G.R. No. L-57424 December 18, 1987
ROBIDANTE L. KABILING, PRUDENCIO C. CARBON, POLICARPIO S. SEGUI RAFAEL C. CARBON, ANTONIO C. BOLASOC, LOLITA C. CASTRO, SOTERO S. FERRER, PERFECTO C. MAMAAT, VICENTE M. MORTERA, et. al., petitioners,
vs.
THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
YAP, J.:
This
is a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of July 22, 1985
dismissing the amended petition for lack of merit. In the original
petition, dated July 14, 1981, petitioners assailed the
constitutionality of P.D. No. 1808 on the grounds that 1) it deprives
them of their property without due process of law and without just
compensation and of their right to equal protection of the law; and 2)
it violates the constitutional prohibition against impairment of the
obligation of contracts. Petitioners further alleged that their
properties are not proper subject of expropriation by the government.
Required to comment on the petition, the respondent
National Housing Authority (NHA for brevity) filed its comment on
September 4, 1981 and the respondent Republic of the Philippines on
September 17, 1981. In its resolution dated September 24, 1981, the
Court Resolved to consider the comment of the respondent Republic of the
Philippines as Answer to the petition and required the parties to
submit their respective memoranda. The memorandum of the respondent
Republic of the Philippines was submitted on October 28, 1981, and that
of the petitioners on January 6, 1983. Meanwhile, on February 24, 1982,
petitioners filed an urgent petition to resolve their prayer for a
temporary restraining order, which the Court denied on April 28, 1982. A
motion for reconsideration of said denial was filed by petitioners and
respondents were required to comment thereon.
On May 21, 1986, petitioners filed an Amended
Petition, accompanied by a motion to admit said amended petition. In the
Amended Petition, the petitioners (only four of whom are original
petitioners, the rest being newly impleaded) invoke as an additional
ground the alleged non-publication of P.D. No. 1808. On May 29,1981, the
Court admitted the Amended Petition and required respondents to comment
thereon. The Court further required the Republic of the Philippines to
move in the premises within ten (10) days from notice, considering the
supervening events that had transpired since the filing of the
respective memoranda of the petitioners and the respondent Republic of
the Philippines. Respondent NHA submitted its comment on June 11, 1986,
stating that contrary to petitioners' allegation in the Amended
Petition, P.D. No. 1808 was published in the Official Gazette of October
4, 1982 (Volume 78, No. 40, pp. 5481-4 to 5486-8) and reiterating its
arguments discussed in its comment dated September 4, 1981 on the
original petition and its later comment/opposition dated March 19, 1982.
On July 2, 1986, the NHA filed a manifestation by way of report on the
current status of the subject property, stating inter alia 1)
that all available workable areas in the subject property, totalling
approximately 3.1 hectares and consisting of 378 lots averaging 50
square meters each, have been substantially developed, except for some
minor repair work still to be undertaken; 2) that the NHA has already
invested P3 million representing the cost of implementing the
development plans in the workable areas of the project site; 3) that in
accordance with the provisions of P.D. No. 1808, the N HA has already
deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount equivalent to the
cost of all subdivision lots in the project site; 4) that 76 landowners
have already withdrawn the corresponding compensation for their
respective lots, totalling Pl,919,402.44, while 72 landowners including
the petitioners Robidante L. Kabiling, et al. have not yet claimed the
compensation for their respective lots totalling Pl,581,676.52; and 5)
that all titles to the homelots, except the lost title of Cresencio
Deboma, which is undergoing reconstitution, have already been
transferred to respondent NHA pursuant to the provision of P.D. No.
1808.
On July 11, 1986, the new Solicitor General filed on
behalf of the respondent Republic of the Philippines a comment and
manifestation on the Amended Petition, stating that he was maintaining
the position taken by his predecessor in office and reiterating the
prayer that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit.
In its resolution of July 22, 1986, the Court
Resolved to dismiss the Amended Petition for lack of merit. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on August 30, 1986,
reiterating the grounds discussed in their memorandum and praying that
the resolution dismissing the Amended Petition be reconsidered and set
aside. Petitioners pray that the case be decided with " a visible
disposition of its merits."
