This document summarizes a legal case between Caridad Magkalas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). The key details are:
- Magkalas had been occupying a lot in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City for 39 years when the area was expropriated by Presidential Decree 1315, which designated NHA as the administrator for redevelopment.
- NHA assigned Magkalas to a new lot but she refused to move. She filed various legal complaints seeking to prevent demolition of her existing structure.
- The trial court dismissed Magkalas' complaint, finding that under PD 1315, NHA had the authority to relocate residents and demolish existing structures
This document summarizes a legal case between Caridad Magkalas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). The key details are:
- Magkalas had been occupying a lot in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City for 39 years when the area was expropriated by Presidential Decree 1315, which designated NHA as the administrator for redevelopment.
- NHA assigned Magkalas to a new lot but she refused to move. She filed various legal complaints seeking to prevent demolition of her existing structure.
- The trial court dismissed Magkalas' complaint, finding that under PD 1315, NHA had the authority to relocate residents and demolish existing structures
Original Description:
`
Original Title
15. Maglakas v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 138823
This document summarizes a legal case between Caridad Magkalas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). The key details are:
- Magkalas had been occupying a lot in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City for 39 years when the area was expropriated by Presidential Decree 1315, which designated NHA as the administrator for redevelopment.
- NHA assigned Magkalas to a new lot but she refused to move. She filed various legal complaints seeking to prevent demolition of her existing structure.
- The trial court dismissed Magkalas' complaint, finding that under PD 1315, NHA had the authority to relocate residents and demolish existing structures
This document summarizes a legal case between Caridad Magkalas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). The key details are:
- Magkalas had been occupying a lot in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City for 39 years when the area was expropriated by Presidential Decree 1315, which designated NHA as the administrator for redevelopment.
- NHA assigned Magkalas to a new lot but she refused to move. She filed various legal complaints seeking to prevent demolition of her existing structure.
- The trial court dismissed Magkalas' complaint, finding that under PD 1315, NHA had the authority to relocate residents and demolish existing structures
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5
FIRST DIVISION NHA.
In a letter, dated August 6, 1985, the NHA sent a
Notice of Lot Assignment to plaintiff recognizing the [G.R. NO. 138823, September 17, 2008] latter as a Censused Owner of a structure with TAG No. 0063-04 which was identified for relocation. CARIDAD MAGKALAS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL In the same Notice, the NHA informed plaintiff that per HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent. Development Program of Bagong Barrio, she was being assigned to Lot 77, Block 2, Barangay 132. DECISION On August 23, 1985, plaintiff filed a Complaint for LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: 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. This In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of was docketed as Civil Case No. C-12102. The civil case the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner seeks to was filed after the NHA, through Henry Camayo, sent a set aside and annul the Decision1 dated March 10, 1999 letter to the plaintiff earlier in the month of August, as well as the Order2 dated May 14, 1999 rendered by 1985 directing said plaintiff to vacate the premises and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch dismantle her structure. In an Order, dated July 23, 124, in Civil Case No. C-16464. 1981, this civil case docketed as C-12102 was dismissed with the instruction that the parties exhaust the The RTC decision dismissed the complaint for damages administrative remedies available to the plaintiff. with prayer for temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction filed by herein petitioner against Sometime in March, 1994, plaintiff received a letter, the National Housing Authority (NHA). The RTC also dated March 8, 1994 from Ines Gonzales, the Office-in- ordered the NHA to proceed with the demolition of charge of District II-NCR. In said letter, plaintiff was petitioner's structure. advised that her previous request to stay put in her house which is located within the area designated as The undisputed facts, as found by the RTC, are quoted Area Center, was previously denied per resolution of hereunder: the NHA which was signed as early as February 21, x x x plaintiff and her predecessors-in-interest have 1990 by the former manager of the NHA, Monico Jacob. been occupying a lot designated as TAG-77-0063, Block The plaintiff was told to remove the structure she 1, Barangay 132, located at the corner of 109 Gen. erected on the area within 30 days and to transfer her Concepcion and Adelfa Streets, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan