GR No 92389 September 11, 1991 HON. JEJOMAR C. BINAY and the MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, petitioners, vs. HON. EUFEMIO DOMING and the COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
The only pivotal issue before Us is whether or not Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution No. 243, of the Municipality of Makati is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause.
The pertinent facts are: On September 27, 1988, petitioner Municipality, through its Council, approved Resolution No. 60 which reads: A RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM AND/OR RATIFY THE ONGOING BURIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INITIATED BY THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, OF EXTENDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) TO A BEREAVED FAMILY, FUNDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF UNAPPROPRIATED AVAILABLE FUNDS EXISTING IN THE MUNICIPAL TREASURY. (Rollo, Annnex "A" p. 39) Qualified beneficiaries, under the Burial Assistance Program, are bereaved families of Makati whose gross family income does not exceed two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) a month. The beneficiaries, upon fulfillment of other requirements, would receive the amount of five hundred pesos (P500.00) cash relief from the Municipality of Makati. (Reno, Annex "13", p. 41) Metro Manila Commission approved Resolution No 60. Thereafter, the municipal secretary certified a disbursement fired of four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) for the implementation of the Burial Assistance Program. (Rollo, Annex "C", p. 43). Resolution No. 60 was referred to respondent Commission on Audit (COA) for its expected allowance in audit. Based on its preliminary findings, respondent COA disapproved Resolution No. 60 and disallowed in audit the disbursement of finds for the implementation thereof. (Rollo, Annex "D", P. 44) Two letters for reconsideration (Annexes "E" and "F", Rollo, pp. 45 and 48, respectively) filed by petitioners Mayor Jejomar Binay , were denied by respondent in its Decision No. 1159, in the following manner: Your request for reconsideration is predicated on the following grounds, to wit: 1. Subject Resolution No. 60, s. 1988, of the Municipal Council of Makati and the intended disbursements fall within the twin principles of 'police power and parens patriae and 2. The Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC), under a Certification, dated June 5, 1989, has already appropriated the amount of P400,000.00 to implement the Id resolution, and the only function of COA on the matter is to allow the financial assistance in question. The first contention is believed untenable. Suffice it to state that: a statute or ordinance must have a real substantial, or rational relation to the public safety, health, morals, or general welfare to be sustained as a legitimate exercise of the police power.
The mere assertion by the legislature that a statute relates to the public health, safety, or welfare does not in itself bring the statute within the police power of a state for there must always be an obvious and real connection between the actual provisions of a police regulations and its avowed purpose, and the regulation adopted must be reasonably adapted to accomplish the end sought to be attained. 16 Am. Jur 2d, pp. 542-543; emphasis supplied). Here, we see no perceptible connection or relation between the objective sought to be attained under Resolution No. 60, s. 1988, supra, and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc. of the inhabitants of Makati. Anent the second contention, let it be stressed that ResolutionNo 60 is still subject to the limitation that the expenditure covered thereby should be for a public purpose, i.e., that the disbursement of the amount of P500.00 as burial assistance to a bereaved family of the Municipality of Makati, or a total of P400,000.00 appropriated under the Resolution, should be for the benefit of the whole, if not the majority, of the inhabitants of the Municipality and not for the benefit of only a few individuals as in the present case. On this point government funds or property shall be spent or used solely for public purposes. (Cf. Section 4[2], P.D. 1445). (pp. 50-51, Rollo) Bent on pursuing the Burial Assistance Program the Municipality of Makati, through its Council, passed Resolution No. 243, re-affirming Resolution No. 60 (Rollo, Annex "H", p. 52). However, the Burial Assistance Program has been stayed by COA Decision No 1159. Petitioner, through its Mayor, was constrained to file this special civil action of certiorari praying that COA Decision No. 1159 be set aside as null and void. The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which was born with civilized government. It is founded largely on the maxims, "Sic utere tuo et ahenum non laedas and "Salus populi est suprema lex Its fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people. Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations (Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182). Before a municipal corporation may exercise such power, there must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the State. A valid delegation of police power may arise from express delegation, or be inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the municipal corporation; and as a general rule, municipal corporations may exercise police powers within the fair intent and purpose of their creation which are reasonably proper to give effect to the powers expressly granted, and statutes conferring powers on public corporations have been construed as empowering them to do the things essential to the enjoyment of life and desirable for the safety of the people. (62 C.J.S., p. 277).
The so-called inferred police powers of such corporations are as much delegated powers as are those conferred in express terms, the inference of their delegation growing out of the fact of the creation of the municipal corporation and the additional fact that the corporation can only fully accomplish the objects of its creation by exercising such powers. (Crawfordsville vs. Braden, 28 N.E. 849). Furthermore, municipal corporations, as governmental agencies, must have such measures of the power as are necessary to enable them to perform their governmental functions. The power is a continuing one, founded on public necessity. (62 C.J.S. p. 273) Thus, not only does the State effectuate its purposes through the exercise of the police power but the municipality does also. (U.S. v Salaveria, 39 Phil. 102). Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause: pursuant thereto they are clothed with authority to "enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein." (Sections 91, 149, 177 and 208, BP 337). And under Section 7 of BP 337, "every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary and proper for governance such as to promote health and safety, enhance prosperity, improve morals, and maintain peace and order in the local government unit, and preserve the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants therein." Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. It is the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers. In a sense it is the greatest and most powerful attribute of the government. It is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions. (Sangalang, et al. vs. IAC, 176 SCRA 719). On it depends the security of social order, the life and health of the citizen, the comfort of an existence in a thickly populated community, the enjoyment of private and social life, and the beneficial use of property, and it has been said to be the very foundation on which our social system rests. (16 C.J.S., P. 896) However, it is not confined within narrow circumstances of precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life. (Sangalang, et al. vs. IAC, supra). In the case at bar, COA is of the position that there is " no perceptible connection or relation between the objective sought to be attained under Resolution No. 60, s. 1988, supra, and the alleged public safety, general welfare. etc. of the inhabitants of Makati." (Rollo, Annex "G", p. 51). Apparently, COA tries to re-define the scope of police power by circumscribing its exercise to "public safety, general welfare, etc. of the inhabitants of Makati."
In the case of Sangalang vs. IAC, supra, We ruled that police power is not capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all comprehensiveness. Its scope, over-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits. The police power of a municipal corporation is broad, and has been said to be commensurate with, but not to exceed, the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their health, safety, comfort, and convenience as consistently as may be with private rights. It extends to all the great public needs, and, in a broad sense includes all legislation and almost every function of the municipal government. It covers a wide scope of subjects, and, while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the peace, security, health, morals, and general welfare of the community, it is not limited thereto, but is broadened to deal with conditions which exists so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity, and to everything worthwhile for the preservation of comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation (62 C.J.S. Sec. 128). Thus, it is deemed inadvisable to attempt to frame any definition which shall absolutely indicate the limits of police power. COA's additional objection is based on its contention that "Resolution No. 60 is still subject to the limitation that the expenditure covered thereby should be for a public purpose, ... should be for the benekfit of the whole, if not the majority, of the inhabitants of the Municipality and not for the benefit of only a few individuals as in the present case." (Rollo, Annex "G", p. 51). COA is not attuned to the changing of the times. Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons. As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, "the drift is towards social welfare legislation geared towards state policies to provide adequate social services (Section 9, Art. II, Constitution), the promotion of the general welfare (Section 5, Ibid) social justice (Section 10, Ibid) as well as human dignity and respect for human rights. (Section 11, Ibid." (Comment, p. 12)
The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public duty. The support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise of police power in the promotion of the common good. There is no violation of the equal protection clause in classifying paupers as subject of legislation. Paupers may be reasonably classified. Different groups may receive varying treatment. Precious to the hearts of our legislators, down to our local councilors, is the welfare of the paupers. Thus, statutes have been passed giving rights and benefits to the disabled, emancipating the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil, housing the urban poor, etc. Resolution No. 60, re-enacted under Resolution No. 243, of the Municipality of Makati is a paragon of the continuing program of our government towards social justice. The Burial Assistance Program is a relief of pauperism, though not complete. The loss of a member of a family is a painful experience, and it is more painful for the poor to be financially burdened by such death. Resolution No. 60 vivifies the very words of the late President Ramon Magsaysay 'those who have less in life, should have more in law." This decision, however must not be taken as a precedent, or as an official go-signal for municipal governments to embark on a philanthropic orgy of inordinate dole-outs for motives political or otherwise. PREMISES CONSIDERED, and with the afore-mentioned caveat, this petition is hereby GRANTED and the Commission on Audit's Decision No. 1159 is hereby SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.
GR No 40243 March 11, 1992 CELESTINO TATEL, petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, SALVADOR A. SURTIDA, in his capacity as Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes; GAVINO V. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes; JOSE T. BUEBOS, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ANGELES TABLIZO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ELPIDIO T. ZAFE, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; MARIANO ALBERTO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; JULIA A. GARCIA, in her capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; and PEDRO A. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes, respondents.
This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes filed by appellant, Celestino Tatel, a businessman engaged in the import and export of abaca and other products against the Municipal Council of Virac, Catanduanes and its municipal officials enjoining them from enforcing Resolution No 29 1 of the Council, declaring the warehouse of petitioner in barrio Sta. Elena of the said municipality a public nuisance within the purview of Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and directing the petitioner to remove and transfer said warehouse to a more suitable place within two (2) months from receipt of the said resolution. It appears from the records that on the basis of complaints received from the residents of barrio Sta. Elena on March 18, 1966 against the disturbance caused by the operation of the abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse of petitioner which affected the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood due to the smoke, obnoxious odor and dust emitted by the machine, a committee was appointed by the municipal council of Virac to investigate the matter. The committee noted the crowded nature of the neighborhood with narrow roads and the surrounding residential houses, so much so that an accidental fire within the warehouse of the petitioner occasioned by the continuance of the activity inside the warehouse and the storing of inflammable materials created a danger to the lives and properties of the people within the neighborhood. Resultantly, Resolution No. 29 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac on April 22, 1966 declaring the warehouse owned and operated by petitioner a public nuisance within the purview of Article 694 of the New Civil Code. 2 His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Municipal Council of Virac, petitioner instituted the present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction. Respondent municipal officials contend that petitioner's warehouse was constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, prohibiting the construction of warehouses near a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without maintaining the necessary distance of 200 meters from said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties by accidental fire.
On the other hand, petitioner contends that said ordinance is unconstitutional, contrary to the due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution and null and void for not having been passed in accordance with law. The issue then boils down on whether petitioner's warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning of Article 694 of the Civil Code and whether Ordinance No. 13, S. 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void.In a decision dated September 18, 1969, the court a quo ruled as follows: 1. The warehouse in question was legally constructed under a valid permit issued by the municipality of Virac in accordance with existing regulations and may not be destroyed or removed from its present location; 2. Ordinance No 13, series of 1952, is a legitimate and valid exercise of police power by the Municipal Council of Virac is not (sic) unconstitutional and void as claimed by the petitioner; 3. The storage by the petitioner of abaca and copra in the warehouse is not only in violation of the provisions of the ordinance but poses a grave danger to the safety of the lives and properties of the residents of the neighborhood due to accidental fire and constitutes a public nuisance under the provisions of Article 694 of the New Civil code of the Philippines and may be abated; 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby directed to remove from the said warehouse all abaca and copra and other inflammable articles stored therein which are prohibited under the provisions of Ordinance No 13, within a period of two (2) months from the time this decision becomes final and that henceforth, the petitioner is enjoined from storing such prohibited articles in the warehouse. With costs against petitioner.
Seeking appellate review, petitioner raised as errors of the court a quo: 1. In holding that Ordinance No 13, series of 1952, of the Municipality of Virac, Catanduanes, is a legitimate and valid exercise of police power of the Municipal Council, and therefore, constitutional; 2. In giving the ordinance a meaning other than and different from what it provided by declaring that petitioner violated the same by using the warehouse for storage of abaca and copra when what is prohibited and penalized by the ordinance is the construction of warehouses. 3. In refusing to take judicial notice of the fact that in the municipality, there are numerous establishments similarly situated as appellants' warehouses but which are not prosecuted. We find no merit in the Petition.
Ordinance No 13, series of 1952, was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise of its police power. It is a settled principle of law that municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the promotion and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with the police powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. 3 Its authority emanates from the general welfare clause under the Administrative Code, which reads:
The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, and must be in consonance with certain well established and basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require that a municipal ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1952, meets these criteria. As to the petitioner's second assignment of error, the trial court did not give the ordinance in question a meaning other than what it says. Ordinance No 13 passed by the Municipal Council of Virac on December 29, 1952, reads: AN ORDINANCE STRICTLY PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSE IN ANY FORM NEAR A BLOCK OF HOUSES EITHER IN POBLACION OR BARRIO WITH NECESSARY DISTANCE TO AVOID GREAT LOSSES OF PROPERTY AND LIVES BY FIRE ACCIDENT.
Section 1 provides: It is strictly prohibited to construct warehouses in any form to any person, persons, entity, corporation or merchants, wherein to keep or store copra, hemp, gasoline, petroleum, alcohol, crude oil, oil of turpentine and the like products or materials if not within the distance of 200 meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios to avoid great losses of properties inclusive lives by fire accident. Section 2 provides: Owners of warehouses in any form, are hereby given advice to remove their said warehouses this ordinance by the Municipal Council, provided however, that if those warehouses now in existence should no longer be utilized as such warehouse for the above-described products in Section 1 of this ordinance after a lapse of the time given for the removal of the said warehouses now in existence, same warehouses shall be exempted from the spirit of the provision of section 1 of this ordinance, provided further, that these warehouses now in existence, shall in the future be converted into non-inflammable products and materials warehouses.
In spite of its fractured syntax, basically, what is regulated by the ordinance is the construction of warehouses wherein inflammable materials are stored where such warehouses are located at a distance of 200 meters from a block of houses and not the construction per se of a warehouse. The purpose is to avoid the loss of life and property in case of fire which is one of the primordial obligation of the government.
This was also the observation of the trial court: A casual glance of the ordinance at once reveals a manifest disregard of the elemental rules of syntax. Experience, however, will show that this is not uncommon in law making bodies in small towns where local authorities and in particular the persons charged with the drafting and preparation of municipal resolutions and ordinances lack sufficient education and training and are not well grounded even on the basic and fundamental elements of the English language commonly used throughout the country in such matters. Nevertheless, if one scrutinizes the terms of the ordinance, it is clear that what is prohibited is the construction of warehouses by any person, entity or corporation wherein copra, hemp, gasoline and other inflammable products mentioned in Section 1 may be stored unless at a distance of not less than 200 meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios in order to avoid loss of property and life due to fire. Under Section 2, existing warehouses for the storage of the prohibited articles were given one year after the approval of the ordinance within which to remove them but were allowed to remain in operation if they had ceased to store such prohibited articles.
The ambiguity therefore is more apparent than real and springs from simple error in grammatical construction but otherwise, the meaning and intent is clear that what is prohibited is the construction or maintenance of warehouses for the storage of inflammable articles at a distance within 200 meters from a block of houses either in the poblacion or in the barrios. And the purpose of the ordinance is to avoid loss of life and property in case of accidental fire which is one of the primordial and basic obligation of any government. Clearly, the lower court did NOT add meaning other than or differrent from what was provided in the ordinance in question. It merely stated the purpose of the ordinance and what it intends to prohibit to accomplish its purpose. As to the third assignment of error, that warehouses similarly situated as that of the petitioner were not prosecuted, suffice it to say that the mere fact that the municipal authorities of Virac have not proceeded against other warehouses in the municipality allegedly violating Ordinance No. 13 is no reason to claim that the ordinance is discriminatory. A distinction must be made between the law itself and the manner in which said law is implemented by the agencies in charge with its administration and enforcement. There is no valid reason for the petitioner to complain, in the absence of proof that the other bodegas mentioned by him are operating in violation of the ordinance and that the complaints have been lodged against the bodegas concerned without the municipal authorities doing anything about it.
The objections interposed by the petitioner to the validity of the ordinance have not been substantiated. Its purpose is well within the objectives of sound government. No undue restraint is placed upon the petitioner or for anybody to engage in trade but merely a prohibition from storing inflammable products in the warehouse because of the danger of fire to the lives and properties of the people residing in the vicinity. As far as public policy is concerned, there can be no better policy than what has been conceived by the municipal government.
As to petitioner's contention of want of jurisdiction by the lower court we find no merit in the same. The case is a simple civil suit for abatement of a nuisance, the original jurisdiction of which falls under the then Court of First Instance. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 169838 April 25, 2006, KARAPATAN, KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP), GABRIELA, Fr. Jose Dizon, Renato Constantino, Jr., Froyel Yaneza, and Fahima Tajar, Petitioners, vs. EDUARDO ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Manila City Mayor LITO ATIENZA, Chief of the Philippine National Police, Gen. ARTURO M. LOMIBAO, NCRPO Chief Maj. Gen. VIDAL QUEROL, and Western Police District Chief Gen. PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents.
G.R. No. 169848 April 25, 2006 Jess Del Prado, Wilson Fortaleza, Leody de Guzman, Pedro Pinlac, Carmelita Morante, Rasti Delizo, Paul Bangay, Marie Jo Ocampo, Lilia dela Cruz, Cristeta Ramos, Adelaida Ramos, Mary Grace Gonzales, Michael Torres, Rendo Sabusap, Precious Balute, Roxanne Magboo, Ernie Bautista, Joseph de Jesus, Margarita Escober, Djoannalyn Janier, Magdalena Sellote, Manny Quiazon, Ericson Dizon, Nenita Cruzat, Leonardo De los Reyes, Pedrito Fadrigon, Petitioners, vs. EDUARDO ERMITA, in his official capacity as The Executive Secretary and in his personal capacity, ANGELO REYES, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior and LG, ARTURO LOMIBAO, in his official capacity as the Chief, PNP, VIDAL QUEROL, in his official capacity as the Chief, National Capital Regional Police Office (NCRPO), PEDRO BULAONG, in his official capacity as the Chief, Manila Police District (MPD) AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS GARCIA, and AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION AND INSTRUCTIONS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 169881 April 25, 2006 KILUSANG MAYO UNO, represented by its Chairperson ELMER C. LABOG and Secretary General JOEL MAGLUNSOD, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO (NAFLU-KMU), represented by its National President, JOSELITO V USTAREZ, ANTONIO C. PASCUAL, SALVADOR T. CARRANZA, GILDA SUMILANG, FRANCISCO LASTRELLA, and ROQUE M. TAN, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PNP DIRECTOR GENRAL ARTURO LOMIBAO, HONORABLE MAYOR LITO ATIENZA, and PNP MPD CHIEF SUPT. PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents
.
Petitioners come in three groups. The first petitioners, Bayan, et al., in G.R. No. 169838,1 allege that they are citizens and taxpayers of the Philippines and that their rights as organizations and individuals were violated when the rally they participated in on October 6, 2005 was violently dispersed by policemen implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.) No. 880. The second group consists of 26 individual petitioners, Jess del Prado, et al., in G.R. No. 169848,2 who allege that they were injured, arrested and detained when a peaceful mass action they held on September 26, 2005 was preempted and violently dispersed by the police. They further assert that on October 5, 2005, a group they participated in marched to Malacañang to protest issuances of the Palace which, they claim, put the country under an "undeclared" martial rule, and the protest was likewise dispersed violently and many among them were arrested and suffered injuries. The third group, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), et al., petitioners in G.R. No. 169881,3 allege that they conduct peaceful mass actions and that their rights as organizations and those of their individual members as citizens, specifically the right to peaceful assembly, are affected by Batas Pambansa No. 880 and the policy of "Calibrated Preemptive Response" (CPR) being followed to implement it. KMU, et al., claim that on October 4, 2005, a rally KMU co-sponsored was to be conducted at the Mendiola bridge but police blocked them along C.M. Recto and Lepanto Streets and forcibly dispersed them, causing injuries to several of their members. They further allege that on October 6, 2005, a multi-sectoral rally which KMU also co-sponsored was scheduled to proceed along España Avenue in front of the University of Santo Tomas and going towards Mendiola bridge. Police officers blocked them along Morayta Street and prevented them from proceeding further. They were then forcibly dispersed, causing injuries on one of them.4 Three other rallyists were arrested. All petitioners assail Batas Pambansa No. 880, some of them in toto and others only Sections 4, 5, 6, 12, 13(a), and 14(a), as well as the policy of CPR. They seek to stop violent dispersals of rallies under the "no permit, no rally" policy and the CPR policy recently announced.
B.P. No. 880, "The Public Assembly Act of 1985," provides:
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 An Act Ensuring The Free Exercise By The People Of Their Right Peaceably To Assemble And Petition The Government [And] For Other Purposes Be it enacted by the Batasang Pambansa in session assembled: Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as "The Public Assembly Act of 1985." Sec. 2. Declaration of policy. – The constitutional right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances is essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure the free exercise of such right without prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law.
Sec. 3. Definition of terms. – For purposes of this Act: (a) "Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the government for redress s of grievances. The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local ordinances; Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as provided in Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed. The definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting from a labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227 (b) "Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open space of public ownership where the people are allowed access. (c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same. (d) "Modification of a permit" shall include the change of the place and time of the public assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the volume of loud-speakers or sound system and similar changes.
Sec. 4. Permit when required and when not required. – A written permit shall be required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in private property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act. Sec. 5. Application requirements. – All applications for a permit shall comply with the following guidelines: (a) The applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the leaders or organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the date, time and duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the intended activity; and the probable number of persons participating, the transport and the public address systems to be used. (b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of the applicant under Section 8 hereof. (c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at least five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly. (d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in writing, the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to immediately be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal building. Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the application. – (a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health. (b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within two (2) working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for a permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. (c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter. (d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the applica[nt] within twenty-four hours. (e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law.(f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or the Intermediate Appellate court, its decisions may be appealed to the appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the same. No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting such permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall be immediately executory. (g) All cases filed in court under this section shall be decided within twenty-four (24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his absence, to the next in rank. (h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. (i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed. Sec. 7. Use of Public throroughfare. – Should the proposed public assembly involve the use, for an appreciable length of time, of any public highway, boulevard, avenue, road or street, the mayor or any official acting in his behalf may, to prevent grave public inconvenience, designate the route thereof which is convenient to the participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another direction so that there will be no serious or undue interference with the free flow of commerce and trade. Sec. 8. Responsibility of applicant. – It shall be the duty and responsibility of the leaders and organizers of a public assembly to take all reasonable measures and steps to the end that the intended public assembly shall be conducted peacefully in accordance with the terms of the permit. These shall include but not be limited to the following: (a) To inform the participants of their responsibility under the permit (b) To police the ranks of the demonstrators in order to prevent non-demonstrators from disrupting the lawful activities of the public assembly; (c) To confer with local government officials concerned and law enforcers to the end that the public assembly may be held peacefully; (d) To see to it that the public assembly undertaken shall not go beyond the time stated in the permit; and (e) To take positive steps that demonstrators do not molest any person or do any act unduly interfering with the rights of other persons not participating in the public assembly. Sec. 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities. – Law enforcement agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed in a place at least one hundred (100) meters away from the area of activity ready to maintain peace and order at all times. Sec. 10. Police assistance when requested. – It shall be imperative for law enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to provide proper protection to those exercising their right peaceably to assemble and the freedom of expression is primordial. Towards this end, law enforcement agencies shall observe the following guidelines: (a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and units to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum tolerance" as herein defined; (b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields, crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin guards; (c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of property. Sec. 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit. – No public assembly with a permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the police may disperse such public assembly as follows: (a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance; (b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or at any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the participants that if the disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed; (c) If the violence or disturbance prevailing as stated in the preceding subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse; (d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law, statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (e) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace during the public assembly shall not constitute a ground for dispersal. Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed. Sec. 13. Prohibited acts. – The following shall constitute violations of the Act: (a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or organizer without having first secured that written permit where a permit is required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for such purposes in any place other than those set out in said permit: Provided, however, That no person can be punished or held criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly; (b) Arbitrary and unjustified denial or modification of a permit in violation of the provisions of this Act by the mayor or any other official acting in his behalf; (c) The unjustified and arbitrary refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt of the application for a permit by the mayor or any official acting in his behalf; (d) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly; (e) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement agency or any person to disperse the public assembly; (f) Acts in violation of Section 10 hereof; (g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100) meters from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereof: 1. the carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such as firearm, pillbox, bomb, and the like; 2. the carrying of a bladed weapon and the like; 3. the malicious burning of any object in the streets or thoroughfares; 4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit; 5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly by the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud sound systems. Sec. 14. Penalties. – Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the prohibited acts defined in the immediately preceding section shall be punished as follows: (a) violation of subparagraph (a) shall be punished by imprisonment of one month and one day to six months; (b) violations of subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and item 4, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of six months and one day to six years; (c) violation of item 1, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of six months and one day to six years without prejudice to prosecution under Presidential Decree No. 1866; (d) violations of item 2, item 3, or item 5 of subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of one day to thirty days. Sec. 15. Freedom parks. – Every city and municipality in the country shall within six months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one suitable "freedom park" or mall in their respective jurisdictions which, as far as practicable, shall be centrally located within the poblacion where demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit. In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors shall establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the effectivity this Act. Sec. 16. Constitutionality. – Should any provision of this Act be declared invalid or unconstitutional, the validity or constitutionality of the other provisions shall not be affected thereby. Sec. 17. Repealing clause. – All laws, decrees, letters of instructions, resolutions, orders, ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly. Sec. 18. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval. Approved, October 22, 1985. CPR, on the other hand, is a policy set forth in a press release by Malacañang dated September 21, 2005, shown in Annex "A" to the Petition in G.R. No. 169848, thus: Malacañang Official Manila, Philippines NEWS Release No. 2 September 21, 2005
STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA On Unlawful Mass Actions In view of intelligence reports pointing to credible plans of anti-government groups to inflame the political situation, sow disorder and incite people against the duly constituted authorities, we have instructed the PNP as well as the local government units to strictly enforce a "no permit, no rally" policy, disperse groups that run afoul of this standard and arrest all persons violating the laws of the land as well as ordinances on the proper conduct of mass actions and demonstrations. The rule of calibrated preemptive response is now in force, in lieu of maximum tolerance. The authorities will not stand aside while those with ill intent are herding a witting or unwitting mass of people and inciting them into actions that are inimical to public order, and the peace of mind of the national community. Unlawful mass actions will be dispersed. The majority of law-abiding citizens have the right to be protected by a vigilant and proactive government. We appeal to the detractors of the government to engage in lawful and peaceful conduct befitting of a democratic society. The President’s call for unity and reconciliation stands, based on the rule of law. Petitioners Bayan, et al., contend that Batas Pambansa No. 880 is clearly a violation of the Constitut ion and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights treaties of which the Philippines is a signatory.5 They argue that B.P. No. 880 requires a permit before one can stage a public assembly regardless of the presence or absence of a clear and present danger. It also curtails the choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the freedom of expression clause as the time and place of a public assembly form part of the message for which the expression is sought. Furthermore, it is not content-neutral as it does not apply to mass actions in support of the government. The words "lawful cause," "opinion," "protesting or influencing" suggest the exposition of some cause not espoused by the government. Also, the phrase "maximum tolerance" shows that the law applies to assemblies against the government because they are being tolerated. As a content-based legislation, it cannot pass the strict scrutiny test.
