Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 191 views

    Sps Badillo V Tayag

    Uploaded by

    yousirneighm
    1) Spouses Badillo filed an ejectment case against the National Housing Authority (NHA) and Triad Construction in MTC over a disputed parcel of land that NHA claimed was part of its resettlement project. The MTC ruled in favor of the spouses. 2) NHA appealed the MTC decision to RTC but failed to pay appeal fees on time. The spouses argued the appeal was not perfected. The RTC ruled the appeal was valid, finding NHA exempt from fees as a government corporation. 3) The RTC also ruled NHA did not need to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution, as requiring the government to do so would be indirectly requiring the State to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps Badillo V Tayag

    Uploaded by

    yousirneighm
    191 views1 page
    1) Spouses Badillo filed an ejectment case against the National Housing Authority (NHA) and Triad Construction in MTC over a disputed parcel of land that NHA claimed was part of its resettlement project. The MTC ruled in favor of the spouses. 2) NHA appealed the MTC decision to RTC but failed to pay appeal fees on time. The spouses argued the appeal was not perfected. The RTC ruled the appeal was valid, finding NHA exempt from fees as a government corporation. 3) The RTC also ruled NHA did not need to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution, as requiring the government to do so would be indirectly requiring the State to

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law

    Original Title

    Sps Badillo v Tayag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Spouses Badillo filed an ejectment case against the National Housing Authority (NHA) and Triad Construction in MTC over a disputed parcel of land that NHA claimed was part of its resettlement project. The MTC ruled in favor of the spouses. 2) NHA appealed the MTC decision to RTC but failed to pay appeal fees on time. The spouses argued the appeal was not perfected. The RTC ruled the appeal was valid, finding NHA exempt from fees as a government corporation. 3) The RTC also ruled NHA did not need to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution, as requiring the government to do so would be indirectly requiring the State to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    191 views1 page

    Sps Badillo V Tayag

    Uploaded by

    yousirneighm
    1) Spouses Badillo filed an ejectment case against the National Housing Authority (NHA) and Triad Construction in MTC over a disputed parcel of land that NHA claimed was part of its resettlement project. The MTC ruled in favor of the spouses. 2) NHA appealed the MTC decision to RTC but failed to pay appeal fees on time. The spouses argued the appeal was not perfected. The RTC ruled the appeal was valid, finding NHA exempt from fees as a government corporation. 3) The RTC also ruled NHA did not need to post a supersedeas bond to stay execution, as requiring the government to do so would be indirectly requiring the State to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SPOUSES BADILLO V HON. ARTURO TAYAG (RTC-BULACAN) and security of its citizens. x x x.

    These functions, while traditionally regarded as


    APRIL 3, 2003 | PANGANIBAN, J merely ministrant and optional, have Constitution.
    FACTS NHA is mandated by PD 757 to develop and implement a comprehensive,
    SPS BADILLO are plaintiffs in a forcible entry/ejectment case in MTC SPS integrated housing program for the greatest number of people THUS, to be
    BADILLO V TRIAD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP AND able to perform its governmental functions, the housing agency is vested
    NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY) with sovereign powers (exercise of the right of eminent domain or the right to
    o MTC: ordered NHA to vacate land, return possession to spouses, pay rental acquire by purchase privately owned lands for purposes of housing development
    for its use and occupation (P10/m2 per month) resettlement and related services and facilities).
    Disputed parcel of land was part of Bagong Silang Resettlement Project (BSRP) Under Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, the NHA, in cooperation
    of NHA with other government units and agencies, is mandated to identify and acquire
    o NHA ARGUMENT: the property was part of the TALA ESTATE and was lands for socialized housing for the underprivileged and the homeless.
    among the 598 hectares reserved by the government for its housing HENCE, IT WAS IN ITS PERFORMANCE OF THIS GOVERNMENTAL
    resettlement site (pursuant to PP 843 issued by Pres Marcos APR 1971) FUNCTION TO PROVIDE MASS HOUSING THAT THE NHA WAS SUED
    JUN 1994 NHA offered for bidding the development of certain
    portions of BSRP contracted with Triad Construction and RE: PERFECTION OF APPEAL
    Development Corporation (TRIAD) for the development of parts of site Insofar as appeals from the MTC to the RTC are concerned, the 1997 Rules of
    (developed and subdivided into smaller lots that were allocated, Civil Procedure do not mandate the dismissal of an appeal as a consequence
    awarded and distributed to qualified beneficiaries) of the non-payment of the required fee.
    o SPOUSES BADILLO ARGUMENT: Claimed to be owners and exclusive o Dismissal being discretionary on the part of the appellate court [MARTINEZ
    possessors of portion of land that has been awarded by NHA to TRIAD V CA]
    NHA intruded on, occupied and developed property despite their protests o IF RTC TO CA, payment of appellate fees is mandatory