residence to Lot 77, Block 2. It was stressed in said City, for the past 39 years. letter that no Judicial Order was required to remove the plaintiff's structure pursuant to P.D. No. 1472. On March 26, 1978, P.D. No. 1315 was issued expropriating certain lots at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan Plaintiff prays that, aside from the issuance of a City. In the same Decree, the National Housing temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary Authority (NHA) was named Administrator of the injunction, defendants be enjoined from transferring Bagong Barrio Uban Bliss Project with the former to plaintiff's residential house from its present location to take possession, contol (sic) and disposition of the another lot and/or demolishing the same without expropriated properties with the power of demolition. judicial order; payment of moral damages, in the During the Census survey of the area, the structure built amount of P50,000.00, for the malicious and illegal acts by the plaintiff was assigned TAG No. 0063. After of defendants; and payment of P50,000.00 as attorney's conducting studies of the area, the NHA determined that fees. the area where plaintiff's structure is located should be classified as an area center (open space). The Area At this juncture, it may not be remiss to state that the Center was determined in compliance with the two other homeowners, Mr. & Mrs. Josefino Valenton, requirement to reserve 30% open space in all types of and Mr. & Mrs. Rey Pangilinan had already transferred residential development. to their allocated lots at Lot 2, Block 1, and Lot 78, Block 2, respectively. Plaintiff, together with Mr. & Mrs. Josefino Valenton and Mr. & Mrs. Rey Pangilinan, through counsel, filed an On March 25, 1994, the Court issued a Temporary appeal from the decision to designate the area where Restraining Order (TRO) against defendants. After the plaintiff and the two other spouses have erected hearing and submission of memoranda, plaintiff's structures, as an Area Center. On January 25, 1985, the prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction NHA, through its General Manager, sent a letter to the was denied in an Order dated April 14, 1994. counsel of the plaintiff and the two other previously named spouses explaining why the area where their The Order denying plaintiff's prayer for issuance of a structures were erected was designated as the area writ of preliminary injunction was appealed, by way of center (open space). The said appeal was denied by the Petition for Certiorari, to the Court of Appeals (docketed therein as CA-G.R. No. 33833). On May 31, 1994, the Petitioner's contentions must necessarily fail. The Court of Appeals, Seventeenth Division, promulgated a NHA's authority to order the relocation of petitioner Decision denying the Petition. Plaintiff's (petitioner and the demolition of her property is mandated by herein) motion for reconsideration having been denied Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1315.5 Under this Decree, in a Resolution dated July 29, 1994, she appealed to the the entire Bagong Barrio in Caloocan City was identified Supreme Court by way of Petition for Review on as a blighted area and was thereby declared Certiorari. The Supreme Court, through the First expropriated. The properties covered under P.D. No. Division, issued a Resolution dated October 5, 1994, 1315 included petitioner's property. The NHA, as the denying the Petition. An Entry of Judgment on the decree's designated administrator for the national aforesaid Resolution was made on December 22, 1994. government, was empowered to take possession, control and disposition of the expropriated properties Thereafter, pre-trial conference was scheduled on with the power of demolition of their January 9, January 23, February 16, March 22 and improvements.6 Section 2 of P.D. No. 1315 further finally on April 25, all in 1996 (an Order dated May 16, states: 1996 was issued declaring the pre-trial terminated). Section 2. The comprehensive development plan shall During the pre-trial, counsel for plaintiff proposed that consider the upgrading of existing dwelling units, the the case be decided based on the memoranda to be relocation of qualified squatter families to a submitted by the parties, to which counsel for resettlement area nearby; and the re-blocking, re- defendants agreed. Hence, a Motion for Leave of Court arrangement and re-alignment of existing dwelling and to allow parties to submit memoranda in lieu of trial other structures to allow for the introduction of basic was filed by the defendants. Plaintiff filed her comment facilities and services, all in accordance with the thereto. After submission of NHA's Reply and plaintiff's provision of national SIR [Slum Improvement rejoinder, reiterating their respective stands, the Court Resettlement] and Metro Manila ZIP [Zonal resolved to grant the Motion for Leave. In the same Improvement Program] Programs. The Authority [NHA] Order, the parties were directed to submit their shall maximize the land use of the area and shall respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from provide for a controlled, orderly and structured growth receipt, on the sole issue of whether or not the NHA can of dwellings in an environment provided with adequate lawfully relocate the plaintiff and demolish plaintiff's sanitary and other physical facilities. (Words in bracket structure.3 ours) On March 10, 