Petitioners Jess del Prado, et al., in turn, argue that B.P. No. 880 is unconstitutional as it is a curtailment of the right to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances because it puts a condition for the valid exercise of that right. It also characterizes public assemblies without a permit as illegal and penalizes them and allows their dispersal. Thus, its provisions are not mere regulations but are actually prohibitions. Furthermore, the law delegates powers to the Mayor without providing clear standards. The two standards stated in the laws (clear and present danger and imminent and grave danger) are inconsistent. Regarding the CPR policy, it is void for being an ultra vires act that alters the standard of maximum tolerance set forth in B.P. No. 880, aside from being void for being vague and for lack of publication. Finally, petitioners KMU, et al., argue that the Constitution sets no limits on the right to assembly and therefore B.P. No. 880 cannot put the prior requirement of securing a permit. And even assuming that the legislature can set limits to this right, the limits provided are unreasonable: First, allowing the Mayor to deny the permit on clear and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger is too comprehensive. Second, the five-day requirement to apply for a permit is too long as certain events require instant public assembly, otherwise interest on the issue would possibly wane.
As to the CPR policy, they argue that it is preemptive, that the government takes action even before the rallyists can perform their act, and that no law, ordinance or executive order supports the policy. Furthermore, it contravenes the maximum tolerance policy of B.P. No. 880 and violates the Constitution as it causes a chilling effect on the exercise by the people of the right to peaceably assemble. Respondents in G.R. No. 169838 are Eduardo Ermita, as Executive Secretary, Manila City Mayor Lito Atienza, Chief, of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Gen. Arturo Lomibao, National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) Chief, PNP Maj. Gen. Vidal Querol, and Manila Police District (MPD) Chief Gen. Pedro Bulaong. Respondents in G.R. No. 169848 are Eduardo Ermitas Executive Secretary and in his personal capacity; Angelo Reyes, as Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments; Arturo Lomibao, as Chief Vidal Querol, as Chief, NCRPO; Pedro Bulaong, as Chief, MPD, and all other public officers and private individuals acting under their control, supervision and instruction. Respondents in G.R. No. 169881 are the Honorable Executive Secretary, PNP Director General Arturo Lomibao, the Honorable Mayor Joselito Atienza, and PNP MPD Chief Pedro Bulaong. Respondents argue that: 1. Petitioners have no standing because they have not presented evidence that they had been "injured, arrested or detained because of the CPR," and that "those arrested stand to be charged with violating Batas Pambansa [No.] 880 and other offenses." 2. Neither B.P. No. 880 nor CPR is void on its face. Petitioners cannot honestly claim that the time, place and manner regulation embodied in B.P. No. 880 violates the three-pronged test for such a measure, to wit: (a) B.P. No. 880 is content-neutral, i.e., it has no reference to content of regulated speech; (b) B.P. No. 880 is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, i.e., the interest cannot be equally well served by a means that is less intrusive of free speech interests; and (c) B.P. No. 880 leaves open alternative channels for communication of the information.6 3. B.P. No. 880 is content-neutral as seen from the text of the law. Section 5 requires the statement of the public assembly’s time, place and manner of conduct. It entails traffic re-routing to prevent grave public inconvenience and serious or undue interference in the free flow of commerce and trade. Furthermore, nothing in B.P. No. 880 authorizes the denial of a permit on the basis of a rally’s program content or the statements of the speakers therein, except under the constitutional precept of the "clear and present danger test." The status of B.P. No. 880 as a content-neutral regulation has been recognized in Osmeña v. Comelec.7 4. Adiong v. Comelec8 held that B.P. No. 880 is a content-neutral regulation of the time, place and manner of holding public assemblies and the law passes the test for such regulation, namely, these regulations need only a substantial governmental interest to support them. 5. Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court9 held that a local chief executive has the authority to exercise police power to meet "the demands of the common good in terms of traffic decongestion and public convenience." Furthermore, the discretion given to the mayor is narrowly circumscribed by Sections 5 (d), and 6 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 13 and 15 of the law. 6. The standards set forth in the law are not inconsistent. "Clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health" and "imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil" both express the meaning of the "clear and present danger test."10 7. CPR is simply the responsible and judicious use of means allowed by existing laws and ordinances to protect public interest and restore public order. Thus, it is not accurate to call it a new rule but rather it is a more pro-active and dynamic enforcement of existing laws, regulations and ordinances to prevent chaos in the streets. It does not replace the rule of maximum tolerance in B.P. No. 880. Respondent Mayor Joselito Atienza, for his part, submitted in his Comment that the petition in G.R. No. 169838 should be dismissed on the ground that Republic Act No. 7160 gives the Mayor power to deny a permit independently of B.P. No. 880; that his denials of permits were under the "clear and present danger" rule as there was a clamor to stop rallies that disrupt the economy and to protect the lives of other people; that J. B. L. Reyes v. Bagatsing,11 Primicias v. Fugoso,12 and Jacinto v . CA,13 have affirmed the constitutionality of requiring a permit; that the permit is for the use of a public place and not for the exercise of rights; and that B.P. No. 880 is not a content-based regulation because it covers all rallies.
The petitions were ordered consolidated on February 14, 2006. After the submission of all the Comments, the Court set the cases for oral arguments on April 4, 2006,14 stating the principal issues, as follows: 1. On the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. 880, specifically Sections 4, 5, 6, 12 13(a) and 14(a) thereof, and Republic Act No. 7160: (a) Are these content-neutral or content-based regulations? (b) Are they void on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness? (c) Do they constitute prior restraint? (d) Are they undue delegations of powers to Mayors? (e) Do they violate international human rights treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? 2. On the constitutionality and legality of the policy of Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR): (a) Is the policy void on its face or due to vagueness? (b) Is it void for lack of publication? (c) Is the policy of CPR void as applied to the rallies of September 26 and October 4, 5 and 6, 2005? During the course of the oral arguments, the following developments took place and were approved and/or noted by the Court: 1. Petitioners, in the interest of a speedy resolution of the petitions, withdrew the portions of their petitions raising factual issues, particularly those raising the issue of whether B.P. No. 880 and/or CPR is void as applied to the rallies of September 20, October 4, 5 and 6, 2005. 2. The Solicitor General agreed with the observation of the Chief Justice that CPR should no longer be used as a legal term inasmuch as, according to respondents, it was merely a "catchword" intended to clarify what was thought to be a misunderstanding of the maximum tolerance policy set forth in B.P. No. 880 and that, as stated in the affidavit executed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and submitted to the Ombudsman, it does not replace B.P. No. 880 and the maximum tolerance policy embodied in that law. The Court will now proceed to address the principal issues, taking into account the foregoing developments. Petitioners’ standing cannot be seriously challenged. Their right as citizens to engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is directly affected by B.P. No. 880 which requires a permit for all who would publicly assemble in the nation’s streets and parks. They have, in fact, purposely engaged in public assemblies without the required permits to press their claim that no such permit can be validly required without violating the Constitutional guarantee. Respondents, on the other hand, have challenged such action as contrary to law and dispersed the public assemblies held without the permit.
Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution provides: Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The first point to mark is that the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. For these rights constitute the very basis of a functional democratic polity, without which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected. As stated in Jacinto v. CA,15 the Court, as early as the onset of this century, in U.S. v. Apurado,16 already upheld the right to assembly and petition, as follows: There is no question as to the petitioners’ rights to peaceful assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances and, for that matter, to organize or form associations for purposes not contrary to law, as well as to engage in peaceful concerted activities. These rights are guaranteed by no less than the Constitution, particularly Sections 4 and 8 of the Bill of Rights, Section 2(5) of Article IX, and Section 3 of Article XIII. Jurisprudence abounds with hallowed pronouncements defending and promoting the people’s exercise of these rights. As early as the onset of this century, this Court in U.S. vs. Apurado, already upheld the right to assembly and petition and even went as far as to acknowledge: "It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater, the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of such disorderly conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances would become a delusion and a snare and the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable manner would expose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising." Again, in Primicias v. Fugoso,17 the Court likewise sustained the primacy of freedom of speech and to assembly and petition over comfort and convenience in the use of streets and parks.
Next, however, it must be remembered that the right, while sacrosanct, is not absolute. In Primicias, this Court said: The right to freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, are fundamental personal rights of the people recognized and guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic countries. But it is a settled principle growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil societies that the exercise of those rights is not absolute for it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the community or society. The power to regulate the exercise of such and other constitutional rights is termed the sovereign "police power," which is the power to prescribe regulations, to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. This sovereign police power is exercised by the government through its legislative branch by the enactment of laws regulating those and other constitutional and civil rights, and it may be delegated to political subdivisions, such as towns, municipalities and cities by authorizing their legislative bodies called municipal and city councils to enact ordinances for the purpose.
Reyes v. Bagatsing further expounded on the right and its limits, as follows: 1. It is thus clear that the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, arising from the denial of a permit. The Constitution is quite explicit: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances." Free speech, like free press, may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a "clear and present danger of a substantive evil that [the State] has a right to prevent." Freedom of assembly connotes the right of the people to meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of public concern. It is entitled to be accorded the utmost deference and respect. It is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing, as is the case with freedom of expression, of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. Even prior to the 1935 Constitution, Justice Malcolm had occasion to stress that it is a necessary consequence of our republican institutions and complements the right of free speech. To paraphrase the opinion of Justice Rutledge, speaking for the majority of the American Supreme Court in Thomas v. Collins, it was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech and of the press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. All these rights, while not identical, are inseparable. In every case, therefore, where there is a limitation placed on the exercise of this right, the judiciary is called upon to examine the effects of the challenged governmental actuation. The sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest. 2. Nowhere is the rationale that underlies the freedom of expression and peaceable assembly better expressed than in this excerpt from an opinion of Justice Frankfurter: "It must never be forgotten, however, that the Bill of Rights was the child of the Enlightenment. Back of the guaranty of free speech lay faith in the power of an appeal to reason by all the peaceful means for gaining access to the mind. It was in order to avert force and explosions due to restrictions upon rational modes of communication that the guaranty of free speech was given a generous scope. But utterance in a context of violence can lose its significance as an appeal to reason and become part of an instrument of force. Such utterance was not meant to be sheltered by the Constitution." What was rightfully stressed is the abandonment of reason, the utterance, whether verbal or printed, being in a context of violence. It must always be remembered that this right likewise provides for a safety valve, allowing parties the opportunity to give vent to their views, even if contrary to the prevailing climate of opinion. For if the peaceful means of communication cannot be availed of, resort to non-peaceful means may be the only alternative. Nor is this the sole reason for the expression of dissent. It means more than just the right to be heard of the person who feels aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with things as they are. Its value may lie in the fact that there may be something worth hearing from the dissenter. That is to ensure a true ferment of ideas. There are, of course, well-defined limits. What is guaranteed is peaceable assembly. One may not advocate disorder in the name of protest, much less preach rebellion under the cloak of dissent. The Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult attending a rally or assembly. Resort to force is ruled out and outbreaks of violence to be avoided. The utmost calm though is not required. As pointed out in an early Philippine case, penned in 1907 to be precise, United States v. Apurado: "It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers." It bears repeating that for the constitutional right to be invoked, riotous conduct, injury to property, and acts of vandalism must be avoided. To give free rein to one’s destructive urges is to call for condemnation. It is to make a mockery of the high estate occupied by intellectual liberty in our scheme of values. There can be no legal objection, absent the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, on the choice of Luneta as the place where the peace rally would start. The Philippines is committed to the view expressed in the plurality opinion, of 1939 vintage, of Justice Roberts in Hague v. CIO: "Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied." The above excerpt was quoted with approval in Primicias v. Fugoso. Primicias made explicit what was implicit in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, a 1915 decision, where this Court categorically affirmed that plazas or parks and streets are outside the commerce of man and thus nullified a contract that leased Plaza Soledad of plaintiff-municipality. Reference was made to such plaza "being a promenade for public use," which certainly is not the only purpose that it could serve. To repeat, there can be no valid reason why a permit should not be granted for the proposed march and rally starting from a public park that is the Luneta.
4. Neither can there be any valid objection to the use of the streets to the gates of the US embassy, hardly two blocks away at the Roxas Boulevard. Primicias v. Fugoso has resolved any lurking doubt on the matter. In holding that the then Mayor Fugoso of the City of Manila should grant a permit for a public meeting at Plaza Miranda in Quiapo, this Court categorically declared: "Our conclusion finds support in the decision in the case of Willis Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S., 569. In that case, the statute of New Hampshire P.L. chap. 145, section 2, providing that no parade or procession upon any ground abutting thereon, shall be permitted unless a special license therefor shall first be obtained from the selectmen of the town or from licensing committee,’ was construed by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire as not conferring upon the licensing board unfettered discretion to refuse to grant the license, and held valid. And the Supreme Court of the United States, in its decision (1941) penned by Chief Justice Hughes affirming the judgment of the State Supreme Court, held that ‘a statute requiring persons using the public streets for a parade or procession to procure a special license therefor from the local authorities is not an unconstitutional abridgment of the rights of assembly or of freedom of speech and press, where, as the statute is construed by the state courts, the licensing authorities are strictly limited, in the issuance of licenses, to a consideration of the time, place, and manner of the parade or procession, with a view to conserving the public convenience and of affording an opportunity to provide proper policing, and are not invested with arbitrary discretion to issue or refuse license, * * *. "Nor should the point made by Chief Justice Hughes in a subsequent portion of the opinion be ignored: "Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestricted abuses. The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend. The control of travel on the streets of cities is the most familiar illustration of this recognition of social need. Where a restriction of the use of highways in that relation is designed to promote the public convenience in the interest of all, it cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some civil right which in other circumstances would be entitled to protection." x x x 6. x x x The principle under American doctrines was given utterance by Chief Justice Hughes in these words: "The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects." There could be danger to public peace and safety if such a gathering were marked by turbulence. That would deprive it of its peaceful character. Even then, only the guilty parties should be held accountable. It is true that the licensing official, here respondent Mayor, is not devoid of discretion in determining whether or not a permit would be granted. It is not, however, unfettered discretion. While prudence requires that there be a realistic appraisal not of what may possibly occur but of what may probably occur, given all the relevant circumstances, still the assumption – especially so where the assembly is scheduled for a specific public place – is that the permit must be for the assembly being held there. The exercise of such a right, in the language of Justice Roberts, speaking for the American Supreme Court, is not to be "abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." x x x 8. By way of a summary. The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary, -- even more so than on the other departments – rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitiously termed by Justice Holmes "as the sovereign prerogative of judgment." Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy. x x x.
B.P. No. 880 was enacted after this Court rendered its decision in Reyes.
The provisions of B.P. No. 880 practically codify the ruling in Reyes:
| Reyes v Bagatsing (G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983, 125 SCRA 553, 569) 8. By way of a summary. The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. | B.P. No. 880 Sec. 4. Permit when required and when not required.-- A written permit shall be required for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly established by law or ordinance or in private property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act. Sec. 5. Application requirements.-- All applications for a permit shall comply with the following guidelines: (a) The applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the leaders or organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the date, time and duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the intended activity; and the probable number of persons participating, the transport and the public address systems to be used. (b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of applicant under Section 8 hereof. (c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, at least five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly. (d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in writing, the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to immediately be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal building. Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the application. – (a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health. (b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within two (2) working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for a permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. (c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter. (d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the applica[nt] within twenty-four hours. (e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law. (f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or the Intermediate Appellate Court, its decisions may be appealed to the appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the same. No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting such permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall be immediately executory. (g) All cases filed in court under this section shall be decided within twenty-four (24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his absence, to the next in rank. (h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court. (i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed. |
It is very clear, therefore, that B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the assemblies. This was adverted to in Osmeña v. Comelec,20 where the Court referred to it as a "content-neutral" regulation of the time, place, and manner of holding public assemblies.21 A fair and impartial reading of B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that it refers to all kinds of public assemblies22 that would use public places. The reference to "lawful cause" does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be "peaceable" and entitled to protection. Neither are the words "opinion," "protesting" and "influencing" in the definition of public assembly content based, since they can refer to any subject. The words "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" come from the wording of the Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided. Finally, maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally. Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health. This is a recognized exception to the exercise of the right even under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thus:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. x x x Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 19. 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the law is very clear and is nowhere vague in its provisions. "Public" does not have to be defined. Its ordinary meaning is well-known. Webster’s Dictionary defines it, thus:23 public, n, x x x 2a: an organized body of people x x x 3: a group of people distinguished by common interests or characteristics x x x. Not every expression of opinion is a public assembly. The law refers to "rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place." So it does not cover any and all kinds of gatherings. Neither is the law overbroad. It regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent. There is, likewise, no prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation. As to the delegation of powers to the mayor, the law provides a precise and sufficient standard – the clear and present danger test stated in Sec. 6(a). The reference to "imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil" in Sec. 6(c) substantially means the same thing and is not an inconsistent standard. As to whether respondent Mayor has the same power independently under Republic Act No. 716024 is thus not necessary to resolve in these proceedings, and was not pursued by the parties in their arguments. Finally, for those who cannot wait, Section 15 of the law provides for an alternative forum through the creation of freedom parks where no prior permit is needed for peaceful assembly and petition at any time: Sec. 15. Freedom parks. – Every city and municipality in the country shall within six months after the effectivity of this Act establish or designate at least one suitable "freedom park" or mall in their respective jurisdictions which, as far as practicable, shall be centrally located within the poblacion where demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the need of any prior permit. In the cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, the respective mayors shall establish the freedom parks within the period of six months from the effectivity this Act. This brings up the point, however, of compliance with this provision. The Solicitor General stated during the oral arguments that, to his knowledge, only Cebu City has declared a freedom park – Fuente Osmeña. That of Manila, the Sunken Gardens, has since been converted into a golf course, he added. If this is so, the degree of observance of B.P. No. 880’s mandate that every city and municipality set aside a freedom park within six months from its effectivity in 1985, or 20 years ago, would be pathetic and regrettable. The matter appears to have been taken for granted amidst the swell of freedom that rose from the peaceful revolution of 1986.
Considering that the existence of such freedom parks is an essential part of the law’s system of regulation of the people’s exercise of their right to peacefully assemble and petition, the Court is constrained to rule that after thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, no prior permit may be required for the exercise of such right in any public park or plaza of a city or municipality until that city or municipality shall have complied with Section 15 of the law. For without such alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to deny the right. Advance notices should, however, be given to the authorities to ensure proper coordination and orderly proceedings. The Court now comes to the matter of the CPR. As stated earlier, the Solicitor General has conceded that the use of the term should now be discontinued, since it does not mean anything other than the maximum tolerance policy set forth in B.P. No. 880. This is stated in the Affidavit of respondent Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, submitted by the Solicitor General, thus: 14. The truth of the matter is the policy of "calibrated preemptive response" is in consonance with the legal definition of "maximum tolerance" under Section 3 (c) of B.P. Blg. 880, which is the "highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peacekeeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same." Unfortunately, however, the phrase "maximum tolerance" has acquired a different meaning over the years. Many have taken it to mean inaction on the part of law enforcers even in the face of mayhem and serious threats to public order. More so, other felt that they need not bother secure a permit when holding rallies thinking this would be "tolerated." Clearly, the popular connotation of "maximum tolerance" has departed from its real essence under B.P. Blg. 880. 15. It should be emphasized that the policy of maximum tolerance is provided under the same law which requires all pubic assemblies to have a permit, which allows the dispersal of rallies without a permit, and which recognizes certain instances when water cannons may be used. This could only mean that "maximum tolerance" is not in conflict with a "no permit, no rally policy" or with the dispersal and use of water cannons under certain circumstances for indeed, the maximum amount of tolerance required is dependent on how peaceful or unruly a mass action is. Our law enforcers should calibrate their response based on the circumstances on the ground with the view to preempting the outbreak of violence. 16. Thus, when I stated that calibrated preemptive response is being enforced in lieu of maximum tolerance I clearly was not referring to its legal definition but to the distorted and much abused definition that it has now acquired. I only wanted to disabuse the minds of the public from the notion that law enforcers would shirk their responsibility of keeping the peace even when confronted with dangerously threatening behavior. I wanted to send a message that we would no longer be lax in enforcing the law but would henceforth follow it to the letter. Thus I said, "we have instructed the PNP as well as the local government units to strictly enforce a no permit, no rally policy . . . arrest all persons violating the laws of the land . . . unlawful mass actions will be dispersed." None of these is at loggerheads with the letter and spirit of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. It is thus absurd for complainants to even claim that I ordered my co-respondents to violate any law. At any rate, the Court rules that in view of the maximum tolerance mandated by B.P. No. 880, CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as maximum tolerance and is illegal if it means something else. Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance, which specifically means the following: Sec. 3. Definition of terms. – For purposes of this Act: x x x (c) "Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same. x x x Sec. 9. Non-interference by law enforcement authorities. – Law enforcement agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public assembly. However, to adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed in a place at least one hundred (100) meters away from the area of activity ready to maintain peace and order at all times. Sec. 10. Police assistance when requested. – It shall be imperative for law enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to provide proper protection to those exercising their right peaceably to assemble and the freedom of expression is primordial.1avvphil.net Towards this end, law enforcement agencies shall observe the following guidelines: (a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and units to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum tolerance" as herein defined; (b) The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields, crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin guards; (c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of property. Sec. 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit. – No public assembly with a permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes violent, the police may disperse such public assembly as follows: (a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the public assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance; (b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or at any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the participants that if the disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed; (c) If the violence or disturbance prevailing as stated in the preceding subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time to lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse; (d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law, statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; (d) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or breach of the peace during the public assembly shall not constitute a ground for dispersal. x x x Sec. 12. Dispersal of public assembly without permit. – When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed. Sec. 13. Prohibited acts. – The following shall constitute violations of the Act: (e) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly; (f) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement agency or any person to disperse the public assembly; (g) Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100) meters from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereof: x x x 4. the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit; 5. the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly by the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud sound systems. Furthermore, there is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners where mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police demand a permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately dispersed. In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum tolerance, rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on a given date can, after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their application without the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit being then presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of the authorities to show that there has been a denial of the application, in which case the rally may be peacefully dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed by the law.
In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that "in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny."26 For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious, "maximum tolerance" is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally "permits" is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound "clear and present danger" standard. In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor’s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009 WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, versus CITY OF MANILA, represented by MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, respondent
With another city ordinance of Manila also principally involving the tourist district as subject, the Court is confronted anew with the incessant clash between government power and individual liberty in tandem with the archetypal tension between law and morality. In City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., the Court affirmed the nullification of a city ordinance barring the operation of motels and inns, among other establishments, within the Ermita-Malate area. The petition at bar assails a similarly-motivated city ordinance that prohibits those same establishments from offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or “wash up” rates for such abbreviated stays. Our earlier decision tested the city ordinance against our sacred constitutional rights to liberty, due process and equal protection of law. The same parameters apply to the present petition. This Petition under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, which seeks the reversal of the Decision in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 33316 of the Court of Appeals, challenges the validity of Manila City Ordinance No. 7774 entitled, “An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila” (the Ordinance).
I. The facts are as follows: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into law the Ordinance.[1] The Ordinance is reproduced in full, hereunder: SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby the declared policy of the City Government to protect the best interest, health and welfare, and the morality of its constituents in general and the youth in particular. SEC. 2. Title. This ordinance shall be known as “An Ordinance” prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. SEC. 3. Pursuant to the above policy, short-time admission and rate [sic], wash-up rate or other similarly concocted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. SEC. 4. Definition of Term[s]. Short-time admission shall mean admittance and charging of room rate for less than twelve (12) hours at any given time or the renting out of rooms more than twice a day or any other term that may be concocted by owners or managers of said establishments but would mean the same or would bear the same meaning. SEC. 5. Penalty Clause. Any person or corporation who shall violate any provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be punished by a fine of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding one (1) year or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court; Provided, That in case of [a] juridical person, the president, the manager, or the persons in charge of the operation thereof shall be liable: Provided, further, That in case of subsequent conviction for the same offense, the business license of the guilty party shall automatically be cancelled. SEC. 6. Repealing Clause. Any or all provisions of City ordinances not consistent with or contrary to this measure or any portion hereof are hereby deemed repealed. SEC. 7. Effectivity. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon approval. Enacted by the city Council of Manila at its regular session today, November 10, 1992. Approved by His Honor, the Mayor on December 3, 1992.
On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 9 impleading as defendant, herein respondent City of Manila (the City) represented by Mayor Lim. MTDC prayed that the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional. MTDC claimed that as owner and operator of the Victoria Court in Malate, Manila it was authorized by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 259 to admit customers on a short time basis as well as to charge customers wash up rates for stays of only three hours. On December 21, 1992, petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation (TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) filed a motion to intervene and to admit attached complaint-in-intervention on the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila. The three companies are components of the Anito Group of Companies which owns and operates several hotels and motels in Metro Manila. On December 23, 1992, the RTC granted the motion to intervene. The RTC also notified the Solicitor General of the proceedings pursuant to then Rule 64, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. On the same date, MTDC moved to withdraw as plaintiff. On December 28, 1992, the RTC granted MTDC's motion to withdraw. The RTC issued a TRO on January 14, 1993, directing the City to cease and desist from enforcing the Ordinance. The City filed an Answer dated January 22, 1993 alleging that the Ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power. On February 8, 1993, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the city to desist from the enforcement of the Ordinance. A month later, on March 8, 1993, the Solicitor General filed his Comment arguing that the Ordinance is constitutional. During the pre-trial conference, the WLC, TC and STDC agreed to submit the case for decision without trial as the case involved a purely legal question. On October 20, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, [O]rdinance No. 7774 of the City of Manila is hereby declared null and void. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction heretofor issued is hereby made permanent. SO ORDERED.
The RTC noted that the ordinance “strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously guarded by the Constitution.” Reference was made to the provisions of the Constitution encouraging private enterprises and the incentive to needed investment, as well as the right to operate economic enterprises. Finally, from the observation that the illicit relationships the Ordinance sought to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated by simply paying for a 12-hour stay, the RTC likened the law to the ordinance annulled in Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, where the legitimate purpose of preventing indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos was sought to be effected through an inter-province ban on the transport of carabaos and carabeef. The City later filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 112471. However in a resolution dated January 26, 1994, the Court treated the petition as a petition for certiorari and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Local Government Code which confers on cities, among other local government units, the power: To regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports. The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the City under Article III, Section 18(kk) of the Revised Manila Charter, thus: “to enact all ordinances it may deem necessary and proper for the sanitation and safety, the furtherance of the prosperity and the promotion of the morality, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, and such others as be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Chapter; and to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances which shall not exceed two hundred pesos fine or six months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for a single offense. Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. First, it held that the Ordinance did not violate the right to privacy or the freedom of movement, as it only penalizes the owners or operators of establishments that admit individuals for short time stays. Second, the virtually limitless reach of police power is only constrained by having a lawful object obtained through a lawful method. The lawful objective of the Ordinance is satisfied since it aims to curb immoral activities. There is a lawful method since the establishments are still allowed to operate. Third, the adverse effect on the establishments is justified by the well-being of its constituents in general. Finally, as held in Ermita-Malate Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila, liberty is regulated by law. TC, WLC and STDC come to this Court via petition for review on certiorari. In their petition and Memorandum, petitioners in essence repeat the assertions they made before the Court of Appeals. They contend that the assailed Ordinance is an invalid exercise of police power.
