a person interested to determine a question of construction or validity arising from a written instrument, executive order, regulation, or statute and to declare their rights and duties thereunder.

• The requisites of an action for declaratory relief are a justiciable controversy between adverse parties, the legal interest of the party seeking relief, and the issue being ripe for judicial determination.

• Properties for public use can be used by everybody and no one can exercise private ownership rights over them.

• Properties possessed by local government units are either properties for public use or patrimonial properties.

• The right of administration over a public plaza is governmental in nature and is conducted on behalf and in representation of the Republic of the Philippines.

• The local government unit that has the right to administer and possess a public plaza is determined by the territorial jurisdiction in which the plaza is located.

• A tax declaration is not conclusive evidence of ownership or the right to possess land without other supporting evidence.

• A tax declaration is merely an indicia of a claim of ownership.

• Certifications issued by government agencies stating ownership of a property are not necessarily categorical proof of ownership.