1999, the trial court promulgated its Pursuant to Section 2 of P.D. No. 1315, the NHA assailed decision dismissing petitioner's complaint. identified Area 1 where petitioner's property was Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was located as part of the Area Center reserved for open likewise denied by the trial court in its Order dated May space, after studies have shown that the development of 14, 1999. Hence, this petition for review of the said the area will affect only three (3) structures compared decision and order of the RTC. to six (6) or more structures in the other areas. A stage and recreation center was expected to be constructed at In the instant petition for review, petitioner raises the the Area Center. As a result, petitioner was informed by following issues: the NHA that she would be relocated to Lot 77, Block 2, Barangay 132. However, petitioner adamantly refused A. WHETHER OR NOT THE to vacate the property claiming she had acquired a DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION OF vested right over the same. Her refusal to vacate and THE PETITIONER'S STRUCTURE relocate to her assigned lot had hampered the WILL VIOLATE THE VESTED RIGHTS development of the entire area. It should be noted that OF THE PETITIONER OVER THE to date, only petitioner had refused to comply with the ACQUIRED PROPERTY UNDER THE NHA directive as the other occupants in Area 1 had SOCIAL JUSTICE CLAUSE OF THE already vacated the premises. CONSTITUTION. To stress, P.D. No. 1315 explicitly vests the NHA the power to immediately take possession, control and B. WHETHER OR NOT R.A. 7279 disposition of the expropriated properties with the IMPLIEDLY REPEALED P.D. 1472 power of demolition. Clearly, the NHA, by force of law, AND P.D. 1315.4 has the authority to order the relocation of petitioner, and the demolition of her structure in case of her As to the first issue, petitioner maintains that she had refusal as this is the only way through which the NHA acquired a vested right over the property subject of this can effectively carry out the implementation of P.D. No. case on the ground that she had been in possession of it 1315. for forty (40) years already. Thus, to order her relocation and the demolition of her house will infringe The NHA's authority to demolish squatters and illegal the social justice clause guaranteed under the occupants was further reinforced by P.D. No. Constitution. 14727 which specifically provides as follows: SEC. 2. The National Housing Authority shall have occupancy of the said property could not be the power to summarily eject, without the necessity characterized as fixed and absolute. As such, petitioner of judicial order, any and all squatters' colonies on cannot claim that she was deprived of her vested right government resettlement projects, as well as any illegal when the NHA ordered her relocation to another area. occupants in any homelot, apartment or dwelling unit owned or administered by it. In the exercise of such Petitioner invokes the Social Justice Clause of the power, the National Housing Authority shall have the Constitution, asserting that a poor and unlettered urban right and authority to request the help of the Barangay dweller like her has a right to her property and to a Chairman and any peace officer in the locality. xxx. decent living. Thus, her relocation and the demolition of (Emphasis ours) her house would be violative of her right embodied Inasmuch as petitioner's property was located in the under Article XIII of the Constitution, to wit: area identified as an open space by the NHA, her Sec. 9. The State shall, by law, and for the common good, continued refusal to vacate has rendered illegal her undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a occupancy thereat. Thus, in accordance with P.D. No. continuing program of urban land reform and housing 1472, petitioner could lawfully be ejected even without which will make available at affordable cost decent a judicial order. housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement Neither can it be successfully argued that petitioner had areas. It shall also promote adequate employment already acquired a vested right over the subject opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of property when the NHA recognized her as the censused such program the State shall respect the rights of small owner by assigning to her a tag number (TAG No. 77- property owners. (Underscoring supplied) 0063). We quote with approval the trial court's pertinent findings on the matter: Sec. 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be Plaintiff's structure was one of those found existing evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in during the census/survey of the area, and her structure accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. was assigned TAG No. 77-0063. While it is true that (Underscoring supplied) NHA recognizes plaintiff as the censused owner of the structure built on the lot, the issuance of the tag number No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be is not a guarantee for lot allocation. Plaintiff had undertaken without adequate consultation with them petitioned the NHA for the award to her of the lot she is and the communities where they are to be relocated. occupying. However, the census, tagging, and plaintiff's Petitioner cannot find solace in the aforequoted petition, did not vest upon her a legal title to the lot