II. We must address the threshold issue of petitioners’ standing. Petitioners allege that as owners of establishments offering “wash-up” rates, their business is being unlawfully interfered with by the Ordinance. However, petitioners also allege that the equal protection rights of their clients are also being interfered with. Thus, the crux of the matter is whether or not these establishments have the requisite standing to plead for protection of their patrons' equal protection rights. Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. More importantly, the doctrine of standing is built on the principle of separation of powers, sparing as it does unnecessary interference or invalidation by the judicial branch of the actions rendered by its co-equal branches of government. The requirement of standing is a core component of the judicial system derived directly from the Constitution. The constitutional component of standing doctrine incorporates concepts which concededly are not susceptible of precise definition. In this jurisdiction, the extancy of “a direct and personal interest” presents the most obvious cause, as well as the standard test for a petitioner's standing. In a similar vein, the United States Supreme Court reviewed and elaborated on the meaning of the three constitutional standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability in Allen v. Wright. Nonetheless, the general rules on standing admit of several exceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine, taxpayer suits, third party standing and, especially in the Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental importance.
For this particular set of facts, the concept of third party standing as an exception and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. In Powers v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court wrote that: “We have recognized the right of litigants to bring actions on behalf of third parties, provided three important criteria are satisfied: the litigant must have suffered an ‘injury-in-fact,’ thus giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests." Herein, it is clear that the business interests of the petitioners are likewise injured by the Ordinance. They rely on the patronage of their customers for their continued viability which appears to be threatened by the enforcement of the Ordinance. The relative silence in constitutional litigation of such special interest groups in our nation such as the American Civil Liberties Union in the United States may also be construed as a hindrance for customers to bring suit. American jurisprudence is replete with examples where parties-in-interest were allowed standing to advocate or invoke the fundamental due process or equal protection claims of other persons or classes of persons injured by state action. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court held that physicians had standing to challenge a reproductive health statute that would penalize them as accessories as well as to plead the constitutional protections available to their patients. The Court held that: “The rights of husband and wife, pressed here, are likely to be diluted or adversely affected unless those rights are considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them." An even more analogous example may be found in Craig v. Boren, wherein the United States Supreme Court held that a licensed beverage vendor has standing to raise the equal protection claim of a male customer challenging a statutory scheme prohibiting the sale of beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. The United States High Court explained that the vendors had standing "by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function." Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons for the former to assert the rights of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes into play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government action are in effect permitted to raise the rights of third parties. Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights. In this case, the petitioners claim that the Ordinance makes a sweeping intrusion into the right to liberty of their clients. We can see that based on the allegations in the petition, the Ordinance suffers from overbreadth. We thus recognize that the petitioners have a right to assert the constitutional rights of their clients to patronize their establishments for a “wash-rate” time frame.
III. To students of jurisprudence, the facts of this case will recall to mind not only the recent City of Manila ruling, but our 1967 decision in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operations Association, Inc., v. Hon. City Mayor of Manila. Ermita-Malate concerned the City ordinance requiring patrons to fill up a prescribed form stating personal information such as name, gender, nationality, age, address and occupation before they could be admitted to a motel, hotel or lodging house. This earlier ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain practices deemed harmful to public morals. A purpose similar to the annulled ordinance in City of Manila which sought a blanket ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate area. However, the constitutionality of the ordinance in Ermita-Malate was sustained by the Court. The common thread that runs through those decisions and the case at bar goes beyond the singularity of the localities covered under the respective ordinances. All three ordinances were enacted with a view of regulating public morals including particular illicit activity in transient lodging establishments. This could be described as the middle case, wherein there is no wholesale ban on motels and hotels but the services offered by these establishments have been severely restricted. At its core, this is another case about the extent to which the State can intrude into and regulate the lives of its citizens. The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units by the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare clause.
A. Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people. Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the regulation of dance halls, movie theaters, gas stations and cockpits. The awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system, its use has rarely been denied. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people. The Bill of Rights stands as a rebuke to the seductive theory of Macchiavelli, and, sometimes even, the political majorities animated by his cynicism. Even as we design the precedents that establish the framework for analysis of due process or equal protection questions, the courts are naturally inhibited by a due deference to the co-equal branches of government as they exercise their political functions. But when we are compelled to nullify executive or legislative actions, yet another form of caution emerges. If the Court were animated by the same passing fancies or turbulent emotions that motivate many political decisions, judicial integrity is compromised by any perception that the judiciary is merely the third political branch of government. We derive our respect and good standing in the annals of history by acting as judicious and neutral arbiters of the rule of law, and there is no surer way to that end than through the development of rigorous and sophisticated legal standards through which the courts analyze the most fundamental and far-reaching constitutional questions of the day.
B. The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition. The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned. The due process guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on government, "procedural due process" and "substantive due process." Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing. If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper formalities are followed. Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. The question of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields of law, has reflected dynamism in progressive legal thought tied with the expanded acceptance of fundamental freedoms. Police power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now confronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it can be upheld. The vitality though of constitutional due process has not been predicated on the frequency with which it has been utilized to achieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends should sometimes yield to the prerogatives of the State. Instead, the due process clause has acquired potency because of the sophisticated methodology that has emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its application.
C. The general test of the validity of an ordinance on substantive due process grounds is best tested when assessed with the evolved footnote 4 test laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products. Footnotes of the Carolene Products case acknowledged that the judiciary would defer to the legislature unless there is a discrimination against a “discrete and insular” minority or infringement of a “fundamental right.” Consequently, two standards of judicial review were established: strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political process, and the rational basis standard of review for economic legislation. A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on gender and legitimacy. Immediate scrutiny was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Craig, after the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed. While the test may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well. We ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of equal protection challenges.Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest. Under intermediate review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the availability of less restrictive measures is considered.[2][59] Applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest. In terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. Strict scrutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection. The United States Supreme Court has expanded the scope of strict scrutiny to protect fundamental rights such as suffrage, judicial access and interstate travel. If we were to take the myopic view that an Ordinance should be analyzed strictly as to its effect only on the petitioners at bar, then it would seem that the only restraint imposed by the law which we are capacitated to act upon is the injury to property sustained by the petitioners, an injury that would warrant the application of the most deferential standard – the rational basis test. Yet as earlier stated, we recognize the capacity of the petitioners to invoke as well the constitutional rights of their patrons – those persons who would be deprived of availing short time access or wash-up rates to the lodging establishments in question. Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed rights of these customers were are trivial since they seem shorn of political consequence. Concededly, these are not the sort of cherished rights that, when proscribed, would impel the people to tear up their cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas alone. Indeed, it is those “trivial” yet fundamental freedoms – which the people reflexively exercise any day without the impairing awareness of their constitutional consequence – that accurately reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people. Liberty, as integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-style enumeration of what may or what may not be done; but rather an atmosphere of freedom where the people do not feel labored under a Big Brother presence as they interact with each other, their society and nature, in a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without doing harm or injury to others.
D. The rights at stake herein fall within the same fundamental rights to liberty which we upheld in City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr. We expounded on that most primordial of rights, thus: Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution was defined by Justice Malcolm to include "the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraint as are necessary for the common welfare." In accordance with this case, the rights of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; and to pursue any avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of liberty. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. Board of Regents, sought to clarify the meaning of "liberty." It said: While the Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments], the term denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed. It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City asserts before this Court that the subject establishments “have gained notoriety as venue of ‘prostitution, adultery and fornications’ in Manila since they ‘provide the necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus became the ‘ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers.’” Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected will be curtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila case. Our holding therein retains significance for our purposes: The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose claim to privacy and interference demands respect. As the case of Morfe v. Mutuc, borrowing the words of Laski, so very aptly stated: Man is one among many, obstinately refusing reduction to unity. His separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible; indeed, they are so fundamental that they are the basis on which his civic obligations are built. He cannot abandon the consequences of his isolation, which are, broadly speaking, that his experience is private, and the will built out of that experience personal to himself. If he surrenders his will to others, he surrenders himself. If his will is set by the will of others, he ceases to be a master of himself. I cannot believe that a man no longer a master of himself is in any real sense free. Indeed, the right to privacy as a constitutional right was recognized in Morfe, the invasion of which should be justified by a compelling state interest. Morfe accorded recognition to the right to privacy independently of its identification with liberty; in itself it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. Governmental powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. We cannot discount other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would proscribe or impair. There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or renting the room out for more than twice a day. Entire families are known to choose pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. In transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed any person or groups of persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a few hours with purposes other than having sex or using illegal drugs can legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative.
E. That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected. However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity. Similar to the Comelec resolution requiring newspapers to donate advertising space to candidates, this Ordinance is a blunt and heavy instrument. The Ordinance makes no distinction between places frequented by patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons engaged in legitimate actions. Thus it prevents legitimate use of places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A plain reading of section 3 of the Ordinance shows it makes no classification of places of lodging, thus deems them all susceptible to illicit patronage and subject them without exception to the unjustified prohibition. The Court has professed its deep sentiment and tenderness of the Ermita-Malate area, its longtime home, and it is skeptical of those who wish to depict our capital city – the Pearl of the Orient – as a modern-day Sodom or Gomorrah for the Third World set. Those still steeped in Nick Joaquin-dreams of the grandeur of Old Manila will have to accept that Manila like all evolving big cities, will have its problems. Urban decay is a fact of mega cities such as Manila, and vice is a common problem confronted by the modern metropolis wherever in the world. The solution to such perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate businesses from offering a legitimate product. Rather, cities revive themselves by offering incentives for new businesses to sprout up thus attracting the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new grandeur to Manila. The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more effective in easing the situation. So would the strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing prostitution and drug use. These measures would have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect “wash rates” from their clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments.
IV. We reiterate that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. The State is a leviathan that must be restrained from needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens. However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous intentions. The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among citizens deserves the full endorsement of the judiciary provided that such measures do not trample rights this Court is sworn to protect. The notion that the promotion of public morality is a function of the State is as old as Aristotle. The advancement of moral relativism as a school of philosophy does not de-legitimize the role of morality in law, even if it may foster wider debate on which particular behavior to penalize. It is conceivable that a society with relatively little shared morality among its citizens could be functional so long as the pursuit of sharply variant moral perspectives yields an adequate accommodation of different interests. To be candid about it, the oft-quoted American maxim that “you cannot legislate morality” is ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, since as explained by Calabresi, that phrase is more accurately interpreted as meaning that efforts to legislate morality will fail if they are widely at variance with public attitudes about right and wrong. Our penal laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as long as there are widely accepted distinctions between right and wrong, they will remain so oriented. Yet the continuing progression of the human story has seen not only the acceptance of the right-wrong distinction, but also the advent of fundamental liberties as the key to the enjoyment of life to the fullest. Our democracy is distinguished from non-free societies not with any more extensive elaboration on our part of what is moral and immoral, but from our recognition that the individual liberty to make the choices in our lives is innate, and protected by the State. Independent and fair-minded judges themselves are under a moral duty to uphold the Constitution as the embodiment of the rule of law, by reason of their expression of consent to do so when they take the oath of office, and because they are entrusted by the people to uphold the law. Even as the implementation of moral norms remains an indispensable complement to governance, that prerogative is hardly absolute, especially in the face of the norms of due process of liberty. And while the tension may often be left to the courts to relieve, it is possible for the government to avoid the constitutional conflict by employing more judicious, less drastic means to promote morality. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, is REINSTATED. Ordinance No. 7774 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No. 107916. February 20, 1997] PERCIVAL MODAY, ZOTICO MODAY (deceased) and LEONORA MODAY, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO OF BRANCH 6, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AGUSAN DEL SUR AND MUNICIPALITY OF BUNAWAN, respondents.
ROMERO, J.: The main issue presented in this case is whether a municipality may expropriate private property by virtue of a municipal resolution which was disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals decision and resolution, promulgated on July 15, 1992 and October 22, 1992 respectively, and a declaration that Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 of the Bunawan Sangguniang Bayan is null and void. On July 23, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Bunawan in Agusan del Sur passed Resolution No. 43-89, "Authorizing the Municipal Mayor to Initiate the Petition for Expropriation of a One (1) Hectare Portion of Lot No. 6138-Pls-4 along the National Highway Owned by Percival Moday for the Site of Bunawan Farmers Center and Other Government Sports Facilities." In due time, Resolution No. 43-89 was approved by then Municipal Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo and transmitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for its approval. On September 11, 1989, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved said Resolution and returned it with the comment that "expropriation is unnecessary considering that there are still available lots in Bunawan for the establishment of the government center." The Municipality of Bunawan, herein public respondent, subsequently filed a Petition for Eminent Domain against petitioner Percival Moday before the Regional Trial Court at Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. The complaint was later amended to include the registered owners, Percival Moday's parents, Zotico and Leonora Moday, as party defendants. On March 6, 1991, public respondent municipality filed a Motion to Take or Enter Upon the Possession of Subject Matter of This Case stating that it had already deposited with the municipal treasurer the necessary amount in accordance with Section 2, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court and that it would be in the government's best interest for public respondent to be allowed to take possession of the property.
Despite petitioners' opposition and after a hearing on the merits, the Regional Trial Court granted respondent municipality's motion to take possession of the land. The lower court held that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's failure to declare the resolution invalid leaves it effective. It added that the duty of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is merely to review the ordinances and resolutions passed by the Sangguniang Bayan under Section 208 (l) of B.P. Blg. 337, old Local Government Code and that the exercise of eminent domain is not one of the two acts enumerated in Section 19 thereof requiring the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The dispositive portion of the lower court's Order dated July 2, 1991 reads: "WHEREFORE, it appearing that the amount of P632.39 had been deposited as per Official Receipt No. 5379647 on December 12, 1989 which this Court now determines as the provisional value of the land, the Motion to Take or Enter Upon the Possession of the Property filed by petitioner through counsel is hereby GRANTED. The Sheriff of this Court is ordered to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved. Let the hearing be set on August 9, 1991 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of ascertaining the just compensation or fair market value of the property sought to be taken, with notice to all the parties concerned. SO ORDERED." Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on October 31, 1991. Petitioners elevated the case in a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, but the same was dismissed by respondent appellate court on July 15, 1992. The Court of Appeals held that the public purpose for the expropriation is clear from Resolution No. 43-89 and that since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur did not declare Resolution No. 43-89 invalid, expropriation of petitioners' property could proceed. Respondent appellate court also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on October 22, 1992. Meanwhile, the Municipality of Bunawan had erected three buildings on the subject property: the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) Hall, the Municipal Motorpool, both wooden structures, and the Bunawan Municipal Gymnasium, which is made of concrete. In the instant petition for review filed on November 23, 1992, petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals and a declaration that Resolution No. 43-89 of the Municipality of Bunawan is null and void. On December 8, 1993, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining and restraining public respondent Judge Evangeline Yuipco from enforcing her July 2, 1991 Order and respondent municipality from using and occupying all the buildings constructed and from further constructing any building on the land subject of this petition. Acting on petitioners' Omnibus Motion for Enforcement of Restraining Order and for Contempt, the Court issued a Resolution on March 15, 1995, citing incumbent municipal mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo for contempt, ordering him to pay the fine and to demolish the "blocktiendas" which were built in violation of the restraining order. Former Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo paid the fine and manifested that he lost in the May 8, 1995 election. The incumbent Mayor Leonardo Barrios, filed a Manifestation, Motion to Resolve "Urgent Motion for Immediate Dissolution of the Temporary Restraining Order" and Memorandum on June 11, 1996 for the Municipality of Bunawan. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the legality of the condemnation proceedings initiated by the municipality. According to petitioners, the expropriation was politically motivated and Resolution No. 43-89 was correctly disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, there being other municipal properties available for the purpose. Petitioners also pray that the former Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo be ordered to pay damages for insisting on the enforcement of a void municipal resolution. The Court of Appeals declared that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's reason for disapproving the resolution "could be baseless, because it failed to point out which and where are 'those available lots.'” Respondent court also concluded that since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan did not declare the municipal board's resolution as invalid, expropriation of petitioners' property could proceed. The Court finds no merit in the petition and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. Eminent domain, the power which the Municipality of Bunawan exercised in the instant case, is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is government's right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose. Inherently possessed by the national legislature, the power of eminent domain may be validly delegated to local governments, other public entities and public utilities. For the taking of private property by the government to be valid, the taking must be for public use and there must be just compensation. The Municipality of Bunawan's power to exercise the right of eminent domain is not disputed as it is expressly provided for in Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the Local Government Code[i] in force at the time expropriation proceedings were initiated. Section 9 of said law states: "Section 9. Eminent Domain. — A local government unit may, through its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian, exercise the right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use or purpose." What petitioners question is the lack of authority of the municipality to exercise this right since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved Resolution No. 43-89.Section 153 of B.P. Blg. 337 provides: "Sec. 153. Sangguniang Panlalawigan Review. — (1) Within thirty days after receiving copies of approved ordinances, resolutions and executive orders promulgated by the municipal mayor, the sangguniang panlalawigan shall examine the documents or transmit them to the provincial attorney, or if there be none, to the provincial fiscal, who shall examine them promptly and inform the sangguniang panlalawigan in writing of any defect or impropriety which he may discover therein and make such comments or recommendations as shall appear to him proper. (2) If the sangguniang panlalawigan shall find that any municipal ordinance, resolution or executive order is beyond the power conferred upon the sangguniang bayan or the mayor, it shall declare such ordinance, resolution or executive order invalid in whole or in part, entering its actions upon the minutes and advising the proper municipal authorities thereof. The effect of such an action shall be to annul the ordinance, resolution or executive order in question in whole or in part. The action of the sangguniang panlalawigan shall be final. xxx."
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 is an infirm action which does not render said resolution null and void. The law, as expressed in Section 153 of B.P. Blg. 337, grants the Sangguniang Panlalawigan the power to declare a municipal resolution invalid on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor to issue. Although pertaining to a similar provision of law but different factual milieu then obtaining, the Court's pronouncements in Velazco v. Blas, where we cited significant early jurisprudence, are applicable to the case at bar. "The only ground upon which a provincial board may declare any municipal resolution, ordinance, or order invalid is when such resolution, ordinance, or order is 'beyond the powers conferred upon the council or president making the same.' Absolutely no other ground is recognized by the law. A strictly legal question is before the provincial board in its consideration of a municipal resolution, ordinance, or order. The provincial (board's) disapproval of any resolution, ordinance, or order must be premised specifically upon the fact that such resolution, ordinance, or order is outside the scope of the legal powers conferred by law. If a provincial board passes these limits, it usurps the legislative functions of the municipal council or president. Such has been the consistent course of executive authority." Thus, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was without the authority to disapprove Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 for the Municipality of Bunawan clearly has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate said resolution, pursuant to the earlier-quoted Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337. Perforce, it follows that Resolution No. 43-89 is valid and binding and could be used as lawful authority to petition for the condemnation of petitioners' property. As regards the accusation of political oppression, it is alleged that Percival Moday incurred the ire of then Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo when he refused to support the latter's candidacy for mayor in previous elections. Petitioners claim that then incumbent Mayor C. Bustillo used the expropriation to retaliate by expropriating their land even if there were other properties belonging to the municipality and available for the purpose. Specifically, they allege that the municipality owns a vacant seven-hectare property adjacent to petitioners' land, evidenced by a sketch plan. The limitations on the power of eminent domain are that the use must be public, compensation must be made and due process of law must be observed. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of such issues as the adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking and the public use character or the purpose of the taking, has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken. After a careful study of the records of the case, however, we find no evidentiary support for petitioners' allegations. The uncertified photocopy of the sketch plan does not conclusively prove that the municipality does own vacant land adjacent to petitioners' property suited to the purpose of the expropriation. In the questioned decision, respondent appellate court similarly held that the pleadings and documents on record have not pointed out any of respondent municipality's "other available properties available for the same purpose. " The accusations of political reprisal are likewise unsupported by competent evidence. Consequently, the Court holds that petitioners' demand that the former municipal mayor be personally liable for damages is without basis. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The questioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in the case of "Percival Moday, et al. v. Municipality of Bunawan, et al." (CA G.R. SP No. 26712) are AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on December 8, 1993 is LIFTED. SO ORDERED.
GR No 103125 May 17, 1993 PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE and HON. BENJAMIN v. PANGA as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines Sur, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN JOAQUIN and EFREN SAN JOAQUIN, respondents.
In this appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-GR SP No 20551 entitled "Ernesto N. San Joaquin, et al., v. Hon. Benjamin v. Panga, et al.," this Court is asked to decide whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject, to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the implementator of the agrarian reform program. On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. The "WHEREAS" clause o:f the Resolution states: WHEREAS, the province of Camarines Sur has adopted a five-year Comprehensive Development plan, some of the vital components of which includes the establishment of model and pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops, soil testing and tissue culture laboratory centers, 15 small scale technology soap making, small scale products of plaster of paris, marine biological and sea farming research center,and other progressive feasibility concepts objective of which is to provide the necessary scientific and technology know-how to farmers and fishermen in Camarines Sur and to establish a housing project for provincial government employees; WHEREAS, the province would need additional land to be acquired either by purchase or expropriation to implement the above program component; WHEREAS, there are contiguous/adjacent properties to be (sic) present Provincial Capitol Site ideally suitable to establish the same pilot development center; WHEREFORE . . . . Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis R.Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin, docketed as Special Civil Action Nos. P-17-89 and P-19-89 of the Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur, presided by the Hon. Benjamin v. Panga. Forthwith, the Province of Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of writ of possession. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. In an order dated December 6, 1989, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of P5,714.00, the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents may suffer in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ of possession in an order dated January18, 1990. The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief from the order, authorizing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of their property and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss. Both motions were denied in the order dated February 1990. In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked: (a) that Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be declared null and void; (b) that the complaints for expropriation be dismissed; and (c) that the order dated December 6, 1989 (i) denying the motion to dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property subject of the expropriation and the order dated February 26, 1990, denying the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside. They also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of injunction. In its answer to the petition, the Province of Camarines Sur claimed that it has the authority to initiate the expropriation proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose. Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General stated that under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no need for the approval by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project. The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court, allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' lands and the order denying the admission of the amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the Province of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land. Hence this petition. It must be noted that in the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked for: (i) the dismissal of the complaints for expropriation on the ground of the inadequacy of the compensation offered for the property and (ii) the nullification of Resolution No 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur.
The Court of Appeals did not rule on the validity of the questioned resolution; neither did it dismiss the complaints. However, when the Court of Appeals ordered the suspension of the proceedings until the Province of Camarines Sur shall have obtained the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to change the classification of the lands sought to be expropriated from agricultural to non-agricultural use, it assumed that the resolution is valid and that the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. Modernly, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of "public purpose" or "public use" for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised. The old concept was that the condemned property must actually be used by the general public (e.g. roads, bridges, public plazas, etc.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional requirement of "public use". Under the new concept, "public use" means public advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for tourists or housing project (Heirs of Juancho Ardano v Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 [1983]; Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SC.RA 461 [1987]). The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a public purpose. The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, the center would make available to the community invaluable information and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution. As held in Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461, "Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum the general welfare."
It is the submission of the Province of Camarines Sur that its exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be restricted by the provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No 6657), particularly Section 65 thereof, which requires the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform before a parcel of land can be reclassified from an agricultural to a non-agricultural land. The Court of Appeals, following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, held that the Province of Camarines Sur must comply with the provision of Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of the San Joaquins. In Heirs of Juancho Ardana v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220, petitioners raised the issue of whether the Philippine Tourism Authority can expropriate lands covered by the "Operation Land Transfer" for use of a tourist resort complex. There was a finding that of the 282 hectares sought to be expropriated, only an area of 8,970 square meters or less than one hectare was affected by the land reform program and covered by emancipation patents issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. While the Court said that there was " no need under the facts of this petition to rule on whether the public purpose is superior or inferior to another purpose or engage in a balancing of competing public interest," it upheld the expropriation after noting that petitioners had failed to overcome the showing that the taking of 8,970 square meters formed part of the resort complex. A fair and reasonable reading of the decision is that this Court viewed the power of expropriation as superior to the power to distribute lands under the land reform program. The Solicitor General denigrated the power to expropriate by the Province of Camarines Sur by stressing the fact that local government units exercise such power only by delegation. (Comment, pp. 14-15; Rollo, pp. 128-129) It is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature (City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 28l US 439, 74 L.ed. 950, 50 SCt. 360). It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments (Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684). While such delegated power may be a limited authority, it is complete within its limits. Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly expressed, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations. Resolution No 129, Series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local Government Code, which provides: A local government unit may through its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian exercise the right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use or purpose. Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government, units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law that the Court of Appeals could cite to justify the intervention of the Department of Agrarian Reform in expropriation matters is Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which reads: Sec. 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for, agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation. The opening, adverbial phrase of the provision sends signals that it applies to lands previously placed under the agrarian reform program as it speaks of "the lapse of five (5) years from its award." The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries. Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted by implication (Schulman v People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d. 241). To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use (United States Ex Rel Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch, 327 US 546, 90 L. ed. 843, 66 S Ct 715; State ex rel Twin City Bldg. and Invest. Co. v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 1, 174 NW 885, 8 ALR 585). There is also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes, no matter how broad their terms are, do not embrace the sovereign unless the sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto (Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 124 SCRA 1 [1983]). The Republic of the Philippines, as sovereign, or its political subdivisions, as holders of delegated sovereign powers, cannot be bound by provisions of law couched in general term.
The fears of private respondents that they will be paid on the basis of the valuation declared in the tax declarations of their property, are unfounded. This Court has declared as unconstitutional the Presidential Decrees fixing the just compensation in expropriation cases to be the value given to the condemned property either by the owners or the assessor, whichever was lower ([Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 [1987]). As held in Municipality of Talisay v. Ramirez, 183 SCRA 528 [1990], the rules for determining just compensation are those laid down in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which allow private respondents to submit evidence on what they consider shall be the just compensation for their property. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial court's order allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings; and (c) requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert or reclassify private respondents' property from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it sets aside the order of the trial court, denying the amended motion to dismiss of the private respondents. SO ORDERED.
GR No. 138896 June 20, 2000 BARANGAY SAN ROQUE, TALISAY, CEBU, petitioner, vs. Heirs of FRANCISCO PASTOR namely: EUGENIO SYLIANCO, TEODORO SYLIANCO, TEODORO SYLIANCO, ISABEL SYLIANCO, EUGENIA S. ONG, LAWRENCE SYLIANCO, LAWSON SYLIANCO, LAWINA S. NOTARIO, LEONARDO SYLIANCO JR. and LAWFORD SYLIANCO, respondents.
An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Accordingly, it falls within the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts, regardless of the value of the subject property. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the March 29, 1999 Order1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City (Branch 58) in Civil Case No. CEB-21978, in which it dismissed a Complaint for eminent domain. It ruled as follows: Premises considered, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Orders dated February 19, 1999 and February 26, 1999, as well as the Writ of Possession issued by virtue of the latter Order are hereby recalled for being without force and effect.Petitioner also challenges the May 14, 1999 Order of the RTC denying reconsideration. The Facts Petitioner filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu (Branch 1)3 a Complaint to expropriate a property of the respondents. In an Order dated April 8, 1997, the MTC dismissed the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that "[e]minent domain is an exercise of the power to take private property for public use after payment of just compensation. In an action for eminent domain, therefore, the principal cause of action is the exercise of such power or right. The fact that the action also involves real property is merely incidental. An action for eminent domain is therefore within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not with this Court."