    Upon receipt of MTC decision, NHA filed Notice of Appeal (however did not pay IN CASE, NHA filed Notice of appeal 2 days before appeal period lapsed it
    docket fees within reglementary period) perfected its appeal and MTC lost its jurisdiction MTC acted with GAD in issuing
    o SPOUSES: filed Motion for immediate issuance of a writ of execution and Writ of Execution
    demolition; because of NHAs failure to pay docket fees within prescribed
    period, MTC decision became final 2. WON NHA IS EXEMPT FROM FILING SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN ORDER TO
    o MTC: authorized issuance of writ of execution in favor of spouses for failure STAY EXECUTION OF MTC JUDGMENT? YES
    to comply with payment of docket fees RATIONALE OF PAYING OF BOND: A losing party is required to file a supersedeas
    Sheriff served Notice of Garnishment of NHAs funds in Landbank which refused bond in order to stay the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case
    to release garnished amount such bond is required to assure payment of damages to the winning party in case the
    o NHA filed Motion to set aside Writ of Execution and the Notice of appeal is found frivolous
    Garnishment DENIED
    NHA paid docket fees 4 months late and simultaneously filed petition for IN CASE AT BAR, posting of supersedeas bond is NOT necessary to stay execution
    certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction before RTC of MTC order
    o RTC: NHA had been able to perfect its appeal on time, ordered MTC to When a case involves provable rents or damages incurred by a GOCC, the real
    transmit the records of the case for appropriate appellate proceedings party in interest is the Republic of the Philippines. When the State litigates, it is
    not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond either
    ISSUES directly or indirectly through its authorized officers because it is presumed to be
    1. WON FAILURE OF NHA TO PAY APPELLATE DOCKET FEE WITHIN 15-DAY always solvent
    REGLEMENTRY PERIOD A GROUND TO DISMISS ITS APPEAL? NO UNNECESSARY to ask NHA to file bond because to do so would be to indirectly
    PD 757 NHA is a GOCC with an original charter require the government to submit the bond State is not required to file bond for
    General Rule: Such corporations with or without independent charters are reason that it is capable of paying its obligation
    required to pay (Sec 21 Rule 141 1997 CivPro only RP, agencies and IN ANY EVENT, NHA already paid appellate docket fees and filed supersedeas
    instrumentalities are exempt) bond as order by RTC albeit late
    NHA: it is exempt from paying all kinds of fees and charges because it performs
    governmental functions 3. WON DELETION OF RENTAL AWARD WAS PROPER?
    COURT: YES. ISAGANI CRUZ, J It is not obligatory upon the State itself to promote In the instant cases, the RTC has already declared that there is no evidence on
    social justice, to provide adequate social services to promote a rising standard of record to support the MTCs award of rent.
    living, to afford protection to labor to formulate and implement urban and agrarian
    reform programs, and to adopt other measures intended to ensure the dignity, welfare WHEREFORE, petitions DENIED

    You might also like