she Constitutional provisions. Social Justice, as the term was occupying, but a mere expectancy that the lot will suggests, should be used only to correct an injustice. As be awarded to her. The expectancy did not ripen into a the eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel observed, social legal title when the NHA, through Ms. Ines Gonzales, justice must be founded on the recognition of the sent a letter dated March 8, 1994 informing her that her necessity of interdependence among diverse units of a petition for the award of the lot was denied. Moreover, society and of the protection that should be equally and the NHA, after the conduct of studies and consultation evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our with residents, had designated Area 1, where the lot social and economic life, consistent with the petitioned by plaintiff is located, as an Area Center.8 fundamental and paramount objective of the State of A vested right is one that is absolute, complete and promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, unconditional and no obstacle exists to its exercise. It is and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon number"10 any contingency. To be vested, a right must have become a title -- legal or equitable -- to the present or Moreover, jurisprudence stresses the need to dispense future enjoyment of property.9 justice with an even hand in every case: This Court has stressed more than once that social Contrary to petitioner's position, the issuance of a tag justice - or any justice for that matter - is for the number in her favor did not grant her irrefutable rights deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or to the subject property. The "tagging of structures" in a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of the Bagong Barrio area was conducted merely to reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance determine the qualified beneficiaries and bona in favor of the poor to whom the Constitution fittingly fide residents within the area. It did not necessarily extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it signify an assurance that the tagged structure would be justified to give preference to the poor simply because awarded to its occupant as there were locational and they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they physical considerations that must be taken into account, are rich, for justice must always be served for poor and as in fact, the area where petitioner's property was rich alike, according to the mandate of the located had been classified as Area Center (open space). law.11 (Underscoring supplied) The assignment of a tag number was a mere expectant Hence, there is a need to weigh and balance the rights or contingent right and could not have ripened into a and welfare of both contending parties in every case in vested right in favor of petitioner. Her possession and accordance with the applicable law, regardless of their situation in life. 1315 and Section 2 of P.D. No. 1472, which state as follows: In the instant case, the relocation of petitioner and the Sec. 1 (P.D. No. 1315) - xxx. The National Housing demolition of her structure were in accordance with the Authority hereinafter referred to as the "Authority" is mandate of P.D. No. 1315 which was enacted primarily designated administrator for the national government to address the housing problems of the country and to and is authorized to immediately take possession, adopt an effective strategy for dealing with slums, control and disposition of the expropriated properties squatter areas and other blighted communities in urban with the power of demolition of their improvements. areas. Significantly, the "whereas clause" of P.D. No. xxx. 1315 states: WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Philippines mandates Sec. 2 (P.D. No. 1472) - The National Housing Authority that the "State shall establish, maintain and ensure shall have the power to summarily eject, without the adequate social services in the field of housing, to necessity of judicial order, any and all squatters' guarantee the enjoyment of the people of a decent colonies on government resettlement projects, as well standard of living" and directs that "The State shall as any illegal occupants in any homelot, apartment or promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare and dwelling unit owned or administered by it. xxx. security of all the people" xxx. From a careful reading of the foregoing provisions, we For sure, the NHA's order of relocating petitioner to her hold that R.A. No. 7279 does not necessarily repeal P.D. assigned lot and demolishing her property on account No. 1315 and P.D. No. 1472 as it does not contain any of her refusal to vacate was consistent with the law's provision which categorically and expressly repeals the fundamental objective of promoting social justice in the provisions of P.D. No. 1315 and P.D. No. 1472. Neither manner the will inure to the common good. The could there be an implied repeal. It is a well-settled rule petitioner cannot disregard the lawful action of the NHA of statutory construction that repeals by implication are which was merely implementing P.D. No. 1315. It is also not favored. The rationale behind the rule is explained worth noting that petitioner's continued refusal to leave as follows: the subject property has hindered the development of Repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed. the