Assailed RTC Ruling The RTC also dismissed the Complaint when filed before it, holding that an action for eminent domain affected title to real property; hence, the value of the property to be expropriated would determine whether the case should be filed before the MTC or the RTC. Concluding that the action should have been filed before the MTC since the value of the subject property was less than P20,000, the RTC ratiocinated in this wise: instant action is for eminent domain. It appears from the current Tax Declaration of the land involved that its assessed value is only One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos (P1,740.00). Pursuant to Section 3, paragraph (3), of Republic Act No. 7691, all civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property with an assessed value of less than P20,000.00 are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts. In the case at bar, it is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu, where the property involved is located. The instant action for eminent domain or condemnation of real property is a real action affecting title to or possession of real property, hence, it is the assessed value of the property involved which determines the jurisdiction of the court. That the right of eminent domain or condemnation of real, property is included in a real action affecting title to or possession of real property, is pronounced by retired Justice Jose Y. Feria, thus, "Real actions are those affecting title to or possession of real property. These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosures of mortgage on, real property. . . ."5
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed directly to this Court, raising a pure question of law.6 In a Resolution dated July 28, 1999, the Court denied the Petition for Review "for being posted out of time on July 2, 1999, the due date being June 2, 1999, as the motion for extension of time to file petition was denied in the resolution of July 14, 1999."7 In a subsequent Resolution dated October 6, 1999, the Court reinstated the Petition.
Issue In its Memorandum, petitioner submits this sole issue for the consideration of this Court: Which court, MTC or RTC, has jurisdiction over cases for eminent domain or expropriation where the assessed value of the subject property is below Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos?
This Court's Ruling The Petition is meritorious. Main Issue: Jurisdiction over an Expropriation Suit In support of its appeal, petitioner cites Section 19 (1) of BP 129, which provides that RTCs shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; . . . . ." It argues that the present action involves the exercise of the right to eminent domain, and that such right is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the Complaint for Eminent Domain affects the title to or possession of real property. Thus, they argue that the case should have been brought before the MTC, pursuant to BP 129 as amended by Section 3 (3) of RA 7691. This law provides that MTCs shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions that involve title to or possession of real property, the assessed value of which does not exceed twenty thousand pesos or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, fifty thousand pesos exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. We agree with the petitioner that an expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The test to determine whether it is so was laid down by the Court in this wise: A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance. The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the determination of damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which the law has deemed to be more within the competence of courts of first instance, which were the lowest courts of record at the time that the first organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction (Act 136 of the Philippine Commission of June 11, 1901). In the present case, an expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private property for public use. 11 In National Power Corporation v. Jocson, 12 the Court ruled that expropriation proceedings have two phases: The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint." An order of dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a final one, of course, since it finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by the Court on the merits. So, too, would an order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter as the Rules expressly state, in the proceedings before the Trial Court, "no objection to the exercise of the right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or heard."
The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the court of "the just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners. The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the Court regarding the issue. . . . It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government entity, the necessity of the expropriation, and the observance of due process. 1 In the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation. Verily, the Court held in Republic of the Philippines v. Zurbano that "condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance," 14 the forerunners of the regional trial courts. The said case was decided during the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of 1948 which, like BP 129 in respect to RTCs, provided that courts of first instance had original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation." 15 The 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court were not intended to change these jurisprudential precedents. We are not persuaded by respondents' argument that the present action involves the title to or possession of a parcel of land. They cite the observation of retired Justice Jose Y. Feria, an eminent authority in remedial law, that condemnation or expropriation proceedings are examples of real actions that affect the title to or possession of a parcel of land. Their reliance is misplaced. Justice Feria sought merely to distinguish between real and personal actions. His discussion on this point pertained to the nature of actions, not to the jurisdiction of courts. In fact, in his pre-bar lectures, he emphasizes that jurisdiction over eminent domain cases is still within the RTCs under the 1997 Rules.
To emphasize, the question in the present suit is whether the government may expropriate private property under the given set of circumstances. The government does not dispute respondents' title to or possession of the same. Indeed, it is not a question of who has a better title or right, for the government does not even claim that it has a title to the property. It merely asserts its inherent sovereign power to "appropriate and control individual property for the public benefit, as the public necessity, convenience or welfare may demand." WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed Orders SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is directed to HEAR the case. No costs. SO ORDERED.
GR No 127820 July 20, 1998 MUNICIPALITY OF PARAÑAQUE, petitioner, vs. V.M. REALTY CORPORATION, respondent.
A local government unit (LGU), like the Municipality of Parañaque, cannot authorize an expropriation of private property through a mere resolution of its lawmaking body. The Local Government Code expressly and clearly requires an ordinance or a local law for the purpose. A resolution that merely expresses the sentiment or opinion of the Municipal Council will not suffice. On the other hand, the principle of res judicata does not bar subsequent proceedings for the expropriation of the same property when all the legal requirements for its valid exercise are complied with.
Statement of the Case These principles are applied by this Court in resolving this petition for review on certiorari of the July 22, 1996 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 in CA GR CV No. 48048, which affirmed in toto 3 the Regional Trial Court's August 9, 1994 Resolution. 4 The trial court dismissed the expropriation suit as follows: The right of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain is not disputed. However, such right may be exercised only pursuant to an Ordinance (Sec. 19, R.A No. 7160). In the instant case, there is no such ordinance passed by the Municipal Council of Parañaque enabling the Municipality, thru its Chief Executive, to exercise the power of eminent domain. The complaint, therefore, states no cause of action. Assuming that plaintiff has a cause of action, the same is barred by a prior judgment. On September 29, 1987, the plaintiff filed a complaint for expropriation involving the same parcels of land which was docketed as Civil Case No. 17939 of this Court (page 26, record). Said case was dismissed with prejudice on May 18, 1988 (page 39, record). The order of dismissal was not appealed, hence, the same became final. The plaintiff can not be allowed to pursue the present action without violating the principle of [r]es [j]udicata. While defendant in Civil Case No. 17939 was Limpan Investment Corporation, the doctrine of res judicata still applies because the judgment in said case (C.C. No. 17939) is conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest (Vda. de Buncio vs. Estate of the late Anita de Leon). The herein defendant is the successor-in-interest of Limpan Investment Corporation as shown by the "Deed of Assignment Exchange" executed on June 13, 1990. WHEREFORE, defendant's motion for reconsideration is hereby granted. The order dated February 4, 1994 is vacated and set aside. This case is hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
Factual Antecedents Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993, 6 the Municipality of Parañaque filed on September 20, 1993, a Complaint for expropriation 7 against Private Respondent V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land (Lots 2-A-2 and 2-B-1 of Subdivision Plan Psd-17917), with a combined area of about 10,000 square meters, located at Wakas, San Dionisio, Parañaque, Metro Manila, and covered by Torrens Certificate of Title No. 48700. Allegedly, the complaint was filed "for the purpose of alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the homeless through a socialized housing project." 8 Parenthetically, it was also for this stated purpose that petitioner, pursuant to its Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 577, Series of 1991, 9 previously made an offer to enter into a negotiated sale of the property with private respondent, which the latter did not accept. Finding the Complaint sufficient in form and substance, the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134, issued an Order dated January 10, 1994, 11 giving it due course. Acting on petitioner's motion, said court issued an Order dated February 4, 1994, 12 authorizing petitioner to take possession of the subject property upon deposit with its clerk of court of an amount equivalent to 15 percent of its fair market value based on its current tax declaration.
On February 21, 1994, private respondent filed its Answer containing affirmative defenses and a counterclaim, 13 alleging in the main that (a) the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code); and (b) the cause of action, if any, was barred by a prior judgment or res judicata. On private respondent's motion, its Answer was treated as a motion to dismiss. 14 On March 24, 1991, 15 petitioner filed its opposition, stressing that the trial court's Order dated February 4, 1994 was in accord with Section 19 of RA 7160, and that the principle of res judicata was not applicable.
Thereafter, the trial court issued its August 9, 1994 Resolution 16 nullifying its February 4, 1994 Order and dismissing the case. Petitioner's motions for reconsideration and transfer of venue were denied by the trial court in a Resolution dated December 2, 1994. 17 Petitioner then appealed to Respondent Court, raising the following issues:
1. Whether or not the Resolution of the Parañaque Municipal Council No. 93-95, Series of 1993 is a substantial compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 19, R.A. 7180 [sic] in the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the plaintiff-appellant.
2. Whether or not the complaint in this case states no cause of action.
3. Whether or not the strict adherence to the literal observance to the rule of procedure resulted in technicality standing in the way of substantial justice.
4. Whether or not the principle of res judicata is applicable to the present case. 18
As previously mentioned, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court's Decision. Respondent Court, in its assailed Resolution promulgated on January 8, 1997, 19 denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Hence, this appeal. 20
The Issues Before this Court, petitioner posits two issues, viz.:
1. A resolution duly approved by the municipal council has the same force and effect of an ordinance and will not deprive an expropriation case of a valid cause of action.
2. The principle of res judicata as a ground for dismissal of case is not applicable when public interest is primarily involved. 21
The Court's Ruling The petition is not meritorious.
First Issue:
Resolution Different from an Ordinance Petitioner contends that a resolution approved by the municipal council for the purpose of initiating an expropriation case "substantially complies with the requirements of the law" 22 because the terms "ordinance" and "resolution" are synonymous for "the purpose of bestowing authority [on] the local government unit through its chief executive to initiate the expropriation proceedings in court in the exercise of the power of eminent domain." 23 Petitioner seeks to bolster this contention by citing Article 36, Rule VI of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code, which provides. "If the LGU fails to acquire a private property for public use, purpose, or welfare through purchase, the LGU may expropriate said property through a resolution of the Sanggunian authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation proceedings." 24 (Emphasis supplied.) The Court disagrees. The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of government, which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other public entities and public utilities. 25 An LGU may therefore exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by Congress and subject to the latter's control and restraints, imposed "through the law conferring the power or in other legislations." 26 In this case, Section 19 of RA 7160, which delegates to LGUs the power of eminent domain, also lays down the parameters for its exercise. It provides as follows:
Sec. 19. Eminent Domain. A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the following essential requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted. In the case at bar, the local chief executive sought to exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the municipal council. Thus, there was no compliance with the first requisite that the mayor be authorized through an ordinance. Petitioner cites Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals 28 to show that a resolution may suffice to support the exercise of eminent domain by an LGU. 29 This case, however, is not in point because the applicable law at that time was BP 337, 30 the previous Local Government Code, which had provided that a mere resolution would enable an LGU to exercise eminent domain. In contrast, RA 7160, 31 the present Local Government Code which was already in force when the Complaint for expropriation was filed, explicitly required an ordinance for this purpose.
We are not convinced by petitioner's insistence that the terms "resolution" and "ordinance" are synonymous. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. 32 An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently — a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members. 33
If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise eminent domain through a mere resolution, it would have simply adopted the language of the previous Local Government Code. But Congress did not. In a clear divergence from the previous Local Government Code, Section 19 of RA 7160 categorically requires that the local chief executive act pursuant to an ordinance. Indeed, "[l]egislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice." 34 In the instant case, there is no reason to depart from this rule, since the law requiring an ordinance is not at all impossible, absurd, or unjust.
Moreover, the power of eminent domain necessarily involves a derogation of a fundamental or private right of the people. Accordingly, the manifest change in the legislative language — from "resolution" under BP 337 to "ordinance" under RA 7160 — demands a strict construction. "No species of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity, and is guarded by the Constitution and laws more sedulously, than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. When the legislature interferes with that right and, for greater public purposes, appropriates the land of an individual without his consent, the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtful interpretation." Petitioner relies on Article 36, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules, which requires only a resolution to authorize an LGU to exercise eminent domain. This is clearly misplaced, because Section 19 of RA 7160, the law itself, surely prevails over said rule which merely seeks to implement it. 37 It is axiomatic that the clear letter of the law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere administrative rule issued for its implementation. Besides, what the discrepancy seems to indicate is a mere oversight in the wording of the implementing rules, since Article 32, Rule VI thereof, also requires that, in exercising the power of eminent domain, the chief executive of the LGU act pursuant to an ordinance.
In this ruling, the Court does not diminish the policy embodied in Section 2, Article X of the Constitution, which provides that "territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy." It merely upholds the law as worded in RA 7160. We stress that an LGU is created by law and all its powers and rights are sourced therefrom. It has therefore no power to amend or act beyond the authority given and the limitations imposed on it by law. Strictly speaking, the power of eminent domain delegated to an LGU is in reality not eminent but "inferior" domain, since it must conform to the limits imposed by the delegation, and thus partakes only of a share in eminent domain. 38 Indeed, "the national legislature is still the principal of the local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it."
Complaint Does Not State a Cause of Action
In its Brief filed before Respondent Court, petitioner argues that its Sangguniang Bayan passed an ordinance on October 11, 1994 which reiterated its Resolution No. 93-35, Series of 1993, and ratified all the acts of its mayor regarding the subject expropriation. This argument is bereft of merit. In the first place, petitioner merely alleged the existence of such an ordinance, but it did not present any certified true copy thereof. In the second place, petitioner did not raise this point before this Court. In fact, it was mentioned by private respondent, and only in passing. In any event, this allegation does not cure the inherent defect of petitioner's Complaint for expropriation filed on September 23, 1993. It is hornbook doctrine that . . . in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the question submitted before the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint itself. Whether those allegations are true or not is beside the point, for their truth is hypothetically admitted by the motion. The issue rather is: admitting them to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint? The fact that there is no cause of action is evident from the face of the Complaint for expropriation which was based on a mere resolution. The absence of an ordinance authorizing the same is equivalent to lack of cause of action. Consequently, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in affirming the trial court's Decision which dismissed the expropriation suit.
Second Issue:
Eminent Domain Not Barred by Res Judicata As correctly found by the Court of Appeals 43 and the trial court, 44 all the requisites for the application of res judicata are present in this case. There is a previous final judgment on the merits in a prior expropriation case involving identical interests, subject matter and cause of action, which has been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over it.
Be that as it may, the Court holds that the principle of res judicata, which finds application in generally all cases and proceedings, 45 cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate private property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power of the State, dictates that the right to exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a prior judgment or res judicata. The scope of eminent domain is plenary and, like police power, can "reach every form of property which the State might need for public use." 46 "All separate interests of individuals in property are held of the government under this tacit agreement or implied reservation. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminent domain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity; and they have the right to resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest requires it." 47 Thus, the State or its authorized agent cannot be forever barred from exercising said right by reason alone of previous non-compliance with any legal requirement.
While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the State to exercise eminent domain, it does apply to specific issues decided in a previous case. For example, a final judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground that there was no prior offer precludes another suit raising the same issue; it cannot, however, bar the State or its agent from thereafter complying with this requirement, as prescribed by law, and subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain over the same property. 48 By the same token, our ruling that petitioner cannot exercise its delegated power of eminent domain through a mere resolution will not bar it from reinstituting similar proceedings, once the said legal requirement and, for that matter, all others are properly complied with. Parenthetically and by parity of reasoning, the same is also true of the principle of "law of the case." In Republic vs. De Knecht, 49 the Court ruled that the power of the State or its agent to exercise eminent domain is not diminished by the mere fact that a prior final judgment over the property to be expropriated has become the law of the case as to the parties. The State or its authorized agent may still subsequently exercise its right to expropriate the same property, once all legal requirements are complied with. To rule otherwise will not only improperly diminish the power of eminent domain, but also clearly defeat social justice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED without prejudice to petitioner's proper exercise of its power of eminent domain over subject property. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.
GR No 109173 July 5, 1996 CITY OF CEBU, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTEENTH DIVISION), HON. JUDGE RODOLFO BELLAFLOR and MERLITA CARDENO, respondents.
One of the basic tenets of procedural law is a liberal interpretation of Rules of Court in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. 1 Time and again, this Court has stressed that the primordial concern of rules of procedure is to secure substantial justice. Otherwise stated, they are but a means to an end. Hence, a rigid and technical enforcement of these rules which overrides the ends of justice shall not be countenanced. Substance cannot be subordinated to procedure when to do so would deprive a party of his day in court on the basis solely of a technicality. 2 The case before us illustrates how a stringent application of procedural rules, when uncalled for, can result in a contravention of the foregoing principle and the consequent subversion of justice.
The antecedent facts are undisputed. Private respondent Merlita Cardeno is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 2,019 square meters located at Sitio Sto. Nino, Alaska-Mambaling and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No 116692. On February 25, 1992, the petitioner, City of Cebu, filed a complaint for eminent domain against private respondent with Branch II of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City seeking to expropriate the said parcel of land. The complaint was initiated pursuant to Resolution No 404 and Ordinance No 1418, dated February 17, 1992, of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City authorizing the City Mayor to expropriate the said parcel of land for the purpose of providing a socialized housing project for the landless and low-income city residents. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the said complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. She asseverated that the allegations contained in paragraph VII of the complaint, to wit: That repeated negotiations had been made with the defendant to have the aforementioned property purchased by the plaintiff through negotiated sale without resorting to expropriation, but said negotiations failed. do not show compliance with one of the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by a local government unit as enunciated in Section 19 of R.A. 7160 which provides in part that: A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain . . . ; Provided however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted . . .
Petitioner sought to establish compliance with the abovecited requirement by alleging in its "Comment and Opposition" to private respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the following facts: 7. To further pursue its desire to acquire the property concerned, the plaintiff made on October 28, 1991, another offer to Mrs. Cardeno, through her lawyer, Atty. Omar Redula, for the purchase of her property in the amount of Four Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand (P478,000.00) Pesos. . . . ; 8. The said offer was again refused, thus the resort by the plaintiff to expropriation.
The RTC nevertheless dismissed the complaint and ruled as follows: The allegations in the complaint which is (sic) relevant to the seemingly or apparent compliance of (sic) that condition precedent is found in paragraph VII thereto (sic) which reads: That repeated negotiations had been made with the defendant to have the aforementioned property purchased by the plaintiff through negotiated sale without resorting to expropriation, but said negotiations failed. The import or meaning of the said allegation in paragraph VII of the complaint aforequoted to the mind of the Court does not convey or connote the same meaning or import or even approximate, the condition precedent required, Unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner and such offer was not accepted. The Court is of the opinion that the City of Cebu has not complied with the condition precedent, hence, the complaint does not state a cause of action.
Furthermore, in disregarding petitioner's allegations in its "Comment and Opposition", the RTC invoked the oft-cited rule that where the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of action, its sufficiency can only be determined from the facts alleged in the complaint and no other. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which, however, affirmed the above ruling of the RTC. According to the Court of Appeals, an allegation of repeated negotiations made with the private respondent for the purchase of her property by the petitioner, "cannot by any stretch of imagination, be equated or likened to the clear and specific requirement that the petitioner should have previously made a valid and definite offer to purchase." 9 It further added that the term "negotiation" which necessarily implies uncertainty, it consisting of acts the purpose of which is to arrive at a conclusion, may not be perceived to mean the valid and definite offer contemplated by law. Petitioner's contention that it could have presented evidence in the course of the trial to prove full compliance with Section 19 of R.A. No 7160 had the RTC not dismissed the case outrightly, fell on deaf ears. 11 The Court of Appeals declared it procedurally unacceptable to ascertain the existence of a cause of action from any source other than the allegations in petitioner's complaint.
An offshoot of the foregoing is the instant petition for review on certiorari which has essentially become a battle of semantics being waged before this Court. While petitioner reiterates that paragraph VII of the complaint sufficiently states compliance with the requirement of "a valid and definite offer", private respondent insists that the term "negotiations" is too broad to be equated with the said requirement. 12 Elaborating, private respondent posited that by definition, "negotiations run the whole range of acts preparatory to concluding an agreement, from the preliminary correspondence; the fixing of the terms of the agreement; the price; the mode of payment; obligations of (sic) the parties may conceive as necessary to their agreement." 13 Thus, "negotiations" by itself may pertain to any of the foregoing and does not automatically mean the making of "a valid and definite offer." At the outset, it must be said that without necessarily delving into the parties' semantical arguments, this Court finds that the complaint does in fact state a cause of action. What may perhaps be conceded is only the relative ambiguity of the allegations in paragraph VII of the complaint. However, as We have previously held, a complaint should not be dismissed upon a mere ambiguity, indefiniteness or uncertainty of the cause of action stated therein for these are not grounds for a motion to dismiss but rather for a bill of particulars. And, . . . though the allegations in the complaint are ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain but, nevertheless, a cause of action can, in any manner, be made out therefrom, and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in any aspect of the facts or any combination of the facts alleged, if they were to be proved, then the motion to dismiss should be denied. In other words, a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears clearly from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under any state of facts which could be proved within the facts alleged therein. The error of both the RTC and respondent Court of Appeals in holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action stems from their inflexible application of the rule that: when the motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, no evidence may be allowed and the issue should only be determined in the light of the allegations of the complaint. However, this rule is not without exceptions. In the case of Tan v. Director of Forestry, this Court departed from the aforementioned rule and held that, ". . . although the evidence of the parties were on the question of granting or denying the petitioner-appellant's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, the trial court correctly applied said evidence in the resolution of the motion to dismiss." Likewise, in Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Garcia, we sanctioned the act of the trial court in considering, in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. This Court deemed such course of action but logical where the trial court had the opportunity to examine the merits of the complaint, the answer with counterclaim, the petitioner's answer to the counterclaim and its answer to the request for admission. 21 The same liberality should be applied in the instant case where an examination of petitioner's "Comment and Opposition" to private respondent's Motion to Dismiss leaves no room for doubt that petitioner had indeed made "a valid and definite offer" to private respondent as required by law. Furthermore, a closer scrutiny reveals that even on the face of the complaint alone, there is extant a cause of action. Petitioner avers in paragraph I thereof that, . . . . Under R.A. 7160, Sec. 9 thereof, the City of Cebu is legally vested with the power of eminent domain and pursuant thereto is filing this petition/complaint as authorized by OrdinanceNo . 1418 passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod on February 17, 1992, a photocopy of which is herein attached as Annex "A", and made an integral part of this complaint. . . All documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and genuineness of which are not detained under oath by the defendant, must be considered as part of the complaint without need of introducing evidence thereon. 23 Additionally, the general rule is that a motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. 24 Thus, Ordinance No. 1418, with all its provisions, is not only incorporated into the complaint for eminent domain filed by petitioner, but is also deemed admitted by private respondent. A perusal of the copy of said ordinance which has been annexed to the complaint shows that the fact of petitioner's having made a previous valid and definite offer to private respondent is categorically stated therein. Thus, the second whereas clause of the said ordinance provides as follows:
WHEREAS, the city government has made a valid and definite offer to purchase subject lot(s) for the public use aforementioned but the registered owner Mrs. Merlita Cardeno has rejected such offer. The foregoing should now put to rest the long drawn argument over the alleged failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. There is no longer any room for doubt that as alleged in the complaint, and as admitted by private respondent, the petitioner had in fact complied with the condition precedent of "a valid and definite offer" set forth in Sec. 19 of R.A. 7160.
And as a fitting finale to this controversy, the principle enunciated in both the Tan and Marcopper cases is here reiterated: The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made their aim would be defeated. Where the rules are merely secondary in importance are made to override the ends of justice; the technical rules had been misapplied to the prejudice of the substantial right of a party, said rigid application cannot be countenanced.
The aforequoted doctrine finds compelling application in the case at bench. For as correctly averred by petitioner, nothing else was accomplished by the dismissal of the complaint for eminent domain but a considerable delay in the proceedings. The dismissal of the complaint did not bar petitioner from filing another eminent domain case and from correcting its alleged error by the mere expedient of changing paragraph VII thereof. Indeed, precious time has been wasted while the salutary objectives of Ordinance No 1418 of the City of Cebu have been put on hold by a quarrel over technical matters.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is ordered remanded to the RTC which shall proceed to the hearing and final determination thereof. SO ORDERED.
GR No 170432 March 24, 2008 AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR., CECILIA P. FRANCIA, and HEIRS OF BENJAMIN P. FRANCIA, Petitioners,
vs. MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, Respondent.
On February 6, 2003, respondent Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan filed a complaint for expropriation against petitioners Amos P. Francia, Jr., Cecilia P. Francia and Benjamin P. Francia in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 16. Respondent needed petitioners' 16,256 sq. m. idle property at the junction of the North Expressway, Malhacan-Iba-Camalig main road artery and the MacArthur Highway. It planned to use it to establish a common public terminal for all types of public utility vehicles with a weighing scale for heavy trucks. In their answer, petitioners denied that the property sought to be expropriated was raw land. It was in fact developed and there were plans for further development. For this reason, respondent’s offer price of 2,333,500 (or 111.99 per square meter) was too low.
After trial, the RTC ruled that the expropriation was for a public purpose. The construction of a common terminal for all public utility conveyances (serving as a two-way loading and unloading point for commuters and goods) would improve the flow of vehicular traffic during rush hours. Moreover, the property was the best site for the proposed terminal because of its accessibility. Thus, on November 8, 2004, the RTC issued the following order: WHEREFORE, premises considered, after [respondent] has deposited with this Court the fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated, it may take immediate possession of the property upon issuance of writ of possession that this court will issue for that purpose. Further, the purposes of assessment and determination of the area needed that will suit the purpose of expropriation and just compensation of the lot sought to be expropriated, the court hereby appoints commissioners to be composed of the officer-in-charge of this court, Lerida Socorro E. Joson and one each from [respondent] and [petitioners]. Notify all parties concerned. SO ORDERED.
Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the November 8, 2004 order but the motion was denied in an order dated January 31, 2005. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) contending that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its November 8, 2004 and January 31, 2005 orders. They claimed that the trial court issued the orders without conducting a hearing to determine the existence of a public purpose.
On July 28, 2005, the CA rendered a decision partially granting the petition. Finding that petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to controvert respondent's allegations, the appellate court nullified the order of expropriation except with regard to the writ of possession. According to the CA, a hearing was not necessary because once the expropriator deposited the required amount (with the Court), the issuance of a writ of possession became ministerial. Petitioners moved for partial reconsideration but their motion was denied. Hence, this recourse. Petitioners essentially aver that the CA erred in upholding the RTC's orders that, in expropriation cases, prior determination of the existence of a public purpose was not necessary for the issuance of a writ of possession. We deny the petition.
Section 19 of Republic Act 71609 provides: Section 19. Eminent Domain. ― A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws; Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and that such offer was not accepted; Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated; Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. Before a local government unit may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated, it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration. The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.
