MAGKALAS vs. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY | G.R. No. 138823 | September 17, 2008

MAGKALAS vs. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
G.R. No. 138823, September 17, 2008 
 
Facts

Plaintiff and her predecessors-in-interest have been occupying a lot designated as TAG-770063, Block 1, Barangay 132, located at the corner of 109 Gen. Concepcion and Adelfa Streets, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City, for the past 39 years. 
 
On March 26, 1978, P.D. No. 1315 was issued expropriating certain lots at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In the same Decree, the National Housing Authority (NHA) was named Administrator of the Bagong Barrio Urban Bliss Project with the former to take possession, control (sic) and disposition of the expropriated properties with the power of demolition. During the Census survey of the area, the structure built by the plaintiff was assigned TAG No. 0063. After conducting studies of the area, the NHA determined that the area where plaintiff‘s structure is located should be classified as an area center (open space). The Area Center was determined in compliance with the requirement to reserve 30% open space in all types of residential development. Plaintiff, together with Mr.& Mrs. Josefino Valenton and Mr.& Mrs. Rey Pangilinan, through counsel, filed an appeal from the decision to designate the area where the plaintiff and the two other spouses have erected structures, as an Area Center. The said appeal was denied by the NHA. In a letter, dated August 6, 1985, the NHA sent a Notice of Lot Assignment to plaintiff recognizing the latter as a Censused Owner of a structure with TAG No. 0063-04 which was identified for relocation. 
 
On August 23, 1985, plaintiff filed a Complaint for Damages with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order and writ of Preliminary Injunction against the NHA with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. 
 
The Order denying plaintiff‘s prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was appealed, by way of Petition for Certiorari, to the Court of Appeals (docketed therein as CA-G.R. No. 33833). On March 10, 1999, the trial court promulgated its assailed decision dismissing petitioner‘s complaint. Petitioner‘s subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the trial court in its Order dated May 14, 1999. Hence, this petition for review of the said decision and order of the RTC. 
 
Issue

Whether or not the demolition or relocation of the petitioner‘s structure will violate the vested rights of the petitioner over the acquired property under the social justice clause of the constitution. 
 
Ruling

Petitioner maintains that she had acquired a vested right over the property subject of this case on the ground that she had been in possession of it for forty (40) years already. Thus, to order her relocation and the demolition of her house will infringe the social justice clause guaranteed under the Constitution. 

Petitioner‘s contentions must necessarily fail. The NHA‘s authority to order the relocation of petitioner and the demolition of her property is mandated by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1315. Under this Decree, the entire Bagong Barrio in Caloocan City was identified as a blighted area and was thereby declared expropriated. The properties covered under P.D. No. 1315 included petitioner‘s property. The NHA, as the decree‘s designated administrator for the national government, was empowered to take possession, control and disposition of the expropriated properties with the power of demolition of their improvements. 
 
P.D. No. 1315 explicitly vests the NHA the power to immediately take possession, control and disposition of the expropriated properties with the power of demolition. Clearly, the NHA, by force of law, has the authority to order the relocation of petitioner, and the demolition of her structure in case of her refusal as this is the only way through which the NHA can effectively carry out the implementation of P.D. No. 1315. 
 
Inasmuch as petitioner‘s property was located in the area identified as an open space by the NHA, her continued refusal to vacate has rendered illegal her occupancy thereat. Thus, in accordance with P.D. No. 1472, petitioner could lawfully be ejected even without a judicial order. Neither can it be successfully argued that petitioner had already acquired a vested right over the subject property when the NHA recognized her as the census owner by assigning to her a tag number (TAG No. 77-0063).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MICIANO vs. BRIMO | G.R. No. L-22595 | November 1, 1927

MICIANO vs. BRIMO G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927  Facts Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate left filed a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimo‘s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code.  Issue Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary disposition.  Ruling Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the testator‘s national law must govern in accordance wit...
Read more

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 163707 | September 15, 2006

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006    Facts On October 29, 1992, Sima Wei died in Makati City leaving an estate valued 10 million more or less. His known heirs are his spouse Shirley Guy with their children five children. On June 13, 1997, private respondents Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei represented by their mother Remedios filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court alleging that they are duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei. However, petitioner and co-heirs alleged that private respondent‘s claim had been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished by Remedios‘ June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and educational support received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei and any and all liabilities.   The petition was denied in the lower court and the motion for reconsidered dis...
Read more

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE | GR. No. 165842 | November 29, 2005

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE GR. No. 165842, November 29, 2005    Facts This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of bigamy.    Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975, who, according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was never seen again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only 21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married through a civil wedding in BaguioCity without Gandalera‘s knowledge of Manuel‘s first marriage. In the course of their marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latter‘s defense being that his decla...
Read more