entire area. Indeed, petitioner cannot invoke the Repeals by implication are not favored as laws are social justice clause at the expense of the common presumed to be passed with deliberation and full welfare. knowledge of all laws existing on the subject. Such repeals are not favored for a law cannot be deemed Anent the second issue, petitioner avers that P.D. No. repealed unless it is clearly manifest that the legislature 1315 and P.D. No. 1472 were impliedly repealed by R.A. so intended it. The failure to add a specific repealing No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any and Housing Act of 1992.12 She contends that while P.D. existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and No. 1315 and P.D. No. 1472 authorized the NHA to eject repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws.13 without the necessity of a judicial order all squatter Likewise, in another case, it was held: colonies in government resettlement projects, R.A. No. Well-settled is the rule that repeals of laws by 7279 discouraged such eviction and demolition without implication are not favored, and that courts must a court order. According to petitioner, R.A. No. 7279, generally assume their congruent application. The two being the later law, impliedly repealed the former laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear laws, i.e. P.D. No. 1315 and P.D. No. 1472, following the finding thereof must surface, before the inference of legal axiom that when a later law is passed with implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in provisions contrary to the former law, an implied repeal the maxim, interpretare et concordare leqibus est of the former law takes effect. In particular, petitioner optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so cites Section 28 of R.A. No. 7279 which provides: interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition - Eviction or to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. The demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to or demolition, however, may be allowed under the have known the existing laws on the subject and not following situations: have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all (a)When persons or entities occupy danger areas such efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, give effect to all laws on the subject.14 riverbanks, shorelines, waterways and other public We find, as the trial court has found, no irreconcilable places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and conflict or repugnancy between Section 28 of R.A. No. playgrounds; 7279 and P.D. No. 1315 and No. 1472, rather, they can (b When government infrastructure projects with be read together and harmonized to give effect to their ) available funding are about to be implemented; or provisions. It should be stressed that Section 28 of R.A. (c) When there is a court order for eviction and No. 7279 does not totally and absolutely prohibit demolition. eviction and demolition without a judicial order as in Petitioner asserts that the afore-quoted provision of fact it provides for exceptions. Pursuant to established R.A. No. 7279 is inconsistent with Section 1 of P.D. No. doctrine, the three (3) statutes should be construed in light of the objective to be achieved and the evil or mischief to be suppressed by the said laws, and they should be given such construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits intended.15 It is worthy to note that the three laws (P.D. No. 1315, P.D. No. 1472 and R.A. No. 7279) have a common objective â ”€ to address the housing problems of the country by establishing a comprehensive urban development and housing program for the homeless. For this reason, the need to harmonize these laws all the more becomes imperative. Hence, in construing the three laws together, we arrive at a conclusion that demolition and eviction may be validly carried out even without a judicial order in certain instances, to wit:
(1)when the property involved is an expropriated
property in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City pursuant to Section 1 of P.D. No. 1315, (2)when there are squatters on government resettlement projects and illegal occupants in any homelot, apartment or dwelling unit owned or administered by the NHA pursuant to Section 2 of P.D. No. 1472, (3)when persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds, pursuant to Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 7279; (4)when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented pursuant to Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 7279.
It readily appears that R.A. No. 7279 does not foreclose
the NHA's authority to dismantle the house of petitioner. Besides, under Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 7279, demolition may be carried out when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented. Under P.D. No. 1315, the government has set aside the amount of P40 million for the establishment and upgrading of housing facilities and services in Bagong Barrio.16 Thus, on the ground of a much-delayed government infrastructure project about to be implemented, the NHA has the authority to carry out the summary eviction and demolition of petitioner's structure on the subject lot.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is
hereby DENIED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. C-16464 is hereby AFFIRMED.