GR Nos L-60549, 60553, 60555 October 26, 1983 HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA (represented by Gloria Ardona) ANASTACIO C. CABILAO, HEIRS OF CIPRIANO CABILAO (represented by Jose Cabilao) MODESTA CABILAO, HEIRS OF ROMAN CABUENAS (represented by Alberto Cabuenas), AGRIPINO GABISAY and PRUDENCIA MABINI, ANTONIO LABRADOR and LUCIA GABISAY, GERONIMO MABINI and MARCELINA SABAL, INOCENCIO MABINI and ARSENIA REYES, PATRICIO MABINI and GREGORIA BORRES, ANICETO GADAPAN and MAXIMA GABISAY, BARTOLOME MAGNO and CALINECA E. MAGNO, ALBERTO CABUENAS, NARCISO CABUENAS and VICTORIA CABUENAS, EUTIQUIOSENO, HEIRS OF ESPERIDION CABUENAS (represented by Alberto Cabuenas), MAXIMINA NAVARO, SULPICIO NAVARO, EDUARDO NAVARO, MARTINIANO ROMA (in representation of Arcadio Mabini, deceased), MARTIN SENO, FAUSTO ARDA, MAXIMA CABILAO, ESTRELLA SENO, EDUVEGIS S. CABILAO, ROSARIO CABILAO, MINORS DANILO, SOCORRO, JOSEFINA and MARITES, all surnamed Cabilao, JUAN BORRES (represented by Francisca Borres), RAMON JABADAN, JESUS ALIPAR and LEONILA KABAHAR, ANTONIO LABRADOR, HEIRS OF NICASIO GABISAY (represented by Arsenio Gabisay), PACIFICO LABRADOR, DEMETRIO LABRADOR and FRUCTOSA TABURA, VENANCIO DEL MAR, MARINO DEL MAR, HEIRS OF TEODORA ARCILLO (represented by Brigida Arcillo) DIONISIA GABUNADA, HEIRS OF BUENAVENTURA FRANCISCO (represented by Felicidad Sadaya Francisco), HEIRS OF VICTORIA C. CABUENAS (represented by Alberto Cabuenas) HEIRS OF CIPRIANO GABUNADA (represented by Claudio Gabunada), petitioners,
vs. HON. JUAN Y. REYES, Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of Branch I, COURT OF FIRST instance OF CEBU, and the PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, respondents.
This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 564, the Revised Charter of the Philippine Tourism Authority, and Proclamation No. 2052 declaring the barangays of Sibugay, Malubog, Babag and Sirao including the proposed Lusaran Dam in the City of Cebu and in the municipalities of Argao and Dalaguete in the province of Cebu as tourist zones. The petitioners ask that we restrain respondent Court of First Instance of Cebu and the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) from enforcing and implementing the writs of possession issued in four (4) expropriation cases filed by PTA against the petitioners: Civil Cases Nos R-19562, R-19684, R-20701, and R-21608 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch 1).
The Philippine Tourism Authority filed four (4) Complaints with the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for the expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu City, under PTA's express authority "to acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without the tourist zones" for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph B(2), of its Revised Charter (PD 564), more specifically, for the development into integrated resort complexes of selected and well-defined geographic areas with potential tourism value. As uniformly alleged in the complaints, the purposes of the expropriation are: xxx
V Plaintiff, in line with the policy of the government to promote tourism and development of tourism projects will construct in Barangays Malubog, Busay and Babag, all of Cebu City, a sports complex (basketball courts, tennis courts, volleyball courts, track and field, baseball and softball diamonds, and swimming pools), clubhouse, gold course, children's playground and a nature area for picnics and horseback riding for the use of the public.
The development plan, covering approximately 1,000 hectares, includes the establishment of an electric power grid in the area by the National Power Corporation, thus assuring the supply of electricity therein for the benefit of the whole community. Deep wells will also be constructed to generate water supply within the area. Likewise, a complex sewerage and drainage system will be devised and constructed to protect the tourists and nearby residents from the dangers of pollution.
Complimentary and support facilities for the project will be constructed, including public rest houses, lockers, dressing rooms, coffee shops, shopping malls, etc. Said facilities will create and offer employment opportunities to residents of the community and further generate income for the whole of Cebu City.Plaintiff needs the property above described which is directly covered by the proposed golf court. xxx xxx xxx
The defendants in Civil Cases Nos. R-20701 and R-21608 filed their respective Opposition with Motion to Dismiss and/or Reconsideration. The defendants in Civil Case No. R-19562 filed a manifestation adopting the answer of defendants in Civil Case No. R-19864. The defendants, now petitioners, had a common allegation in that the taking is allegedly not impressed with public use under the Constitution.
In their motions to dismiss, the petitioners alleged, in addition to the issue of public use, that there is no specific constitutional provision authorizing the taking of private property for tourism purposes; that assuming that PTA has such power, the intended use cannot be paramount to the determination of the land as a land reform area; that limiting the amount of compensation by Legislative fiat is constitutionally repugnant; and that since the land is under the land reform program, it is the Court of Agrarian Relations and not the Court of First Instance that has jurisdiction over the expropriation cases.
The Philippine Tourism Authority having deposited with The Philippine National Bank, Cebu City Branch, an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the properties pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1533. the lower court issued separate orders authorizing PTA to take immediate possession of the premises and directing the issuance of writs of possession.
On May 25, 1982, petitioners filed this petition questioning the orders of the respondent Judge, The respondents have correctly restated the grounds in the petition as follows: xxx xxx xxx
A. The complaints for expropriation lack basis because the Constitution does not provide for the expropriation of private property for tourism or other related purposes;
B. The writs of possession or orders authorizing PTA to take immediate possession is premature because the "public use" character of the taking has not been previously demonstrated;
C. The taking is not for public use in contemplation of eminent domain law;
D. The properties in question have been previously declared a land reform area; consequently, the implementation of the social justice pro- ,vision of the Constitution on agrarian reform is paramount to the right of the State to expropriate for the purposes intended;
E. Proclamation No. 2052 declaring certain barangays in Cebu City, which include the lands subject of expropriation as within a tourist zone, is unconstitutional for it impairs the obligation of contracts; "F. Since the properties are within a land reform area, it is the Court of Agrarian Relations, not the lower court, that has jurisdiction pursuant to Pres. Decree No. 946;
F. The forcible ejectment of defendants from the premises constitutes a criminal act under Pres. Decree No. 583;
In their memorandum, the petitioners have summarized the issues as follows:
I. Enforcement of the Writ of Possession is Premature:
II. Presidential Decree 564 Amending Presidential Decree l89 is Constitutionally Repugnant:
III. The Condemnation is not for Public Use, Therefore, Unconstitutional:
IV. The Expropriation for Tourism Purposes of Lands Covered by the Land Reform Program Violates the Constitution:
V. Presidential Proclamation 2052 is Unconstitutional:
VI. Presidential Decree No 1533 is Unconstitutional:
VII. The Court of First Instance has no Jurisdiction:
VIII. The Filing of the Present Petition is not Premature.
The issues raised by the petitioners revolve around the proposition that the actions to expropriate their properties are constitutionally infirm because nowhere in the Constitution can a provision be found which allows the taking of private property for the promotion of tourism.
The petitioners' arguments in their pleadings in support of the above proposition are subsumed under the following headings:
1. Non-compliance with the "public use" requirement under the eminent domain provision of the Bill of Rights.
2. Disregard of the land reform nature of the property being expropriated.
3. Impairment of the obligation of contracts.
There are three provisions of the Constitution which directly provide for the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Section 2, Article IV states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Section 6, Article XIV allows the State, in the interest of national welfare or defense and upon payment of just compensation to transfer to public ownership, utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the government. Section 13, Article XIV states that the Batasang Pambansa may authorize upon payment of just compensation the expropriation of private lands to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to deserving citizens.
While not directly mentioning the expropriation of private properties upon payment of just compensation, the provisions on social justice and agrarian reforms which allow the exercise of police power together with the power of eminent domain in the implementation of constitutional objectives are even more far-reaching insofar as taking of private property is concerned.
Section 6, Article II provides: Sec. 6. The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people. Towards its end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits. xxx xxx xxx
Section 12, Article XIV provides: See. 12. The State shall formulate and implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil and achieving the goals enunciated in this Constitution.
The equitable diffusion of property ownership in the promotion of social justice implies the exercise, whenever necessary, of the power to expropriate private property. Likewise there can be no meaningful agrarian reform program unless the power to expropriate is utilized. We cite all the above provisions on the power to expropriate because of the petitioners' insistence on a restrictive view of the eminent domain provision. The thrust of all constitutional provisions on expropriation is in the opposite direction. As early as 1919, this Court in Visayan Refining Co. v. Samus (40 Phil. 550) categorized the restrictive view as wholly erroneous and based on a misconception of fundamentals.
The petitioners look for the word "tourism" in the Constitution. Understandably the search would be in vain. The policy objectives of the framers can be expressed only in general terms such as social justice, local autonomy, conservation and development of the national patrimony, public interest, and general welfare, among others. The programs to achieve these objectives vary from time to time and according to place, To freeze specific programs like Tourism into express constitutional provisions would make the Constitution more prolix than a bulky code and require of the framers a prescience beyond Delphic proportions. The particular mention in the Constitution of agrarian reform and the transfer of utilities and other private enterprises to public ownership merely underscores the magnitude of the problems sought to be remedied by these programs. They do not preclude nor limit the exercise of the power of eminent domain for such purposes like tourism and other development programs. In the leading case of Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus (supra), this Court emphasized that the power of eminent domain is inseparable from sovereignty being essential to the existence of the State and inherent in government even in its most primitive forms. The only purpose of the provision in the Bill of Rights is to provide some form of restraint on the sovereign power. It is not a grant of authority - The power of eminent domain does not depend for its existence on a specific grant in the constitution. It is inherent in sovereignty and exists in a sovereign state without any recognition of it in the constitution. The provision found in most of the state constitutions relating to the taking of property for the public use do not by implication grant the power to the government of the state, but limit a power which would otherwise be without limit.
The constitutional restraints are public use and just compensation.
Do the purposes of the taking in this case constitute "public use"? The petitioners ask us to adopt a strict construction and declare that "public use" means literally use by the public and that "public use" is not synonymous with "public interest", "public benefit", or "public welfare" and much less "public convenience. "
The petitioners face two major obstacles. First, their contention which is rather sweeping in its call for a retreat from the public welfare orientation is unduly restrictive and outmoded. Second, no less than the lawmaker has made a policy determination that the power of eminent domain may be exercised in the promotion and development of Philippine tourism.
The restrictive view of public use may be appropriate for a nation which circumscribes the scope of government activities and public concerns and which possesses big and correctly located public lands that obviate the need to take private property for public purposes. Neither circumstance applies to the Philippines. We have never been a laissez faire State, And the necessities which impel the exertion of sovereign power are all too often found in areas of scarce public land or limited government resources. Certain aspects of parliamentary government were introduced by the 1973 amendments to the Constitution with further modifications in the 1976 and 1981 amendments. Insofar as the executive and legislative departments are concerned, the traditional concept of checks and balances in a presidential form was considerably modified to remove some roadblocks in the expeditious implementation of national policies. There was no such change for the judiciary. We remain as a checking and balancing department even as all strive to maintain respect for constitutional boundaries. At the same time, the philosophy of coordination in the pursuit of developmental goals implicit in the amendments also constrains in the judiciary to defer to legislative discretion iii the judicial review of programs for economic development and social progress unless a clear case of constitutional infirmity is established. We cannot stop the legitimate exercise of power on an invocation of grounds better left interred in a bygone age and time.* As we review the efforts of the political departments to bring about self-sufficiency, if not eventual abundance, we continue to maintain the liberal approach because the primary responsibility and the discretion belong to them.
There can be no doubt that expropriation for such traditions' purposes as the construction of roads, bridges, ports, waterworks, schools, electric and telecommunications systems, hydroelectric power plants, markets and slaughterhouses, parks, hospitals, government office buildings, and flood control or irrigation systems is valid. However, the concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere the Idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has been discarded. In the United States, the rule was enunciated in Berman v. Parker (348 U.S. 25; 99 L. ed. 27) as follows: We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. See DayBrite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 US 421, 424, 96 L ed 469, 472, 72 S Ct 405. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.
Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end. See Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. 153 US 525, 529, 530, 38 L ed 808, 810, 14 S Ct 891; United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co. 160 US 668, 679, 40 L ed 576, 580, 16 S Ct 427.
In an earlier American case, where a village was isolated from the rest of North Carolina because of the flooding of the reservoir of a dam thus making the provision of police, school, and health services unjustifiably expensive, the government decided to expropriate the private properties in the village and the entire area was made part of an adjoining national park. The district court and the appellate court ruled against the expropriation or excess condemnation. The Court of Appeals applied the "use by the public" test and stated that the only land needed for public use was the area directly flooded by the reservoir. The village may have been cut off by the dam but to also condemn it was excess condemnation not valid under the "Public use" requirement. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States ex rel TVA v. Welch (327 U.S, 546; 90 L. ed 843) unanimously reversed the lower courts. It stated:
The Circuit Court of Appeals, without expressly relying on a compelling rule of construction that would give the restrictive scope to the T.V.A. Act given it by the district court, also interpreted the statute narrowly. It first analyzed the facts by segregating the total problem into distinct parts, and thus came to the conclusion that T.V.A.'s purpose in condemning the land in question was only one to reduce its liability arising from the destruction of the highway. The Court held that use of the lands for that purpose is a "private" and not a "public use" or, at best, a "public use" not authorized by the statute. we are unable to agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
We think that it is the function of Congress to decide what type of taking is for a public use and that the agency authorized to do the taking may do so to the still extent of its statutory authority, United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co. 160 US 668, 679, 40 L ed 576, 580, 16 S Ct 427. ... xxx xxx xxx ... But whatever may be the scope of the judicial power to determine what is a "public use" in Fourteenth Amendment controversies, this Court has said that when Congress has spoken on this subject "Its decision is entitled to deference until it is shown to involve an impossibility." Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269, US 55, 66, 70 L ed 162, 46 S Ct 39. Any departure from this judicial restraint would result in courts deciding on what is and is not a governmental function and in their invalidating legislation on the basis of their view on that question at the moment of decision, a practice which has proved impracticable in other fields. See Case v. Bowles decided February 4, 1946, 437 US 92, 101, ante, 552, 559, 66 S Ct 438. New York v. United States, 326 US 572 ante 326, 66 S Ct 310). We hold that the T.V.A. took the tracts here involved for a public purpose, if, as we think is the case, Congress authorized the Authority to acquire, hold, and use the lands to carry out the purposes of the T.V.A. Act.
In the Philippines, Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando has aptly summarized the statutory and judicial trend as follows: The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. (Fernando, The Constitution of the Philippines, 2nd ed., pp. 523-524)
The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. inside the tourist complex is impressed with even less merit. Private bus firms, taxicab fleets, roadside restaurants, and other private businesses using public streets end highways do not diminish in the least bit the public character of expropriations for roads and streets. The lease of store spaces in underpasses of streets built on expropriated land does not make the taking for a private purpose. Airports and piers catering exclusively to private airlines and shipping companies are still for public use. The expropriation of private land for slum clearance and urban development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is later sold to private homeowners, commercial firms, entertainment and service companies, and other private concerns.
The petitioners have also failed to overcome the deference that is appropriately accorded to formulations of national policy expressed in legislation. The rule in Berman u. Parker (supra) of deference to legislative policy even if such policy might mean taking from one private person and conferring on another private person applies as well as in the Philippines.
... Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the means by which it will be attained is also for Congress to determine. Here one of the means chosen is the use of private enterprise for redevelopment of the area. Appellants argue that this makes the project a taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman. But the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine, once the public purpose has been established. Selb Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. (US) supra; cf. Highland v. Russel Car & Snow Plow Co. 279 US 253, 73 L ed 688, 49 S Ct 314. The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government-or so the Congress might conclude. We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects. What we have said also disposes of any contention concerning the fact that certain property owners in the area may be permitted to repurchase their properties for redevelopment in harmony with the over-all plan. That, too, is a legitimate means which Congress and its agencies may adopt, if they choose. (Berman v. Parker, 99 L ed 38, 348 US 33, 34)
An examination of the language in the 1919 cases of City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila (40 Phil, 349) and Visayan Refining Co. vs. Camus, earlier cited, shows that from the very start of constitutional government in our country judicial deference to legislative policy has been clear and manifest in eminent domain proceedings.
The expressions of national policy are found in the revised charter of the Philippine Tourism Authority, Presidential Decree No. 564: WHEREAS, it is the avowed aim of the government to promote Philippine tourism and work for its accelerated and balanced growth as well as for economy and expediency in the development of the tourism plant of the country;xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to promote, encourage, and develop Philippine tourism as an instrument in accelerating the development of the country, of strengthening the country's foreign exchange reserve position, and of protecting Philippine culture, history, traditions and natural beauty, internationally as well as domestically.
The power of eminent domain is expressly provided for under Section 5 B(2) as follows: xxx xxx xxx 2. Acquisition of Private Lands, Power of Eminent Domain. — To acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without the tourist zones for any of the following reasons: (a) consolidation of lands for tourist zone development purposes, (b) prevention of land speculation in areas declared as tourist zones, (c) acquisition of right of way to the zones, (d) protection of water shed areas and natural assets with tourism value, and (e) for any other purpose expressly authorized under this Decree and accordingly, to exercise the power of eminent domain under its own name, which shall proceed in the manner prescribed by law and/or the Rules of Court on condemnation proceedings. The Authority may use any mode of payment which it may deem expedient and acceptable to the land owners: Provided, That in case bonds are used as payment, the conditions and restrictions set forth in Chapter III, Section 8 to 13 inclusively, of this Decree shall apply. xxx xxx xxx
The petitioners rely on the Land Reform Program of the government in raising their second argument. According to them, assuming that PTA has the right to expropriate, the properties subject of expropriation may not be taken for the purposes intended since they are within the coverage of "operation land transfer" under the land reform program. Petitioners claim that certificates of land transfer (CLT'S) and emancipation patents have already been issued to them thereby making the lands expropriated within the coverage of the land reform area under Presidential Decree No. 2; that the agrarian reform program occupies a higher level in the order of priorities than other State policies like those relating to the health and physical well- being of the people; and that property already taken for public use may not be taken for another public use.
We have considered the above arguments with scrupulous and thorough circumspection. For indeed any claim of rights under the social justice and land reform provisions of the Constitution deserves the most serious consideration. The Petitioners, however, have failed to show that the area being developed is indeed a land reform area and that the affected persons have emancipation patents and certificates of land transfer.
The records show that the area being developed into a tourism complex consists of more than 808 hectares, almost all of which is not affected by the land reform program. The portion being expropriated is 282 hectares of hilly and unproductive land where even subsistence farming of crops other than rice and corn can hardly survive. And of the 282 disputed hectares, only 8,970 square meters-less than one hectare-is affected by Operation Land Transfer. Of the 40 defendants, only two have emancipation patents for the less than one hectare of land affected. And this 8,970 square meters parcel of land is not even within the sports complex proper but forms part of the 32 hectares resettlement area where the petitioners and others similarly situated would be provided with proper housing, subsidiary employment, community centers, schools, and essential services like water and electricity-which are non-existent in the expropriated lands. We see no need under the facts of this petition to rule on whether one public purpose is superior or inferior to another purpose or engage in a balancing of competing public interests. The petitioners have also failed to overcome the showing that the taking of the 8,970 square meters covered by Operation Land Transfer forms a necessary part of an inseparable transaction involving the development of the 808 hectares tourism complex. And certainly, the human settlement needs of the many beneficiaries of the 32 hectares resettlement area should prevail over the property rights of two of their compatriots.
The invocation of the contracts clause has no merit. The non-impairment clause has never been a barrier to the exercise of police power and likewise eminent domain. As stated in Manigault v. Springs (199 U.S. 473) "parties by entering into contracts may not stop the legislature from enacting laws intended for the public good."
The applicable doctrine is expressed in Arce v. Genato (69 SCRA 544) which involved the expropriation of land for a public plaza. The Court stated: xxx xxx xxx... What is claimed is that there must be a showing of necessity for such condemnation and that it was not done in this case in support of such a view, reliance is placed on City of Manila v. Arenano Law Colleges. (85 Phil. 663 [1950]) That doctrine itself is based on the earlier case of City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, (50 Phil. 349) also, like Camus, a 1919 decision. As could be discerned, however, in the Arellano Law Colleges decision. it was the antiquarian view of Blackstone with its sanctification of the right to one's estate on which such an observation was based. As did appear in his Commentaries: "So great is the regard of the law for private property that it will not, authorize the least violation of it, even for the public good, unless there exists a very great necessity thereof." Even the most , cursory glance at such well-nigh absolutist concept of property would show its obsolete character at least for Philippine constitutional law. It cannot survive the test of the 1935 Constitution with its mandates on social justice and protection to labor. (Article II, Section 5 of the 1935 Constitution reads: "The promotion of social justice to unsure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be the concern of the State." Article XI, Section 6 of the same Constitution provides: "The State shall afford protection to labor, especially to working women and minors, and shall regulate the relation between landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry and in agriculture. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.") What is more, the present Constitution pays even less heed to the claims of property and rightly so. After stating that the State shall promote social justice, it continues: "Towards this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits." (That is the second sentence of Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution) If there is any need for explicit confirmation of what was set forth in Presidential Decree No. 42, the above provision supplies it. Moreover, that is merely to accord to what of late has been the consistent course of decisions of this Court whenever property rights are pressed unduly. (Cf. Alalayan v. National Power Corporation, L-24396, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 172; Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration v. Confederation of Unions, L-21484, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 649; Edu v. Ericta, L-32096, Oct. 24, 1970, 35 SCRA 481; Phil. Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-32052, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 416) The statement therefore, that there could be discerned a constitutional objection to a lower court applying a Presidential Decree, when it leaves no doubt that a grantee of the power of eminent domain need not prove the necessity for the expropriation, carries its own refutation. xxx xxx xxx
The issue of prematurity is also raised by the petitioners. They claim that since the necessity for the taking has not been previously established, the issuance of the orders authorizing the PTA to take immediate possession of the premises, as well as the corresponding writs of possession was premature. Under Presidential Decree No. 42, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1533, the government, its agency or instrumentality, as plaintiff in an expropriation proceedings is authorized to take immediate possession, control and disposition of the property and the improvements, with power of demolition, notwithstanding the pendency of the issues before the court, upon deposit with the Philippine National Bank of an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the property expropriated. The issue of immediate possession has been settled in Arce v. Genato (supra). In answer to the issue: ... whether the order of respondent Judge in an expropriation case allowing the other respondent, ... to take immediate possession of the parcel of land sought to be condemned for the beautification of its public plaza, without a prior hearing to determine the necessity for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, is vitiated by jurisdictional defect, ...this Court held that: ... It is not disputed that in issuing such order, respondent Judge relied on Presidential Decree No. 42 issued on the 9th of November, 1972. (Presidential Decree No. 42 is entitled "Authorizing the Plaintiff in Eminent Domain Proceedings to Take Possession of the Property involved Upon Depositing the Assessed Value for Purposes of Taxation.") The question as thus posed does not occasion any difficulty as to the answer to be given. This petition for certiorari must fail, there being no showing that compliance with the Presidential Decree, which under the Transitory Provisions is deemed a part of the law of the land, (According to Article XVII, Section 3 par. (2) of the Constitution: "All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land, and shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective even after lifting of martial law or the ratification of this Constitution, unless modified, revoked, or superseded by subsequent proclamations. orders, decrees instructions, or other acts of the incumbent President, or unless expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by the regular National Assembly") would be characterized as either an act in excess of jurisdiction or a grave abuse of discretion. So we rule.
Likewise in Ramos v. Philippine Tourism Authority (GR Nos. 52449-50, June 9, 1980), this Court held:
... condemnation or expropriation proceedings is in the nature of one that is quasi-in-rem wherein the fact that the owner of the property is made a party is not essentially indispensable insofar was least as it conncerns is the immediate taking of possession of the property and the preliminary determination of its value, including the amount to be deposited.
In their last argument, the petitioners claim that a consequence of the expropriation proceedings would be their forcible ejectment. They contend that such forcible ejectment is a criminal act under Presidential Decree No. 583. This contention is not valid. Presidential Decree No. 583 prohibits the taking cognizance or implementation of orders designed to obstruct the land reform program. It refers to the harassment of tenant- farmers who try to enforce emancipation rights. It has nothing to do with the expropriation by the State of lands needed for public purposes. As a matter of fact, the expropriated area does not appear in the master lists of the Ministry of Agrarian Reforms as a teranted area. The petitioners' bare allegations have not been supported with particulars pointing to specific parcels which are subject of tenancy contracts. The petitioners may be owner-tillers or may have some form of possessory or ownership rights but there has been no showing of their being tenants on the disputed lands. The petitioners have failed to overcome the burden of anyone trying to strike down a statute or decree whose avowed purpose is the legislative perception is the public good. A statute has in its favor the presumption of validity. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law. The courts will not set aside a law as violative of the Constitution except in a clear case (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56). And in the absence of factual findings or evidence to rebut the presumption of validity, the presumption prevails (Ermita-Malate Hotel, etc. v. Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849; Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424). The public respondents have stressed that the development of the 808 hectares includes plans that would give the petitioners and other displaced persons productive employment, higher incomes, decent housing, water and electric facilities, and better living standards. Our dismissing this petition is, in part, predicated on those assurances. The right of the PTA to proceed with the expropriation of the 282 hectares already Identified as fit for the establishment of a resort complex to promote tourism is, therefore, sustained. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSE D for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Separate Opinions MAKASIAR, J, concurring and dissenting:
It appearing that the petitioners are not tenants of the parcels of land in question and therefore do not fall within the purview of the Land Reform Code, the petition should be dismissed on that score alone.
There is no need to decide whether the power of the Philippine Tourism Authority to expropriate the land in question predicated on the police power of the State shall take precedence over the social justice guarantee in favor of tenants and the landless. The welfare of the landless and small land owners should prevail over the right of the PTA to expropriate the lands just to develop tourism industry, which benefit the wealthy only. Such a position would increase the disenchanted citizens and drive them to dissidence. The government is instituted primarily for the welfare of the governed and there are more poor people in this country than the rich The tourism industry is not essential to the existence of the government, but the citizens are, and their right to live in dignity should take precedence over the development of the tourism industry. Teehankee and Abad Santos, JJ., dissent.
GR No. 125218 January 23, 1998 FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE FELIPE S. TONGCO and THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.
G.R. No. 128077 January 23, 1998 FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ORLANDO MALIT, ANTONIO CAGUIAT, ALICIA CABRERA, ARMANDO LACHICA, JACINTO CAGUIAT, GLORIA ANTONIO, ELIZALDE NAVARRA, DOLORES FUENTES, SUSANA ROY, ANTONIO IBANEZ, BENIGNO BASILIO, LUCERIA DEMATULAC, FLORENCIA GOMEZ, LAZARO GOMEZ, JOSE GOMEZ VENANCIO MANALOTO, CRISTINO UMALI, DEMETRIA GATUS, PRISCILLA MALONG, DOMINGO AGUILA, RAMON SAN AGUSTIN, JULIAN FERRER, JR., FRANCISCO GALANG, FLORENTINO MALIWAT, SEVERINA VILLAR, TRINIDAD NAGUIT, JOSE NAGUIT, FORTUNATO AGUSTIN CABRERA, GAUDENCIO INTAL, DANILO DAVID, ENRIQUE DAVID, VICENTE DE GUZMAN, POLICARPIO LUMBA, BELEN PALMA, ELEN SOMVILLO, LEONARDO MANICAD, OPRENG MICLAT, BENITA MATA, GREGORIO LOPEZ, MARCELINA SAPNO, JESUS MERCADO and CALIXTO GOMEZ, respondents.
In resolving the instant petitions, the Court is tasked to strike a balance between the contending interests when the state exercises its power of eminent domain. On one side we have the owners of the property to be expropriated who must be duly compensated for the loss of their property, while on the other is the State which must take the property for public use. Petitioner, Filstream International, Inc., is the registered owner of the properties subject of this dispute consisting of adjacent parcels of land situated in Antonio Rivera Street, Tondo II, Manila, with a total area of 3,571.10 square meters and covered by T.C.T. Nos. 203937, 203936, 169198, 169199, 169200 and 169202 of the Register of Deeds of Manila. On January 7, 1993, petitioner filed an ejectment suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Branch 15) docketed as Civil Case No. 140817-CV against the occupants of the abovementioned parcels of land (herein private respondents in GR No. 128077) on the grounds of termination of the lease contract and non-payment of rentals. Judgment was rendered by the MTC on September 14, 1993 ordering private respondents to vacate the premises and pay back rentals to petitioner.