After deliberation, the Court Resolved to DENY the
motion for reconsideration, it appearing that no new substantial and
compelling ground has been alleged which warrant reconsideration of the
Court's resolution.
The petitioners' challenge to the constitutionality
of P.D. No. 1808 can not be sustained. The decree, entitled "DIRECTING
THE CANCELLATION OF AWARDS, CONTRACTS OF SALE, TITLES OF LOTS WITHIN THE
AGNOLEVERIZA TENANT ASSOCIATION SUBDIVISION AND THE RECONVEYANCE OF THE
SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT UPON PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION AND ORDERING
THE EXPROPRIATION OF VACANT LOTS ADJACENT THERETO WHICH ARE COVERED BY
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLES NOS. 70406, 31713, 132081 and 134314 ALL
SITUATED AT MALATE, MANILA FOR UPGRADING UNDER THE ZONAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (ZIP) AND THE DISPOSAL OF LOTS GENERATED THEREIN TO THEIR
PRESENT BONA-FIDE OCCUPANTS AND OTHER QUALIFIED SQUATTER FAMILIES AND
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE," is a valid
exercise by the State of its police power. Explaining the objective of
the decree, P.D. No. 1808 states:
WHEREAS,
the government has adopted and implemented the announced policy that
slum improvement and resettlement, otherwise known as upgrading of sites
and services, is an accepted approach to meeting the housing needs and
the primary strategy in dealing with slums and other blighted
communities;
WHEREAS, under Proclamation No. 1967, a portion of
Lot 62 and Lot 76, both of Block 573 of the Cadastral Survey of Manila
which were developed into the Agno-Leveriza Tenant Association (ALTA)
Subdivision by the City of Manila pursuant to Republic Act No. 4145, was
Identified as a depressed area for priority development (A PD) under
the Zonal Improvement Program;
WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 4145 did not resolve the
land tenure problem in the area to the extent that non-resident awardees
have to eject bonafide residents in order to acquire physical
possession of their awarded lots, and an extensive displacement of
structures of resident families has to be undertaken to allow each
awardee resident family to have physical possession of the awarded lot;
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to resolve the land
tenure problem in the Agno-Leveriza area to allow the implementation of
the comprehensive development plans for this depress community as
provided under the Zonal Improvement Program.
The
stated objective of the decree, namely, to resolve the land tenure
problem in the Agno-Leveriza area to allow the implementation of the
comprehensive development plans for this depressed community, provides
the justification for the exercise of the police power of the State. The
police power of the State has been described as "the most essential,
insistent and illimitable of powers.1 It
is a power inherent in the State, plenary, "suitably vague and far from
precisely defined, rooted in the conception that man in organizing the
state and imposing upon the government limitations to safeguard
constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable individual
citizens or group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of
such salutary measure to ensure communal peace, safety, good order and
welfare. 2
The
objection raised by petitioners that P.D. No. 1808 impairs the
obligations of contract is without merit. The constitutional guaranty of
non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by and subject to
the exercise of the police power of the State in the interest of public
health, safety, morals and general welfare. 3 For the same reason, petitioners can not complain that they are being deprived of their property without due process of law.
Nor can petitioners claim that their properties are
being expropriated without just compensation, since Sec. 3 of P.D. No.
1808 provides for just compensation to lot owners who have fully paid
their obligations to the City of Manila under their respective contracts
before the issuance of the decree. However, in accordance with our
decision in Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Hon. Ceferino Dulay,
etc., et al., G.R. No. 59603, April 29, 1987, which declared P.D. No.
1533 unconstitutional, those lot owners who have not yet received
compensation under the decree are entitled to a judicial determination
of the just compensation for their lots.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Fernan, Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.
1 Smith, Bell & Co. v. National, 40 Phil. 136; Rubi v. Prov. Bd. of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660.
2 Edu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481.
No comments:
Post a Comment