Not satisfied, private respondents appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4 (Civil Case No. 93-68130) which in turn affirmed the decision of the MTC in its decision dated February 22, 1994. Still not content, private respondents proceeded to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review (CA-GR SP No. 33714). The result however remained the same as the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in its decision dated August 25, 1994. 2 Thereafter, no further action was taken by the private respondents, as a result of which the decision in the ejectment suit became final and executory.
However, it appeared that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings private respondents filed on May 25, 1993, a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Exchange against petitioner Filstream which was docketed in Civil Case No. 93-66059 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 43. It was at this stage that respondent City of Manila came into the picture when the city government approved Ordinance No. 7813 3 on November 5, 1993, authorizing Mayor Alfredo S. Lim to initiate the acquisition by negotiation, expropriation, purchase, or other legal means certain parcels of land registered under T.C.T. Nos 169193, 169198, 169190, 169200, 169202 and 169192 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila which formed part of the properties of petitioner then occupied by private respondents. Subsequently, the City of Manila approved Ordinance No. 7855 4 declaring the expropriation of certain parcels of land situated along Antonio Rivera and Fernando Ma. Guerrero streets in Tondo, Manila which were owned by Mr. Enrique Quijano Gutierrez, petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. The said properties were to be sold and distributed to qualified tenants of the area pursuant to the Land Use Development Program of the City of Manila. On May 23, 1994, respondent City of Manila filed a complaint for eminent domain (Civil Case No. 94-70560) before the RTC of Manila, Branch 42, 5 seeking to expropriate the aforecited parcels of land owned by petitioner Filstream which are situated at Antonio Rivera Street, Tondo II, Manila. Pursuant to the complaint filed by respondent City of Manila, the trial court issued a Writ of Possession 7 in favor of the former which ordered the transfer of possession over the disputed premises to the City of Manila.
At this juncture, petitioner Filstream filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain as well as a motion to quash the writ of possession. The motion to dismiss was premised on the following grounds: no valid cause of action; the petition does not satisfy the requirements of public use and a mere clandestine maneuver to circumvent the writ of execution issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 4 in the ejectment suit; violation of the constitutional guarantee against non-impairment of obligations and contracts; price offered was too low hence violative of the just compensation provision of the constitution and the said amount is without the certification of the City Treasurer for availability of funds. 8 With respect to the motion to quash the writ of possession, petitioner raised the following objections: failure to comply with Section 2 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, Ordinance No. 7813 is a void enactment for it was approved without a public hearing and violative of the constitutional guarantee against impairment of obligations and contracts; the price is too low and unconscionable violating the just compensation provision of the constitution, and the said writ is tainted with infirmity considering the absence of a certification from the City of Manila that there is an immediately available fund for the subject expropriation. 9
Respondent City of Manila filed its opposition 10 to petitioner Filstream's two motions and to which petitioner accordingly filed a reply. 11 On September 30, 1994, the RTC of Manila, Branch 42, issued an order denying petitioner Filstream's motion to dismiss and the motion to quash the Writ of Possession and declared as follows:
IN FINE, the defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to quash writ of possession are both without merit and are hereby DENIED and the subject parcels of lands covered by TCT Nos. 203937, 203936, 169198, 169199, 169200 and 169202 (of the Register of Deeds of Manila) located at Antonio Rivera Street, Tondo II, Manila with a total area of 3,571.10 square meters are hereby declared CONDEMNED in favor of the City of Manila for distribution and resale to all poor and landless qualified residents/tenants in the said area under the city's "land-for-the landless" program upon payment of just compensation which is yet to be determined by this Court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 13 as well as a supplemental motion for reconsideration 14 seeking the reversal of the above-quoted order but the same were denied. 15 Still, petitioner filed a subsequent motion to be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration but it was also denied.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed on March 31, 1996, a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-GR. SP No. 36904) seeking to set aside the September 30, 1994 order of the RTC of Manila, Branch 42. However, on March 18, 1996, respondent CA issued a resolution dismissing the petition in this wise:
It appearing that the above-entitled petition is insufficient in form and substance — it does not comply with Section 2(a), Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals which requires that the "petition shall be . . . accompanied by . . . other pertinent documents and papers," aside from the fact that copies of the pleadings attached to the petition are blurred and unreadable — this Court resolved to summarily DISMISS the same (petition). 16
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and attached clearer copies of the pertinent documents and papers pursuant to Section 2(a), Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals. But on May 20, 1996, respondent CA issued a resolution denying the motion as petitioner failed to submit clearer and readable copies of the pleadings. 17 This prompted petitioner to proceed to this Court giving rise to the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and docketed herein as GR No No. 125218, assailing the dismissal of its petition by the CA in its resolution dated March 18, 1996 as well as that of its motion for reconsideration in the resolution dated May 20, 1996. Meanwhile, owing to the finality of the decision in the ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 140817-CV), the MTC of Manila, Branch 15, upon motion of petitioner Filstream, issued a Writ of Execution as well as a Notice to Vacate the disputed premises. 18 Private respondents filed a Motion to Recall/Quash the Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate 19 alleging the existence of a supervening event in that the properties subject of the dispute have already been ordered condemned in an expropriation proceeding in favor of the City of Manila for the benefit of the qualified occupants thereof, thus execution shall be stayed. Petitioner opposed the motion, reiterating that the decision in the ejectment case is already final and executory and disputed private respondents' right to interpose the expropriation proceedings as a defense because the latter were not parties to the same.
For its part, the City of Manila filed on March 13, 1996, a motion for intervention with prayer to stay/quash the writ of execution on the ground that it is the present possessor of the property subject of execution.
In its order dated March 14, 1996, the MTC of Manila, Branch 14, denied private respondents' motion as it found the allegations therein bereft of merit and upheld the issuance of the Writ of Execution and Notice to Vacate in petitioner's favor. 20 Subsequently, the trial court also denied the motion filed by the City of Manila.
On April 22, 1996, the trial court issued an order commanding the demolition of the structure erected on the disputed premises. To avert the demolition, private respondents filed before the RTC of Manila, Branch 14, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (docketed as Civil Case No. 96-78098). On April 29, 1996, the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, issued a TRO enjoining the execution of the writ issued in Civil Case No. 140817-CV by the MTC of Manila, Branch 14. 21 Subsequently, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on May 14, 1996. On May 15, 1996, the City of Manila filed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction which was raffled to Branch 23 of the RTC of Manila (docketed as Civil Case No. 96-78382), seeking the reversal of the orders issued by the MTC of Manila, Branch 14, which denied its motion to intervene and quash the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 140817-CV. Thereafter, upon motion filed by the City of Manila, an order was issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 10, ordering the consolidation of Civil Case No. 96-78382 with Civil Case No. 96-78098 pending before Branch 14 of the RTC of Manila. 23 On May 21, 1996, the RTC of Manila, Branch 14, issued an injunction in Civil Case No. 96-78098 enjoining the implementation of the writ of execution until further orders from the court. 24 Petitioner Filstream filed a Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and to be allowed to post a counter-bond but the trial court denied the same. Filstream then filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of denial but pending resolution of this motion, it filed a motion for voluntary inhibition of the presiding judge of the RTC of Manila, Branch 14. The motion for inhibition was granted 25 and as a result, the consolidated cases (Civil Case No. 96-78382 and 96-78098) were re-raffled to the RTC of Manila, Branch 33. During the proceedings before the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, petitioner Filstream moved for the dismissal of the consolidated cases (Civil Case No. 96-78382 and No. 96-78098) for violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 (forum shopping) because the same parties, causes of action and subject matter involved therein have already been disposed of in the decision in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 140817) which has already became final and executory prior to the filing of these consolidated cases. On December 9, 1996, an order was issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, ordering the dismissal of Civil Case Nos. 96-78382 and 96-78098 for violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94. 26 Immediately thereafter, petitioner Filstream filed an Ex-parte Motion for Issuance of an Alias Writ of Demolition and Ejectment and a supplemental motion to the same dated January 10 and 13, 1997, respectively, 27 before the MTC of Manila, Branch 15, which promulgated the decision in the ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 140817-CV). On January 23, 1997, the court granted the motion and issued the corresponding writ of demolition.
As a consequence of the dismissal of the consolidated cases, herein private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA-GR. SP No. 43101) assailing the above-mentioned order of dismissal by the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
In a resolution dated January 28, 1997, the Court of Appeals granted herein private respondents prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and directed the MTC of Manila, Branch 15, to desist from implementing the order of demolition dated January 23, 1997, unless otherwise directed. At the conclusion of the hearing for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals, in its resolution dated February 18, 1997, found merit in private respondents' allegations in support of their application of the issuance of the writ and granted the same, to wit:Finding that the enforcement or implementation of the writ of execution and notice to vacate issued in Civil Case No. 140817-CV, the ejectment case before respondent Judge Jiro, during the pendency of the instant petition, would probably be in violation of petitioners' right, and would tend to render the judgment in the instant case ineffectual, and probably work injustice to the petitioners, the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is hereby GRANTED. WHEREFORE, upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P150,000.00, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining respondents, their employees, agents, representatives and anyone acting in their behalf from enforcing or executing the writ of execution and notice to vacate issued in Civil Case No. 140817-CV of the court of respondent Judge Jiro, or otherwise disturbing the status quo, until further orders of this Court. In turn, petitioner Filstream is now before this Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (GR. No. 128077), seeking to nullify the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 1997 and February 18, 1997 which granted herein private respondents' prayer for a TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the same being null and void for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. Upon motion filed by petitioner Filstream, in order to avoid any conflicting decisions on the legal issues raised in the petitions, the Court ordered that the later petition, GR. No. 128077 be consolidated with GR. No. 128077 in the resolution of March 5, 1997. The issue raised in GR No. 125218 is purely a procedural and technical matter. Petitioner takes exception to the resolutions of respondent CA dated March 18, 1996 and May 20, 1996 which ordered the dismissal of its Petition for Certiorari for non-compliance with Sec. 2(a) of Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals by failing to attach to its petition other pertinent documents and papers and for attaching copies of pleadings which are blurred and unreadable. Petitioner argues that respondent appellate court seriously erred in giving more premium to form rather than substance.We agree with the petitioner. A strict adherence to the technical and procedural rules in this case would defeat rather than meet the ends of justice as it would result in the violation of the substantial rights of petitioner. At stake in the appeal filed by petitioner before the CA is the exercise of their property rights over the disputed premises which have been expropriated and have in fact been ordered condemned in favor of the City of Manila. In effect, the dismissal of their appeal in the expropriation proceedings based on the aforementioned grounds is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law as it would automatically validate the expropriation proceedings which the petitioner is still disputing. It must be emphasized that where substantial rights are affected, as in this case, the stringent application of procedural rules may be relaxed if only to meet the ends of substantial justice.
In these instances, respondent CA can exercise its discretion to suspend its internal rules and allow the parties to present and litigate their causes of action so that the Court can make an actual and complete disposition of the issues presented in the case. Rather than simply dismissing the petition summarily for non-compliance with respondent court's internal rules, respondent CA should have instead entertained petitioner Filstream's petition for review on certiorari, and ordered petitioner to submit the corresponding pleadings which it deems relevant and replace those which are unreadable. This leniency could not have caused any prejudice to the rights of the other parties.
With regard to the other petition, GR No. 128077, petitioner Filstream objects to the issuance by respondent CA of the restraining order and the preliminary injunction enjoining the execution of the writ of demolition issued in the ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 140817-CV) as an incident to private respondents' pending petition assailing the dismissal by the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, of the consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by private respondents and the City of Manila on the ground of forum shopping. The propriety of the issuance of the restraining order and the writ of preliminary injunction is but a mere incident to the actual controversy which is rooted in the assertion of the conflicting rights of the parties in this case over the disputed premises. In order to determine whether private respondents are entitled to the injunctive reliefs granted by respondent CA, we deemed it proper to extract the source of discord.
Petitioner Filstream anchors its claim by virtue of its ownership over the properties and the existence of a final and executory judgment against private respondents ordering the latter's ejectment from the premises (Civil Case No. 140817-CV).
Private respondents' claim on the other hand hinges on an alleged supervening event which has rendered the enforcement of petitioner's rights moot, that is, the expropriation proceedings (Civil Case No. 94-70560) undertaken by the City of Manila over the disputed premises for the benefit of herein private respondents. For its part, the City of Manila is merely exercising its power of eminent domain within its jurisdiction by expropriating petitioner's properties for public use.
There is no dispute as to the existence of a final and executory judgment in favor of petitioner Filstream ordering the ejectment of private respondents from the properties subject of this dispute. The judgment in the ejectment suit became final and executory after private respondents failed to interpose any appeal from the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 25, 1994 in CA-GR SP No. 33714. Thus, petitioner has every right to assert the execution of this decision as it had already become final and executory.However, it must also be conceded that the City of Manila has an undeniable right to exercise its power of eminent domain within its jurisdiction. The right to expropriate private property for public use is expressly granted to it under Section 19 of the 1991 Local Government Code, to wit: Sec. 19. Eminent Domain. — A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted; Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. (Emphasis supplied).
More specifically, the City of Manila has the power to expropriate private property in the pursuit of its urban land reform and housing program as explicitly laid out in the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (R.A. No. 409) as follows:
General powers. — The city may have a common seal and alter the same at pleasure, and may take, purchase, receive, hold, lease, convey, and dispose of real and personal property for the general interest of the city, condemn private property for public use, contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, and prosecute and defend to final judgment and execution, and exercise all the powers hereinafter conferred. (R.A. 409, Sec. 3; Emphasis supplied). xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 100. The City of Manila is authorized to acquire private lands in the city and to subdivide the same into home lots for sale on easy terms to city residents, giving first priority to the bona fide tenants or occupants of said lands, and second priority to laborers and low-salaried employees. For the purpose of this section, the city may raise the necessary funds by appropriations of general funds, by securing loans or by issuing bonds, and, if necessary, may acquire the lands through expropriation proceedings in accordance with law, with the approval of the President . . . . (Emphasis supplied).
In fact, the City of Manila's right to exercise these prerogatives notwithstanding the existence of a final and executory judgment over the property to be expropriated has been upheld by this Court in the case of Philippine Columbian Association vs. Panis, GR No. 106528, December 21, 1993. 32 Relying on the aforementioned provisions of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, the Court declared that: The City of Manila, acting through its legislative branch, has the express power to acquire private lands in the city and subdivide these lands into home lots for sale to bona-fide tenants or occupants thereof, and to laborers and low-salaried employees of the city.
That only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not diminish its public use character. It is simply not possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them (Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 [1987]).
Corollary to the expanded notion of public use, expropriation is not anymore confined to vast tracts of land and landed estates (Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 103125, May 17, 1993; J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 [1970]). It is therefore of no moment that the land sought to be expropriated in this case is less than half a hectare only (Pulido v. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 63 [1983]).
Through the years, the public use requirement in eminent domain has evolved into a flexible concept, influenced by changing conditions (Sumulong v. Guerrero, supra; Manotok v. National Housing Authority, 150 SCRA 89 [1987]; Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 [1983]). Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including in particular, urban land reform and housing. We take judicial notice of the fact that urban land reform has become a paramount task in view of the acute shortage of decent housing in urban areas particularly in Metro Manila. Nevertheless, despite the existence of a serious dilemma, local government units are not given an unbridled authority when exercising their power of eminent domain in pursuit of solutions to these problems. The basic rules still have to be followed, which are as follows: "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws (Art. 3, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution); private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation (Art. 3, Section 9, 1987 Constitution)". Thus, the exercise by local government units of the power of eminent domain is not without limitations. Even Section 19 of the 1991 Local Government Code is very explicit that it must comply with the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws, to wit:
Sec. 19. Eminent Domain. — A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: . . . (Emphasis supplied).
The governing law that deals with the subject of expropriation for purposes of urban land reform and housing is Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) and Sections 9 and 10 of which specifically provide as follows:
Sec. 9. Priorities in the acquisition of Land. — Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:
(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;
(d) Those within the declared Areas for Priority Development, Zonal Improvement sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and
(f) Privately-owned lands.
Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site development of government lands.
Sec. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. — The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint-venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation. Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Provided further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act. Provided, finally, That abandoned property, as herein defined, shall be reverted and escheated to the State in a proceeding analogous to the procedure laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court. For the purpose of socialized housing, government-owned and foreclosed properties shall be acquired by the local government units, or by the National Housing Authority primarily through negotiated purchase: Provided, That qualified beneficiaries who are actual occupants of the land shall be given the right of first refusal. Very clear from the abovequoted provisions are the limitations with respect to the order of priority in acquiring private lands and in resorting to expropriation proceedings as a means to acquire the same. Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only when the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance with these conditions must be deemed mandatory because these are the only safeguards in securing the right of owners of private property to due process when their property is expropriated for public use.
Proceeding from the parameters laid out in the above disquisitions, we now pose the crucial question: Did the City of Manila comply with the abovementioned conditions when it expropriated petitioner Filstream's properties? We have carefully scrutinized the records of this case and found nothing that would indicate that respondent City of Manila complied with Sec. 9 and Sec. 10 of R.A. 7279. Petitioner Filstream's properties were expropriated and ordered condemned in favor of the City of Manila sans any showing that resort to the acquisition of other lands listed under Sec. 9 of RA 7279 have proved futile. Evidently, there was a violation of petitioner Filstream's right to due process which must accordingly be rectified.
Indeed, it must be emphasized that the State has a paramount interest in exercising its power of eminent domain for the general good considering that the right of the State to expropriate private property as long as it is for public use always takes precedence over the interest of private property owners. However we must not lose sight of the fact that the individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also entitled to protection, bearing in mind that the exercise of this superior right cannot override the guarantee of due process extended by the law to owners of the property to be expropriated. In this regard, vigilance over compliance with the due process requirements is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby GRANTED. In GR No 125218, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP NO. 36904 dated March 18, 1996 and May 20, 1996 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In GR No. 128077, the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 43101 dated January 28, 1997 and February 18, 1997 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
[GR No 137621 February 6, 2002] HAGONOY MARKET VENDOR ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN, respondent.
Laws are of two (2) kinds: substantive and procedural. Substantive laws, insofar as their provisions are unambiguous, are rigorously applied to resolve legal issues on the merits. In contrast, courts generally frown upon an uncompromising application of procedural laws so as not to subvert substantial justice. Nonetheless, it is not totally uncommon for courts to decide cases based on a rigid application of the so-called technical rules of procedure as these rules exist for the orderly administration of justice. Interestingly, the case at bar singularly illustrates both instances, i.e., when procedural rules are unbendingly applied and when their rigid application may be relaxed.
This is a petition for review of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated February 15, 1999, dismissing the appeal of petitioner Hagonoy Market Vendor Association from the Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice for being formally deficient.
The facts: On October 1, 1996, the Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy, Bulacan, enacted an ordinance, Kautusan Blg. 28, which increased the stall rentals of the market vendors in Hagonoy. Article 3 provided that it shall take effect upon approval. The subject ordinance was posted from November 4-25, 1996.
In the last week of November, 1997, the petitioner’s members were personally given copies of the approved Ordinance and were informed that it shall be enforced in January, 1998. On December 8, 1997, the petitioner’s President filed an appeal with the Secretary of Justice assailing the constitutionality of the tax ordinance. Petitioner claimed it was unaware of the posting of the ordinance. Respondent opposed the appeal. It contended that the ordinance took effect on October 6, 1996 and that the ordinance, as approved, was posted as required by law. Hence, it was pointed out that petitioner’s appeal, made over a year later, was already time-barred.
The Secretary of Justice dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time, i.e., beyond thirty (30) days from the effectivity of the Ordinance on October 1, 1996, as prescribed under Section 187 of the 1991 Local Government Code. Citing the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera, the Secretary of Justice held that the date of effectivity of the subject ordinance retroacted to the date of its approval in October 1996, after the required publication or posting has been complied with, pursuant to Section 3 of said ordinance. After its motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner did not assail the finding of the Secretary of Justice that their appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. Instead, it urged that the Secretary of Justice should have overlooked this “mere technicality” and ruled on its petition on the merits. Unfortunately, its petition for review was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for being formally deficient as it was not accompanied by certified true copies of the assailed Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice. Undaunted, the petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
Hence, this appeal, where petitioner contends that:
I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN ITS STRICT, RIGID AND TECHNICAL ADHERENCE TO SECTION 6, RULE 43 OF THE 1997 RULES OF COURT AND THIS, IN EFFECT, FRUSTRATED THE VALID LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER THAT ORDINANCE (KAUTUSAN) NO. 28 WAS NOT VALIDLY ENACTED, IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TANTAMOUNT TO AN ILLEGAL EXACTION IF ENFORCED RETROACTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF ITS APPROVAL ON OCTOBER 1, 1996.
II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION NOTWITHSTANDING PETITIONER’S EXPLANATION THAT ITS FAILURE TO SECURE THE CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS DUE TO THE INTERVENTION OF AN ACT OF GOD – TYPHOON “LOLENG,” AND THAT THE ACTUAL COPIES RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES.
III PETITIONER WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IF ORDINANCE/KAUTUSAN NO. 28 BE NOT DECLARED NULL AND VOID AND IS ALLOWED TO BE ENFORCED RETROACTIVELY FROM OCTOBER 1, 1996, CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL RULE, ARTICLE 4 OF THE CIVIL CODE, THAT NO LAW SHALL HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
The first and second assigned errors impugn the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of its petition for review for petitioner’s failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice. The petitioner insists that it had good reasons for its failure to comply with the rule and the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to accept its explanation.
We agree. In its Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals,[ii][8] the petitioner satisfactorily explained the circumstances relative to its failure to attach to its appeal certified true copies of the assailed Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice, thus: “x x x (D)uring the preparation of the petition on October 21, 1998, it was raining very hard due to (t)yphoon “Loleng.” When the petition was completed, copy was served on the Department of Justice at about (sic) past 4:00 p.m. of October 21, 1998, with (the) instruction to have the Resolutions of the Department of Justice be stamped as “certified true copies. However, due to bad weather, the person in charge (at the Department of Justice) was no longer available to certify to (sic) the Resolutions.
“The following day, October 22, 1998, was declared a non-working holiday because of (t)yphoon “Loleng.” Thus, petitioner was again unable to have the Resolutions of the Department of Justice stamped “certified true copies.” In the morning of October 23, 1998, due to time constraint(s), herein counsel served a copy by personal service on (r)espondent’s lawyer at (sic) Malolos, Bulacan, despite the flooded roads and heavy rains. However, as the herein counsel went back to Manila, (official business in) government offices were suspended in the afternoon and the personnel of the Department of Justice tasked with issuing or stamping “certified true copies” of their Resolutions were no longer available. “To avoid being time-barred in the filing of the (p)etition, the same was filed with the Court of Appeals “as is.” We find that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it was formally deficient. It is clear from the records that the petitioner exerted due diligence to get the copies of its appealed Resolutions certified by the Department of Justice, but failed to do so on account of typhoon “Loleng.” Under the circumstances, respondent appellate court should have tempered its strict application of procedural rules in view of the fortuitous event considering that litigation is not a game of technicalities.
Nonetheless, we hold that the petition should be dismissed as the appeal of the petitioner with the Secretary of Justice is already time-barred. The applicable law is Section 187 of the 1991 Local Government Code which provides:
“SEC. 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. - The procedure for the approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided, further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and accrual and payment of the tax, fee or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings.
The aforecited law requires that an appeal of a tax ordinance or revenue measure should be made to the Secretary of Justice within thirty (30) days from effectivity of the ordinance and even during its pendency, the effectivity of the assailed ordinance shall not be suspended. In the case at bar, Municipal Ordinance No 28 took effect in October 1996. Petitioner filed its appeal only in December 1997, more than a year after the effectivity of the ordinance in 1996. Clearly, the Secretary of Justice correctly dismissed it for being time-barred. At this point, it is apropos to state that the timeframe fixed by law for parties to avail of their legal remedies before competent courts is not a “mere technicality” that can be easily brushed aside. The periods stated in Section 187 of the Local Government Code are mandatory. Ordinance No. 28 is a revenue measure adopted by the municipality of Hagonoy to fix and collect public market stall rentals. Being its lifeblood, collection of revenues by the government is of paramount importance. The funds for the operation of its agencies and provision of basic services to its inhabitants are largely derived from its revenues and collections. Thus, it is essential that the validity of revenue measures is not left uncertain for a considerable length of time. Hence, the law provided a time limit for an aggrieved party to assail the legality of revenue measures and tax ordinances.
In a last ditch effort to justify its failure to file a timely appeal with the Secretary of Justice, the petitioner contends that its period to appeal should be counted not from the time the ordinance took effect in 1996 but from the time its members were personally given copies of the approved ordinance in November 1997. It insists that it was unaware of the approval and effectivity of the subject ordinance in 1996 on two (2) grounds: first, no public hearing was conducted prior to the passage of the ordinance and, second, the approved ordinance was not posted. We do not agree.
Petitioner’s bold assertion that there was no public hearing conducted prior to the passage of Kautusan Blg. 28 is belied by its own evidence. In petitioner’s two (2) communications with the Secretary of Justice,[iii][12] it enumerated the various objections raised by its members before the passage of the ordinance in several meetings called by the Sanggunian for the purpose. These show beyond doubt that petitioner was aware of the proposed increase and in fact participated in the public hearings therefor. The respondent municipality likewise submitted the Minutes and Report of the public hearings conducted by the Sangguniang Bayan’s Committee on Appropriations and Market on February 6, July 15 and August 19, all in 1996, for the proposed increase in the stall rentals.
Petitioner cannot gripe that there was practically no public hearing conducted as its objections to the proposed measure were not considered by the Sangguniang Bayan. To be sure, public hearings are conducted by legislative bodies to allow interested parties to ventilate their views on a proposed law or ordinance. These views, however, are not binding on the legislative body and it is not compelled by law to adopt the same. Sanggunian members are elected by the people to make laws that will promote the general interest of their constituents. They are mandated to use their discretion and best judgment in serving the people. Parties who participate in public hearings to give their opinions on a proposed ordinance should not expect that their views would be patronized by their lawmakers.
On the issue of publication or posting, Section 188 of the Local Government Code provides: “Section 188. Publication of Tax Ordinance and Revenue Measures. Within ten (10) days after their approval, certified true copies of all provincial, city, and municipal tax ordinances or revenue measures shall be published in full for three (3) consecutive days in a newspaper of local circulation; Provided, however, That in provinces, cities and municipalities where there are no newspapers of local circulation, the same may be posted in at least two (2) conspicuous and publicly accessible places.”
The records is bereft of any evidence to prove petitioner’s negative allegation that the subject ordinance was not posted as required by law. In contrast, the respondent Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan, presented evidence which clearly shows that the procedure for the enactment of the assailed ordinance was complied with. Municipal Ordinance No. 28 was enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Hagonoy on October 1, 1996. Then Acting Municipal Mayor Maria Garcia Santos approved the Ordinance on October 7, 1996. After its approval, copies of the Ordinance were given to the Municipal Treasurer on the same day. On November 9, 1996, the Ordinance was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The Ordinance was posted during the period from November 4 - 25, 1996 in three (3) public places, viz: in front of the municipal building, at the bulletin board of the Sta. Ana Parish Church and on the front door of the Office of the Market Master in the public market.[iv][14] Posting was validly made in lieu of publication as there was no newspaper of local circulation in the municipality of Hagonoy. This fact was known to and admitted by petitioner. Thus, petitioner’s ambiguous and unsupported claim that it was only “sometime in November 1997” that the Provincial Board approved Municipal Ordinance No 28 and so the posting could not have been made in November 1996 was sufficiently disproved by the positive evidence of respondent municipality. Given the foregoing circumstances, petitioner cannot validly claim lack of knowledge of the approved ordinance. The filing of its appeal a year after the effectivity of the subject ordinance is fatal to its cause.
Finally, even on the substantive points raised, the petition must fail. Section 6c.04 of the 1993 Municipal Revenue Code and Section 191 of the Local Government Code limiting the percentage of increase that can be imposed apply to tax rates, not rentals. Neither can it be said that the rates were not uniformly imposed or that the public markets included in the Ordinance were unreasonably determined or classified. To be sure, the Ordinance covered the 3 concrete public markets: the two-storey Bagong Palengke, the burnt but reconstructed Lumang Palengke and the more recent Lumang Palengke with wet market. However, the Palengkeng Bagong Munisipyo or Gabaldon was excluded from the increase in rentals as it is only a makeshift, dilapidated place, with no doors or protection for security, intended for transient peddlers who used to sell their goods along the sidewalk. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
[GR No 146587. July 2, 2002] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the General Manager of the PHILIPPINE INFORMATION AGENCY (PIA), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the HEIRS OF LUIS SANTOS as herein represented by DR. SABINO SANTOS and PURIFICACION SANTOS IMPERIAL, respondents.
Petitioner instituted expropriation proceedings on 19 September 1969 before the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Bulacan, docketed Civil Cases No. 3839-M, No 3840-M, No 3841-M and No 3842-M, covering a total of 544,980 square meters of contiguous land situated along MacArthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan, to be utilized for the continued broadcast operation and use of radio transmitter facilities for the “Voice of the Philippines” project. Petitioner, through the Philippine Information Agency (“PIA”), took over the premises after the previous lessee, the “Voice of America,” had ceased its operations thereat. Petitioner made a deposit of P517,558.80, the sum provisionally fixed as being the reasonable value of the property. On 26 February 1979, or more than nine years after the institution of the expropriation proceedings, the trial court issued this order -
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: "Condemning the properties of the defendants in Civil Cases Nos. 3839-M to 3842-M located at KM 43, MacArthur Highway, Malolos, Bulacan and covered by several transfer certificates of title appearing in the Commissioners’ Appraisal Report consisting of the total area of 544,980 square meters, as indicated in plan, Exhibit A, for plaintiff, also marked as Exhibit I for the defendants, and as Appendix ‘A’ attached to the Commissioners’ Appraisal Report, for the purpose stated by the plaintiff in its complaint;
"Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants the just compensation for said property which is the fair market value of the land condemned, computed at the rate of six pesos (P6.00) per square meter, with legal rate of interest from September 19, 1969, until fully paid; and "Ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs of suit, which includes the aforesaid fees of commissioners, Atty. Victorino P. Evangelista and Mr. Pablo Domingo." The bone of contention in the instant controversy is the 76,589-square meter property previously owned by Luis Santos, predecessor-in-interest of herein respondents, which forms part of the expropriated area.
It would appear that the national government failed to pay to herein respondents the compensation pursuant to the foregoing decision, such that a little over five years later, or on 09 May 1984, respondents filed a manifestation with a motion seeking payment for the expropriated property. On 07 June 1984, the Bulacan RTC, after ascertaining that the heirs remained unpaid in the sum of P1,058,655.05, issued a writ of execution served on the plaintiff, through the Office of the Solicitor General, for the implementation thereof. When the order was not complied with, respondents again filed a motion urging the trial court to direct the provincial treasurer of Bulacan to release to them the amount of P72,683.55, a portion of the sum deposited by petitioner at the inception of the expropriation proceedings in 1969, corresponding to their share of the deposit. The trial court, in its order of 10 July 1984, granted the motion.
In the meantime, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued Proclamation No 22, transferring 20 hectares of the expropriated property to the Bulacan State University for the expansion of its facilities and another 5 hectares to be used exclusively for the propagation of the Philippine carabao. The remaining portion was retained by the PIA. This fact notwithstanding, and despite the 1984 court order, the Santos heirs remained unpaid, and noaction was taken on their case until 16 September 1999 when petitioner filed its manifestation and motion to permit the deposit in court of the amount of P4,664,000.00 by way of just compensation for the expropriated property of the late Luis Santos subject to such final computation as might be approved by the court. This time, the Santos heirs, opposing the manifestation and motion, submitted a counter-motion to adjust the compensation from P6.00 per square meter previously fixed in the 1979 decision to its current zonal valuation pegged at P5,000.00 per square meter or, in the alternative, to cause the return to them of the expropriated property. On 01 March 2000, the Bulacan RTC ruled in favor of respondents and issued the assailed order, vacating its decision of 26 February 1979 and declaring it to be unenforceable on the ground of prescription -
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby:
"1) declares the decision rendered by this Court on February 26, 1979 no longer enforceable, execution of the same by either a motion or an independent action having already prescribed in accordance with Section 6, Rule 39 of both the 1964 Revised Rules of Court and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
"2) denies the plaintiff’s Manifestation and Motion to Permit Plaintiff to Deposit in Court Payment for Expropriated Properties dated September 16, 1999 for the reason stated in the next preceding paragraph hereof; and
"3) orders the return of the expropriated property of the late defendant Luis Santos to his heirs conformably with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Government of Sorsogon vs. Vda. De Villaroya, 153 SCRA 291, without prejudice to any case which the parties may deem appropriate to institute in relation with the amount already paid to herein oppositors and the purported transfer of a portion of the said realty to the Bulacan State University pursuant to Proclamation No. 22 issued by President Joseph Ejercito."
Petitioner brought the matter up to the Court of Appeals but the petition was outrightly denied. It would appear that the denial was based on Section 4, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provided that the filing of a motion for reconsideration in due time after filing of the judgment, order or resolution interrupted the running of the sixty-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari; and that if a motion for reconsideration was denied, the aggrieved party could file the petition only within the remaining period, but which should not be less than five days in any event, reckoned from the notice of such denial. The reglementary period, however, was later modified by A.M. No. 00-2-03 S.C., now reading thusly:
“Sec. 4. When and where petition filed. --- The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.” The amendatory provision, being curative in nature, should be made applicable to all cases still pending with the courts at the time of its effectivity.
In Narzoles vs. NLRC,[v][4] the Court has said: “The Court has observed that Circular No 39-98 has generated tremendous confusion resulting in the dismissal of numerous cases for late filing. This may have been because, historically, i.e., even before the 1997 revision to the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party had a fresh period from receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari. Were it not for the amendments brought about by Circular No. 39-98, the cases so dismissed would have been resolved on the merits. Hence, the Court deemed it wise to revert to the old rule allowing a party a fresh 60-day period from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari. x x x “The latest amendments took effect on September 1, 2000, following its publication in the Manila Bulletin on August 4, 2000 and in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 7, 2000, two newspapers of general circulation. “In view of its purpose, the Resolution further amending Section 4, Rule 65, can only be described as curative in nature, and the principles governing curative statutes are applicable.
“Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal proceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legal requirements. (Erectors, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 256 SCRA 629 [1996].) They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curb certain evils. They are intended to enable persons to carry into effect that which they have designed or intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by reason of some statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make valid that which, before the enactment of the statute was invalid. Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with. (Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. vs. Dela Serna, 312 SCRA 22 [1999].) Curative statutes, therefore, by their very essence, are retroactive. (Municipality of San Narciso, Quezon vs. Mendez, Sr., 239 SCRA 11 [1994].)”[vi][5]
At all events, petitioner has a valid point in emphasizing the "public nature" of the expropriated property. The petition being imbued with public interest, the Court has resolved to give it due course and to decide the case on its merits.
Assailing the finding of prescription by the trial court, petitioner here posited that a motion which respondents had filed on 17 February 1984, followed up by other motions subsequent thereto, was made within the reglementary period that thereby interrupted the 5-year prescriptive period within which to enforce the 1979 judgment. Furthermore, petitioner claimed, the receipt by respondents of partial compensation in the sum of P72,683.55 on 23 July 1984 constituted partial compliance on the part of petitioners and effectively estopped respondents from invoking prescription expressed in Section 6, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. In opposing the petition, respondents advanced the view that pursuant to Section 6, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, the failure of petitioner to execute the judgment, dated 26 February 1979, within five years after it had become final and executory, rendered it unenforceable by mere motion. The motion for payment, dated 09 May 1984, as well as the subsequent disbursement to them of the sum of P72,683.55 by the provincial treasurer of Bulacan, could not be considered as having interrupted the five-year period, since a motion, to be considered otherwise, should instead be made by the prevailing party, in this case by petitioner. Respondents maintained that the P72,683.55 paid to them by the provincial treasurer of Bulacan pursuant to the 1984 order of the trial court was part of the initial deposit made by petitioner when it first entered possession of the property in 1969 and should not be so regarded as a partial payment. Respondents further questioned the right of PIA to transfer ownership of a portion of the property to the Bulacan State University even while the just compensation due the heirs had yet to be finally settled.
The right of eminent domain is usually understood to be an ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose.[vii][7] Fundamental to the independent existence of a State, it requires no recognition by the Constitution, whose provisions are taken as being merely confirmatory of its presence and as being regulatory, at most, in the due exercise of the power. In the hands of the legislature, the power is inherent, its scope matching that of taxation, even that of police power itself, in many respects. It reaches to every form of property the State needs for public use and, as an old case so puts it, all separate interests of individuals in property are held under a tacit agreement or implied reservation vesting upon the sovereign the right to resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest so requires it. The ubiquitous character of eminent domain is manifest in the nature of the expropriation proceedings. Expropriation proceedings are not adversarial in the conventional sense, for the condemning authority is not required to assert any conflicting interest in the property. Thus, by filing the action, the condemnor in effect merely serves notice that it is taking title and possession of the property, and the defendant asserts title or interest in the property, not to prove a right to possession, but to prove a right to compensation for the taking. Obviously, however, the power is not without its limits: first, the taking must be for public use, and second, that just compensation must be given to the private owner of the property.[viii][10] These twin proscriptions have their origin in the recognition of the necessity for achieving balance between the State interests, on the one hand, and private rights, upon the other hand, by effectively restraining the former and affording protection to the latter. In determining “public use,” two approaches are utilized - the first is public employment or the actual use by the public, and the second is public advantage or benefit. It is also useful to view the matter as being subject to constant growth, which is to say that as society advances, its demands upon the individual so increases, and each demand is a new use to which the resources of the individual may be devoted.
The expropriated property has been shown to be for the continued utilization by the PIA, a significant portion thereof being ceded for the expansion of the facilities of the Bulacan State University and for the propagation of the Philippine carabao, themselves in line with the requirements of public purpose. Respondents question the public nature of the utilization by petitioner of the condemned property, pointing out that its present use differs from the purpose originally contemplated in the 1969 expropriation proceedings. The argument is of no moment. The property has assumed a public character upon its expropriation. Surely, petitioner, as the condemnor and as the owner of the property, is well within its rights to alter and decide the use of that property, the only limitation being that it be for public use, which, decidedly, it is.
In insisting on the return of the expropriated property, respondents would exhort on the pronouncement in Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Vda. de Villaroya[ix][14] where the unpaid landowners were allowed the alternative remedy of recovery of the property there in question. It might be borne in mind that the case involved the municipal government of Sorsogon, to which the power of eminent domain is not inherent, but merely delegated and of limited application. The grant of the power of eminent domain to local governments under Republic Act NO 7160 cannot be understood as being the pervasive and all-encompassing power vested in the legislative branch of government. For local governments to be able to wield the power, it must, by enabling law, be delegated to it by the national legislature, but even then, this delegated power of eminent domain is not, strictly speaking, a power of eminent, but only of inferior, domain or only as broad or confined as the real authority would want it to be. Thus, in Valdehueza vs. Republic where the private landowners had remained unpaid ten years after the termination of the expropriation proceedings, this Court ruled -
“The points in dispute are whether such payment can still be made and, if so, in what amount. Said lots have been the subject of expropriation proceedings. By final and executory judgment in said proceedings, they were condemned for public use, as part of an airport, and ordered sold to the government. x x x It follows that both by virtue of the judgment, long final, in the expropriation suit, as well as the annotations upon their title certificates, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of their expropriated lots - which are still devoted to the public use for which they were expropriated - but only to demand the fair market value of the same. "Said relief may be granted under plaintiffs' prayer for: `such other remedies, which may be deemed just and equitable under the premises'." The Court proceeded to reiterate its pronouncement in Alfonso vs. Pasay City where the recovery of possession of property taken for public use prayed for by the unpaid landowner was denied even while no requisite expropriation proceedings were first instituted. The landowner was merely given the relief of recovering compensation for his property computed at its market value at the time it was taken and appropriated by the State.
The judgment rendered by the Bulacan RTC in 1979 on the expropriation proceedings provides not only for the payment of just compensation to herein respondents but likewise adjudges the property condemned in favor of petitioner over which parties, as well as their privies, are bound.[x][20] Petitioner has occupied, utilized and, for all intents and purposes, exercised dominion over the property pursuant to the judgment. The exercise of such rights vested to it as the condemnee indeed has amounted to at least a partial compliance or satisfaction of the 1979 judgment, thereby preempting any claim of bar by prescription on grounds of non-execution. In arguing for the return of their property on the basis of non-payment, respondents ignore the fact that the right of the expropriatory authority is far from that of an unpaid seller in ordinary sales, to which the remedy of rescission might perhaps apply. An in rem proceeding, condemnation acts upon the property.[xi][21] After condemnation, the paramount title is in the public under a new and independent title;[xii][22] thus, by giving notice to all claimants to a disputed title, condemnation proceedings provide a judicial process for securing better title against all the world than may be obtained by voluntary conveyance. Respondents, in arguing laches against petitioner did not take into account that the same argument could likewise apply against them. Respondents first instituted proceedings for payment against petitioner on 09 May 1984, or five years after the 1979 judgment had become final. The unusually long delay in bringing the action to compel payment against herein petitioner would militate against them. Consistently with the rule that one should take good care of his own concern, respondents should have commenced the proper action upon the finality of the judgment which, indeed, resulted in a permanent deprivation of their ownership and possession of the property. The constitutional limitation of “just compensation” is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, it fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.[xiii][26] In fine, between the taking of the property and the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred.
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interests on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted condemnation proceedings and “took” the property in September 1969. This allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property as of the time of the taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12% per annum[xiv][28] should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time. Article 1250 of the Civil Code, providing that, in case of extraordinary inflation or deflation, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis for the payment when no agreement to the contrary is stipulated, has strict application only to contractual obligations.[xv][30] In other words, a contractual agreement is needed for the effects of extraordinary inflation to be taken into account to alter the value of the currency. All given, the trial court of Bulacan in issuing its order, dated 01 March 2000, vacating its decision of 26 February 1979 has acted beyond its lawful cognizance, the only authority left to it being to order its execution. Verily, private respondents, although not entitled to the return of the expropriated property, deserve to be paid promptly on the yet unpaid award of just compensation already fixed by final judgment of the Bulacan RTC on 26 February 1979 at P6.00 per square meter, with legal interest thereon at 12% per annum computed from the date of "taking" of the property, i.e., 19 September 1969, until the due amount shall have been fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The resolution, dated 31 July 2000, of the CA dismissing the petition for certiorari, as well as its resolution of 04 January 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, dated 01 March 2000, are SET ASIDE. Let the case be forthwith remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for the proper execution of its decision promulgated on 26 February 1979 which is hereby REINSTATED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
GR No 131457 April 24, 1998 HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON, HON. REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners,
vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.
The dramatic and well-publicized hunger strike staged by some alleged farmer-beneficiaries in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform compound in Quezon City on October 9, 1997 commanded nationwide attention that even church leaders and some presidential candidates tried to intervene for the strikers' "cause."
The strikers protested the March 29, 1996 Decision 1 of the Office of the President (OP), issued through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, which approved the conversion of a one hundred forty-four (144)-hectare land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional area. This led the Office of the President, through then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, to issue the so-called "Win-Win" Resolution 2 on November 7, 1997, substantially modifying its earlier Decision after it had already become final and executory. The said Resolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial area only to the extent of forty-four (44) hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred (100) hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. But, did the "Win-Win" Resolution culminate in victory for all the contending parties? The above-named petitioners cried foul. They have come to this Court urging us to annul and set aside the "Win-Win" Resolution and to enjoin respondent Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao of the Department of Agrarian Reform from implementing the said Resolution.Thus, the crucial issue to be resolved in this case is: What is the legal effect of the "Win-Win" Resolution issued by the Office of the President on its earlier Decision involving the same subject matter, which had already become final and executory?
The antecedent facts of this controversy, as culled from the pleadings, may be stated as follows:
1. This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. The property is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371 3 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon.
2. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), a multinational corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower's Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of title. The lease expired in April, 1994.
3. In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38 million.
4. NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action. In February, 1992, it sought and was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case No . X-576, a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction which ordered the DAR Region X Director, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank), and their authorized representatives "to desist from pursuing any activity or activities" concerning the subject land "until further orders." 5
5. Despite the DARAB order of March 31, 1992, the DAR Regional Director issued a memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, directing the Land Bank to open a trust account for P2.38 million in the name of NQSRMDC and to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation of the subject property. NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed on June 9, 1992 an Omnibus Motion to enforce the DARAB order of March 31, 1992 and to nullify the summary proceedings undertaken by the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank on the valuation of the subject property.
6. The DARAB, on October 22, 1992, acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion by (a) ordering the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank "to seriously comply with the terms of the order dated March 31, 1992;" (b) nullifying the DAR Regional Director's memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, and the summary proceedings conducted pursuant thereto; and (c) directing the Land Bank "to return the claim folder of Petitioner NQSRMDC's subject Property to the DAR until further orders." 6
7. The Land Bank complied with the DARAB order and cancelled the trust account it opened in the name of petitioner NQSRMDC. 7
8. In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6, 8 dated January 7, 1993, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subject property is situated.
9. What happened thereafter is well-narrated in the OP (TORRES) Decision of March 29, 1996, pertinent portions of which we quote:
Pursuant to Section 20 of RA No 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao, Bukidnon, on March 4, 1993, enacted Ordinance No 24 converting or re-classifying 144 hectares of land in Bgy. San Vicente, said Municipality, from agricultural to industrial/institutional with a view of providing an opportunity to attract investors who can inject new economic vitality, provide more jobs and raise the income of its people.
Parenthetically, under said section, 4th to 5th class municipalities may authorize the classification of five percent (5%) of their agricultural land area and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition.
On 12 October 1993, the Bukidnon Provincial Land Use Committee approved the said Ordinance. Accordingly, on 11 December 1993, the instant application for conversion was filed by Mr. Gaudencio Beduya in behalf of NQSRMDC/BAIDA (Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Association).
Expressing support for the proposed project, the Bukidnon Provincial Board, on the basis of a Joint Committee Report submitted by its Committee on Laws, Committee on Agrarian Reform and Socio-Economic Committee approved, on 1 February 1994, the said Ordinance now docketed as Resolution No. 94-95. The said industrial area, as conceived by NQSRMDC (project proponent) is supposed to have the following components:
1. Development Academy of Mindanao which constitutes following: Institute for Continuing Higher Education; Institute for Livelihood Science (Vocational and Technical School); Institute for Agribusiness Research; Museum, Library, Cultural Center, and Mindanao Sports Development Complex which covers an area of 24 hectares;
2. Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Park which consists of corn processing for corn oil, corn starch, various corn products; rice processing for wine, rice-based snacks, exportable rice; cassava processing for starch, alcohol and food delicacies; processing plants, fruits and fruit products such as juices; processing plants for vegetables processed and prepared for market; cold storage and ice plant; cannery system; commercial stores; public market; and abattoir needing about 67 hectares;
3. Forest development which includes open spaces and parks for recreation, horse-back riding, memorial and mini-zoo estimated to cover 33 hectares; and
4. Support facilities which comprise the construction of a 360-room hotel, restaurants, dormitories and a housing project covering an area of 20 hectares.
The said NQSRMDC Proposal was, per Certification dated January 4, 1995, adopted by the Department of Trade and Industry, Bukidnon Provincial Office, as one of its flagship projects. The same was likewise favorably recommended by the Provincial Development Council of Bukidnon; the municipal, provincial and regional office of the DAR; the Regional Office (Region X) of the DENR (which issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate on June 5, 1995); the Executive Director, signing "By Authority of PAUL G. DOMINGUEZ," Office of the President — Mindanao; the Secretary of DILG; and Undersecretary of DECS Wilfredo D. Clemente. In the same vein, the National Irrigation Administration, Provincial Irrigation Office, Bagontaas Valencia, Bukidnon, thru Mr. Julius S. Maquiling, Chief, Provincial Irrigation Office, interposed NO OBJECTION to the proposed conversion "as long as the development cost of the irrigation systems thereat which is P2,377.00 per hectare be replenished by the developer . . . ." Also, the Kisolon-San Vicente Irrigators Multi Purpose Cooperative, San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, interposed no objection to the proposed conversion of the land in question "as it will provide more economic benefits to the community in terms of outside investments that will come and employment opportunities that will be generated by the projects to be put up . . . .
On the same score, it is represented that during the public consultation held at the Kisolan Elementary School on 18 March 1995 with Director Jose Macalindong of DAR Central Office and DECS Undersecretary Clemente, the people of the affected barangay rallied behind their respective officials in endorsing the project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable recommendation, however, on November 14, 1994, the DAR, thru Secretary Garilao, invoking its powers to approve conversion of lands under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued an Order denying the instant application for the conversion of the subject land from agricultural to agro-industrial and, instead, placed the same under the compulsory coverage of CARP and directed the distribution thereof to all qualified beneficiaries on the following grounds:
1. The area is considered as a prime agricultural land with irrigation facility;
2. The land has long been covered by a Notice of Compulsory Acquisition (NCA);
3. The existing policy on withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not applicable;
4. There is no clear and tangible compensation package arrangements for the beneficiaries;
5. The procedures on how the area was identified and reclassified for agro-industrial project has no reference to Memo Circular No 54, Series of 1993, E.O. No 72, Series of 1993, and E.O. No 124, Series of 1993. A Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was filed on January 9, 1995 by applicant but the same was denied (in an Order dated June 7, 1995).
10. Thus, the DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director "to proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the property."
11. Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon appealed" the order of denial to the Office of the President and prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same would be more beneficial to the people of Bukidnon.
12. To prevent the enforcement of the DAR Secretary's order, NQSRMDC, on June 29, 1995, filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction, 12 docketed as CA-GR SP No 37614.
13. Meanwhile, on July 25, 1995, the Honorable Paul G. Dominguez, then Presidential Assistant for Mindanao, after conducting an evaluation of the proposed project, sent a memorandum 13 to the President favorably endorsing the project with a recommendation that the DAR Secretary reconsider his decision in denying the application of the province for the conversion of the land.
14. Also, in a memorandum 14 to the President dated August 23, 1995, the Honorable Rafael Alunan III, then Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), recommended the conversion of the subject land to industrial/institutional use with a request that the President "hold the implementation of the DAR order to distribute the land in question."
15. On October 23, 1995, the Court of Appeals, in CA-GR SP No 37614, issued a Resolution 15 ordering the parties to observe status quo pending resolution of the petition. At the hearing held in said case on October 5, 1995, the DAR, through the Solicitor General, manifested before the said court that the DAR was merely "in the processing stage of the applications of farmers-claimants" and has agreed to respect status quo pending the resolution of the petition. 16
16. In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the DAR Secretary's decision, the pertinent portions of which read:
After a careful evaluation of the petition vis-a-vis the grounds upon which the denial thereof by Secretary Garilao was based, we find that the instant application for conversion by the Municipality of Sumilao, Bukidnon is impressed with merit. To be sure, converting the land in question from agricultural to agro-industrial would open great opportunities for employment and bring about real development in the area towards a sustained economic growth of the municipality. On the other hand, distributing the land to would-be beneficiaries (who are not even tenants, as there are none) does not guarantee such benefits.Nevertheless, on the issue that the land is considered a prime agricultural land with irrigation facility it maybe appropriate to mention that, as claimed by petitioner, while it is true that there is, indeed, an irrigation facility in the area, the same merely passes thru the property (as a right of way) to provide water to the ricelands located on the lower portion thereof. The land itself, subject of the instant petition, is not irrigated as the same was, for several years, planted with pineapple by the Philippine Packing Corporation. On the issue that the land has long been covered by a Notice of Compulsory Acquisition (NCA) and that the existing policy on withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not applicable, suffice it to state that the said NCA was declared null and void by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) as early as March 1, 1992. Deciding in favor of NQSRMDC, the DARAB correctly pointed out that under Section 8 of R.A. No 6657, the subject property could not validly be the subject of compulsory acquisition until after the expiration of the lease contract with Del Monte Philippines, a Multi-National Company, or until April 1994, and ordered the DAR Regional Office and the Land Bank of the Philippines, both in Butuan City, to "desist from pursuing any activity or activities covering petitioner's land.
On this score, we take special notice of the fact that the Quisumbing family has already contributed substantially to the land reform program of the government, as follows: 300 hectares of rice land in Nueva Ecija in the 70's and another 400 hectares in the nearby Municipality of Impasugong, Bukidnon, ten(10) years ago, for which they have not received "just compensation" up to this time.
Neither can the assertion that "there is no clear and tangible compensation package arrangements for the beneficiaries' hold water as, in the first place, there are no beneficiaries to speak about, for the land is not tenanted as already stated.
Nor can procedural lapses in the manner of identifying/reclassifying the subject property for agro-industrial purposes be allowed to defeat the very purpose of the law granting autonomy to local government units in the management of their local affairs. Stated more simply, the language of Section 20 of R.A. No 7160, supra, is clear and affords no room for any other interpretation. By unequivocal legal mandate, it grants local government units autonomy in their local affairs including the power to convert portions of their agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization and disposition to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities.
WHEREFORE, in pursuance of the spirit and intent of the said legal mandate and in view of the favorable recommendations of the various government agencies abovementioned, the subject Order, dated November 14, 1994 of the Hon. Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform, is hereby SET ASIDE and the instant application of NQSRMDC/BAIDA is hereby APPROVED.
17. On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for reconsideration of the OP decision.
18. On September 11, 1996, in compliance with the OP decision of March 29, 1996, NQSRMDC and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) executed a Memorandum of Agreement whereby the former donated four (4) hectares from the subject land to DECS for the establishment of the NQSR High School. When NQSRMDC was about to transfer the title over the 4-hectare donated to DECS, it discovered that the title over the subject property was no longer in its name. It soon found out that during the pendency of both the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, with Preliminary Injunction it filed against DAR in the Court of Appeals and the appeal to the President filed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, the DAR, without giving just compensation, caused the cancellation of NQSRMDC's title on August 11, 1995 and had it transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under TCT No T-50264 of the Registry of Deeds of Bukidnon. Thereafter, on September 25, 1995, DAR caused the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No 00240227 and had it registered in the name of 137 farmer-beneficiaries under TCT No AT-3536 of the Registry of Deeds of Bukidnon.
19. Thus, on April 10, 1997, NQSRMDC filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon (Branch 9), docketed as Civil Case No 2687-97, for annulment and cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others. The RTC then issued a Temporary Restraining Order on April 30, 1997 and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on May 19, 1997, restraining the DAR and 141 others from entering, occupying and/or wresting from NQSRMDC the possession of the subject land.
20. Meanwhile, on June 23, 1997, an Order 24 was issued by then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying DAR's motion for reconsideration for having been filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. The said order further declared that the March 29, 1996 OP decision had already become final and executory.
21. The DAR filed on July 11, 1997 a second motion for reconsideration of the June 23, 1997 Order of the President.
22. On August 12, 1997, the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC was challenged by some alleged farmers before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as CA-GR. SP No 44905, praying for the lifting of the injunction and for the issuance of a writ of prohibition from further trying the RTC case.
23. On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon City to protest the OP Decision of March 29, 1996. On October 10, 1997, some persons claiming to be farmer-beneficiaries of the NQSRMDC property filed a motion for intervention (styled as Memorandum In Intervention) in O.P. Case No 96-C-6424, asking that the OP Decision allowing the conversion of the entire 144-hectare property be set aside.
24. President Fidel V. Ramos then held a dialogue with the strikers and promised to resolve their grievance within the framework of the law. He created an eight (8)-man Fact Finding Task Force (FFTF) chaired by Agriculture Secretary Salvador Escudero to look into the controversy and recommend possible solutions to the problem.
25. On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers' protest by issuing the so-called "Win/Win" Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, dated March 29, 1996, is hereby MODIFIED as follows: 1. NQSRMDC's application for conversion is APPROVED only with respect to the approximately forty-four (44) hectare portion of the land adjacent to the highway, as recommended by the Department of Agriculture. 2. The remaining approximately one hundred (100) hectares traversed by an irrigation canal and found to be suitable for agriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries in accordance with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law with a right of way to said portion from the highway provided in the portion fronting the highway. For this purpose, the DAR and other concerned government agencies are directed to immediately conduct the segregation survey of the area, valuation of the property and generation of titles in the name of the identified farmer-beneficiaries. 3. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby directed to carefully and meticulously determine who among the claimants are qualified farmer-beneficiaries. 4. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby further directed to expedite payment of just compensation to NQSRMDC for the portion of the land to be covered by the CARP, including other lands previously surrendered by NQSRMDC for CARP coverage. 5. The Philippine National Police is hereby directed to render full assistance to the Department of Agrarian Reform in the implementation of this Order.
We take note of the Memorandum in Intervention filed by 113 farmers on October 10, 1997 without ruling on the propriety or merits thereof since it is unnecessary to pass upon it at this time. SO ORDERED.
A copy of the "Win-Win" Resolution was received by Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon, Mayor Rey B. Baula of Sumilao, Bukidnon, and NQSRMDC on November 24, 1997 28 and, on December 4, 1997, they filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition (under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court) and injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction (under Rule 58, ibid.), against then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao. On December 12, 1997, a Motion For Leave To Intervene 29 was filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, through counsel, claiming that they are real parties in interest as they were "previously identified by respondent DAR as agrarian reform beneficiaries on the 144-hectare" property subject of this case. The motion was vehemently opposed 30 by the petitioners.In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution, the petitioners claim that the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution "after a very well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the 'farmers,' by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997. . . ." 31 Thus, petitioners further allege, respondent then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona "committed grave abuse of discretion and acted beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned Resolution of 7 November 1997. . . ." 32 They availed of this extraordinary writ of certiorari "because there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." 33 They never filed a motion for reconsideration of the subject Resolution "because (it) is patently illegal or contrary to law and it would be a futile exercise to seek a reconsideration. . . ." 34The respondents, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition and prayed that it be dismissed outright on the following grounds:
(1) The proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition for review directly with the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court;
(2) The petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution before filing the present petition; and
(3) Petitioner NQSRMDC is guilty of forum-shopping.
These are the preliminary issues which must first be resolved, including the incident on the motion for intervention filed by the alleged farmer-beneficiaries.
Anent the first issue, in order to determine whether the recourse of petitioners is proper or not, it is necessary to draw a line between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. 35 On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. 36 This error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, 38 including the Office of the President, 39 may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for review 40 within fifteen (15) days from notice of the said judgment, final order or resolution, 41 whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
However, we hold that, in this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is "patently illegal" 43 and was issued with "grave abuse of discretion" and "beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato C. Corona's) jurisdiction" 44 when said resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had long become final and executory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as what the petitioners have correctly done. The pertinent portion of Section 1 thereof provides:
Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
xxx xxx xxx The office of a writ of certiorari is restricted to truly extraordinary cases — cases in which the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void. The aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 65 mandates that the person aggrieved by the assailed illegal act "may file a verified petition (for certiorari) in the proper court." The proper court where the petition must be filed is stated in Section 4 of the same Rule 65 which reads:
Sec. 4. Where petition filed. — The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. (4a)
Under the above-qouted Section 4, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, 46 prohibition 47 and mandamus. 48 But the jurisdiction of these three (3) courts are also delineated in that, if the challenged act relates to acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, the petition must be filed with the Regional Trial Court which exercises jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. And if it involves the act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, the petition shall be filed only with the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court. We have clearly discussed this matter of concurrence of jurisdiction in People vs. Cuaresma, et. al., 49 through now Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, thus: . . . . This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court), although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latter's competence to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted to those "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction." This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. (Citations omitted)
But the Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly to it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases, namely: 50 Uy vs. Contreras, et. al., 51 Torres vs. Arranz, 52 Bercero vs. De Guzman, 53 and Advincula vs. Legaspi, et. al. 54 As we have further stated in Cuaresma:
. . . . A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket.
Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy justice 55 and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed resolution. Moreover, as will be discussed later, we find the assailed resolution wholly void and requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money.
That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well-entrenched, in our jurisprudence. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. Court of Appeals: 56
Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require. In the instant petition, we forego a lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been taken by the parties involved and proceed directly to the merits of the case.
As to the second issue of whether the petitioners committed a fatal procedural lapse when they failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution before seeking judicial recourse, suffice it to state that the said motion is not necessary when the questioned resolution is a patent nullity, 57 as will be taken up later.
With respect to the third issue, the respondents claim that the filing by the petitioners of: (a) a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction (CA-GR. SP No 37614) with the Court of Appeals; (b) a complaint for annulment and cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others (Civil Case No 2687-97) with the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon; and (c) the present petition, constitute forum shopping. We disagree.
The rule is that: There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigation commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. This specially so, as in this case, where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction (citations omitted).
The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping has been laid down in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez (145 SCRA 34), . . . and that is, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, as follows: There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC Case No 86-36563 identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, as well as identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant. It is clear from the above-quoted rule that the petitioners are not guilty of forum shopping. The test for determining whether a party has violated the rule against forum shopping is where a final judgment in one case will amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration. A cursory examination of the cases filed by the petitioners does not show that the said cases are similar with each other. The petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals sought the nullification of the DAR Secretary's order to proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the subject property. On the other hand, the civil case in RTC of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for the annulment and cancellation of title issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, with damages, was based on the following grounds: (1) the DAR, in applying for cancellation of petitioner NQSRMDC's title, used documents which were earlier declared null and void by the DARAB; (2) the cancellation of NQSRMDC's title was made without payment of just compensation; and (3) without notice to NQSRMDC for the surrender of its title. The present petition is entirely different from the said two cases as it seeks the nullification of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution of the Office of the President dated November 7, 1997, which resolution was issued long after the previous two cases were instituted.
The fourth and final preliminary issue to be resolved is the motion for intervention filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, which we have to deny for lack of merit. In their motion, movants contend that they are the farmer-beneficiaries of the land in question, hence, are real parties in interest. To prove this, they attached as Annex "I" in their motion a Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries. Apparently, the alleged master list was made pursuant to the directive in the dispositive portion of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution which directs the DAR "to carefully and meticulously determine who among the claimants are qualified farmer-beneficiaries." However, a perusal of the said document reveals that movants are those purportedly "Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval." In other words, movants are merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in interest is a party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Real interest means a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. Undoubtedly, movants' interest over the land in question is a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in interest.
Furthermore, the challenged resolution upon which movants based their motion is, as intimated earlier, null and void. Hence, their motion for intervention has no leg to stand on.
Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the "Win-Win" Resolution. We rule in the negative.
The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No 18. Section 7 thereof provides:
Sec. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall, except as otherwise provided for by special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period. Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious cases.
It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable.
When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative Order No 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in "exceptionally meritorious cases," as provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not have been entertained considering that the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations.
In San Luis, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. 60 we held:
Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the President had long become final and executory, the same can no longer be reviewed by the courts. It is well-established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata [Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956), Ipekdijna Merchandizing Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, GR No L-15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72.] The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers [Brillantes v. Castro, supra at 503].
The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. 61 This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down.
Therefore, the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void. Such void resolution, as aptly stressed by Justice Thomas A. Street in a 1918 case, is "a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Resolution dated November 7, 1997, issued by the Office of the President in OP Case No 96-C-6424, is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Motion For Leave To Intervene filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries is hereby DENIED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
GR No 127876 December 17, 1999 ROXAS & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, respondents.
This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the government under Republic Act No 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and is registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 985. This land is covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468, 0470, 0234 and 0354. Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area, registered under TCT No 924 and covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0236, 0237 and 0390. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area and is registered under TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665. The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then President Corazon C. Aquino. In February 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No 3 promulgating a Provisional Constitution. As head of the provisional government, the President exercised legislative power "until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution." In the exercise of this legislative power, the President signed on July 22, 1987, Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and Executive Order No. 229 providing the mechanisms necessary to initially implement the program.
On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power from the President. 2 This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988.
Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL.
Hacienda Palico On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice entitled "Invitation to Parties" to petitioner. The Invitation was addressed to "Jaime Pimentel, Hda. Administrator, Hda. Palico." 3 Therein, the MARO invited petitioner to a conference on October 6, 1989 at the DAR office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the DAR investigation of Hacienda Palico, which was "scheduled for compulsory acquisition this year under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program." 4
On October 25, 1989, the MARO completed three (3) Investigation Reports after investigation and ocular inspection of the Hacienda. In the first Report, the MARO found that 270 hectares under Tax Declaration Nos. 465, 466, 468 and 470 were "flat to undulating (0-8% slope)" and actually occupied and cultivated by 34 tillers of sugarcane. 5 In the second Report, the MARO identified as "flat to undulating" approximately 339 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0234 which also had several actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane; 6 while in the third Report, the MARO found approximately 75 hectare under Tax Declaration No. 0354 as "flat to undulating" with 33 actual occupants and tillers also of sugarcane.
On October 27, 1989, a "Summary Investigation Report" was submitted and signed jointly by the MARO, representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), and by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). The Report recommended that 333.0800 hectares of Hacienda Palico be subject to compulsory acquisition at a value of P6,807,622.20. 8 The following day, October 28, 1989, two (2) more Summary Investigation Reports were submitted by the same officers and representatives. They recommended that 270.0876 hectares and 75.3800 hectares be placed under compulsory acquisition at a compensation of P8,109,739.00 and P2,188,195.47, respectively. 9
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR through then Department Secretary Miriam D. Santiago sent a "Notice of Acquisition" to petitioner. The Notice was addressed as follows: Roxas y Cia, Limited Soriano Bldg., Plaza Cervantes Manila, Metro Manila.
Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in Hacienda Palico were subject to immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL; that based on the DAR's valuation criteria, the government was offering compensation of P3.4 million for 333.0800 hectares; that whether this offer was to be accepted or rejected, petitioner was to inform the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) of the DAR; that in case of petitioner's rejection or failure to reply within thirty days, respondent DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings with notice to petitioner to determine just compensation for the land; that if petitioner accepts respondent DAR's offer, or upon deposit of the compensation with an accessible bank if it rejects the same, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land. 11
Almost two years later, on September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager three (3) separate Memoranda entitled "Request to Open Trust Account." Each Memoranda requested that a trust account representing the valuation of three portions of Hacienda Palico be opened in favor of the petitioner in view of the latter's rejection of its offered value. 12
Meanwhile in a letter dated May 4, 1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion of Haciendas Palico and Banilad from agricultural to non-agricultural lands under the provisions of the CARL. 13 On July 14, 1993, petitioner sent a letter to the DAR Regional Director reiterating its request for conversion of the two haciendas. 14
Despite petitioner's application for conversion, respondent DAR proceeded with the acquisition of the two Haciendas. The LBP trust accounts as compensation for Hacienda Palico were replaced by respondent DAR with cash and LBP bonds. 15 On October 22, 1993, from the mother title of TCT No. 985 of the Hacienda, respondent DAR registered Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6654. On October 30, 1993, CLOA's were distributed to farmer beneficiaries. 16
Hacienda Banilad
On August 23, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MARO of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice to petitioner addressed as follows: Mr. Jaime Pimentel Hacienda Administrator Hacienda Banilad Nasugbu, Batangas
The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to compulsory acquisition under the CARL; that should petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes such as Voluntary Offer to Sell or Voluntary Land Transfer, respondent DAR was willing to provide assistance thereto. 18
On September 18, 1989, the MARO sent an "Invitation to Parties" again to Pimentel inviting the latter to attend a conference on September 21, 1989 at the MARO Office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the MARO's investigation over Hacienda Banilad. 19
On September 21, 1989, the same day the conference was held, the MARO submitted two (2) Reports. In his first Report, he found that approximately 709 hectares of land under Tax Declaration Nos. 0237 and 0236 were "flat to undulating (0-8% slope)." On this area were discovered 162 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane. 20 In the second Report, it was found that approximately 235 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0390 were "flat to undulating," on which were 92 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane. The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference. Present in the conference were representatives of the prospective farmer beneficiaries, the BARC, the LBP, and Jaime Pimentel on behalf of the landowner. 22 After the meeting, on the same day, September 21, 1989, a Summary Investigation Report was submitted jointly by the MARO, representatives of the BARC, LBP, and the PARO. They recommended that after ocular inspection of the property, 234.6498 hectares under Tax Declaration No 0390 be subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution by CLOA. 23 The following day, September 22, 1989, a second Summary Investigation was submitted by the same officers. They recommended that 737.2590 hectares under Tax Declaration Nos. 0236 and 0237 be likewise placed under compulsory acquisition for distribution. 24
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department Secretary, sent to petitioner two (2) separate "Notices of Acquisition" over Hacienda Banilad. These Notices were sent on the same day as the Notice of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the Notice over Hacienda Palico, however, the Notices over Hacienda Banilad were addressed to: Roxas y Cia. Limited 7th Floor, Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. 101 Aguirre St., Leg. Makati, Metro Manila. Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of P15,108,995.52 for 729.4190 hectares and P4,428,496.00 for 234.6498 hectares.
On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager a "Request to Open Trust Account" in petitioner's name as compensation for 234.6493 hectares of Hacienda Banilad. 27 A second "Request to Open Trust Account" was sent on November 18, 1991 over 723.4130 hectares of said Hacienda. On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts of P4,428,496.40 and P21,234,468.78 in cash and LBP bonds had been earmarked as compensation for petitioner's land in Hacienda Banilad. On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
Hacienda Caylaway. Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988 before the effectivity of the CARL. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles — TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665. On January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director for Region IV, sent to petitioner two (2) separate Resolutions accepting petitioner's voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway, particularly TCT Nos. T-44664 and T-44663. 30 The Resolutions were addressed to: Roxas & Company, Inc. 7th Flr. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. Aguirre, Legaspi Village Makati, M. M On September 4, 1990, the DAR Regional Director issued two separate Memoranda to the LBP Regional Manager requesting for the valuation of the land under TCT Nos. T-44664 and T-44663. 32 On the same day, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director, sent to petitioner a "Notice of Acquisition" over 241.6777 hectares under TCT No T-44664 and 533.8180 hectares under TCT No T-44663. 33 Like the Resolutions of Acceptance, the Notice of Acquisition was addressed to petitioner at its office in Makati, Metro Manila. Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses. In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that a reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent Secretary also denied petitioner's withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the slope of the land is over 18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped. 35Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993, petitioner filed its application for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad. 36 On July 14, 1993, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo Roxas, reiterated its request to withdraw the VOS over Hacienda Caylaway in light of the following:
1) Certification issued by Conrado I. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge, Department of Agriculture, Region 4, 4th Floor, ATI (BA) Bldg., Diliman, Quezon City dated March 1, 1993 stating that the lands subject of referenced titles "are not feasible and economically sound for further agricultural development.
2) Resolution No 19 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas approving the Zoning Ordinance reclassifying areas covered by the referenced titles to non-agricultural which was enacted after extensive consultation with government agencies, including [the Department of Agrarian Reform], and the requisite public hearings.
3) Resolution No 106 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas dated March 8, 1993 approving the Zoning Ordinance enacted by the Municipality of Nasugbu.
4) Letter dated December 15, 1992 issued by Reynaldo U. Garcia of the Municipal Planning & Development, Coordinator and Deputized Zoning Administrator addressed to Mrs. Alicia P. Logarta advising that the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas has no objection to the conversion of the lands subject of referenced titles to non-agricultural. 37
On August 24, 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. N-0017-96-46 (BA) with respondent DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOA's issued by respondent DAR in the name of several persons. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the haciendas are located, had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for agricultural production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to non-agricultural.
In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved the prejudicial question of whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence, this question should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.
On October 29, 1993, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals CA GR SP No. 32484. It questioned the expropriation of its properties under the CARL and the denial of due process in the acquisition of its landholdings.
Meanwhile, the petition for conversion of the three haciendas was denied by the MARO on November 8, 1993.
Petitioner's petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 28, 1994. 39 Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied on January 17, 1997 by respondent court. 40
Hence, this recourse. Petitioner assigns the following errors:
A. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION IS PREMATURE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN VIEW OF THE PATENT ILLEGALITY OF THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS, THE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE CAUSED BY SAID ILLEGAL ACTS, AND THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW — ALL OF WHICH ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SAID DOCTRINE.
B. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO COVERAGE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW, IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 1520 WHICH DECLARED THE MUNICIPALITY NASUGBU, BATANGAS AS A TOURIST ZONE, AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU RE-CLASSIFYING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS AS NON-AGRICULTURAL, BOTH OF WHICH PLACE SAID LANDHOLDINGS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF AGRARIAN REFORM, OR AT THE VERY LEAST ENTITLE PETITIONER TO APPLY FOR CONVERSION AS CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT DAR.
C. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT DAR VOID FOR FAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS, CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PROCEDURE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS UNDER R.A. 6657, MORE PARTICULARLY, IN FAILING TO GIVE DUE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC AREAS SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED.
D. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT PETITIONER WAS BRAZENLY AND ILLEGALLY DEPRIVED OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT PAID JUST COMPENSATION BEFORE IT WAS UNCEREMONIOUSLY STRIPPED OF ITS LANDHOLDINGS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF CLOA'S TO ALLEGED FARMER BENEFICIARIES, IN VIOLATION OF R.A. 6657.
The assigned errors involve three (3) principal issues: (1) whether this Court can take cognizance of this petition despite petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) whether the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance with law; and (3) assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural, whether this court has the power to rule on this issue.
I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
In its first assigned error, petitioner claims that respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. As a general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress. This is not absolute, however. There are instances when judicial action may be resorted to immediately. Among these exceptions are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal; (2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; (4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when the respondent acted in disregard of due process; (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter; (7) when irreparable damage will be suffered; (8) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (9) when strong public interest is involved; (10) when the subject of the controversy is private land; and (11) in quo warranto proceedings.
Petitioner rightly sought immediate redress in the courts. There was a violation of its rights and to require it to exhaust administrative remedies before the DAR itself was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) to farmer beneficiaries over portions of petitioner's land without just compensation to petitioner. A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R.A. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Before this may be awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the State from the landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner. There was no receipt by petitioner of any compensation for any of the lands acquired by the government.
The kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The law provides that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or "LBP bonds." 45 Respondent DAR's opening of trust account deposits in petitioner' s name with the Land Bank of the Philippines does not constitute payment under the law. Trust account deposits are not cash or LBP bonds. The replacement of the trust account with cash or LBP bonds did not ipso facto cure the lack of compensation; for essentially, the determination of this compensation was marred by lack of due process. In fact, in the entire acquisition proceedings, respondent DAR disregarded the basic requirements of administrative due process. Under these circumstances, the issuance of the CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries necessitated immediate judicial action on the part of the petitioner.
II. The Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings Over the Haciendas.
Petitioner's allegation of lack of due process goes into the validity of the acquisition proceedings themselves. Before we rule on this matter, however, there is need to lay down the procedure in the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the law.
A. Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657
RA No 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), provides for 2 modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for the compulsory acquisition of private lands is set forth in Sec16 of R.A. 6657, viz:
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed: a). After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof. b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title. d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination of just compensation.
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of the land acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 46 Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process must be made. To fill in this gap, the DAR issued on July 26, 1989 Administrative Order No 12, Series or 1989, which set the operating procedure in the identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows:
II. OPERATING PROCEDURE
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, with the assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall: 1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area of responsibility. The masterlist shall include such information as required under the attached CARP Masterlist Form which shall include the name of the landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number. 2. Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land acquisition. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms: a) CARP CA Form 1 — MARO Investigation Report b) CARP CA Form 2 — Summary Investigation Report of Findings and Evaluation c) CARP CA Form 3 — Applicant's Information Sheet d) CARP CA Form 4 — Beneficiaries Undertaking e) CARP CA Form 5 — Transmittal
Report to the PARO The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct.
3. Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC representative(s), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views, objection, agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner shall also be asked to indicate his retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF.
4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).
B. The PARO shall:
1. Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs.
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land in accordance with A.O. No 6, Series of 1988. 47 The valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms.
3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds = 500,000 per estate.
4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the Central Office. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report.
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall:
1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the case folder. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the review and final valuation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the Notice to the landowner personally or through registered mail within three days from its approval. The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No 13, Series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
Administrative Order No 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate his retention area.
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property. The BLAD shall prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition for the subject property. 48 From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of R.A. 6657 then apply. 49
For a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. 50 But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. 51 The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." 52 The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. 53 The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property.
DAR A.O. No 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first sprung, was amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No 9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O. No 1, Series of 1993. The Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to the conference meeting were expanded and amplified in said amendments.
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to R.A. 6657," requires that:
B. MARO
1. Receives the duly accomplished CARP Form Nos. 1 & 1.1 including supporting documents.
2. Gathers basic ownership documents listed under 1.a or 1.b above and prepares corresponding VOCF/CACF by landowner/landholding.
3. Notifies/invites the landowner and representatives of the LBP, DENR, BARC and prospective beneficiaries of the schedule of ocular inspection of the property at least one week in advance.
4. MARO/LAND BANK FIELD OFFICE/BARC
a) Identify the land and landowner, and determine the suitability for agriculture and productivity of the land and jointly prepare Field Investigation Report (CARP Form No. 2), including the Land Use Map of the property.
b) Interview applicants and assist them in the preparation of the Application For Potential CARP Beneficiary (CARP Form No. 3).
c) Screen prospective farmer-beneficiaries and for those found qualified, cause the signing of the respective Application to Purchase and Farmer's Undertaking (CARP Form No. 4).
d) Complete the Field Investigation Report based on the result of the ocular inspection/investigation of the property and documents submitted. See to it that Field Investigation Report is duly accomplished and signed by all concerned.
5. MARO
a) Assists the DENR Survey Party in the conduct of a boundary/ subdivision survey delineating areas covered by OLT, retention, subject of VOS, CA (by phases, if possible), infrastructures, etc., whichever is applicable.
b) Sends Notice of Coverage (CARP Form No. 5) to landowner concerned or his duly authorized representative inviting him for a conference.
c) Sends Invitation Letter (CARP Form No. 6) for a conference/public hearing to prospective farmer-beneficiaries, landowner, representatives of BARC, LBP, DENR, DA, NGO's, farmers' organizations and other interested parties to discuss the following matters:
Result of Field Investigation Inputs to valuation Issues raised
Comments/recommendations by all parties concerned.
d) Prepares Summary of Minutes of the conference/public hearing to be guided by CARP Form No. 7.
e) Forwards the completed VOCF/CACF to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) using CARP Form No. 8 (Transmittal Memo to PARO). xxx xxx xxx
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) transactions involving lands enumerated under Section 7 of the CARL. 54 In both VOS and CA. transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell Case Folder (VOCF) and the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF), as the case may be, over a particular landholding. The MARO notifies the landowner as well as representatives of the LBP, BARC and prospective beneficiaries of the date of the ocular inspection of the property at least one week before the scheduled date and invites them to attend the same. The MARO, LBP or BARC conducts the ocular inspection and investigation by identifying the land and landowner, determining the suitability of the land for agriculture and productivity, interviewing and screening prospective farmer beneficiaries. Based on its investigation, the MARO, LBP or BARC prepares the Field Investigation Report which shall be signed by all parties concerned. In addition to the field investigation, a boundary or subdivision survey of the land may also be conducted by a Survey Party of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to be assisted by the MARO. 55 This survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT), areas retained by the landowner, areas with infrastructure, and the areas subject to VOS and CA. After the survey and field investigation, the MARO sends a "Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly authorized representative inviting him to a conference or public hearing with the farmer beneficiaries, representatives of the BARC, LBP, DENR, Department of Agriculture (DA), non-government organizations, farmer's organizations and other interested parties. At the public hearing, the parties shall discuss the results of the field investigation, issues that may be raised in relation thereto, inputs to the valuation of the subject landholding, and other comments and recommendations by all parties concerned. The Minutes of the conference/public hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files shall be forwarded by the MARO to the PARO. The PARO reviews, evaluates and validates the Field Investigation Report and other documents in the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards the records to the RARO for another review.
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 was amended by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993 provided, among others, that:
IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES:
Steps Responsible Activity Forms/Agency/Unit Document(requirements)
A. Identification and Documentation xxx xxx xxx
5 DARMO Issue Notice of Coverage CARP to LO by personal delivery Form No.2 with proof of service, or registered mail with return card, informing him that his property is now under CARP coverage and for LO to select his retention area, if he desires to avail of his right of retention; and at the same time invites him to join the field investigation to be conducted on his property which should be scheduled at least two weeks in advance of said notice. A copy of said Notice shall CARP be posted for at least one Form No.17 week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the property is located. LGU office concerned notifies DAR about compliance with posting requirements thru return indorsement on CARP Form No.17.
6 DARMO Send notice to the LBP, CARP BARC, DENR representatives Form No.3 and prospective ARBs of the schedule of the field investigation to be conducted on the subject property.
7 DARMO With the participation of CARP BARC the LO, representatives of Form No. 4 LBP the LBP, BARC, DENR Land Use DENR and prospective ARBs, Map Local Office conducts the investigation on subject property to identify the landholding, determines its suitability and productivity; and jointly prepares the Field Investigation Report (FIR) and Land Use Map. However, the field investigation shall proceed even if the LO, the representatives of the DENR and prospective ARBs are not available provided, they were given due notice of the time and date of investigation to be conducted. Similarly, if the LBP representative is not available or could not come on the scheduled date, the field investigation shall also be conducted, after which the duly accomplished Part I of CARP Form No. 4 shall be forwarded to the LBP representative for validation. If he agrees to the ocular inspection report of DAR, he signs the FIR (Part I) and accomplishes Part II thereof. In the event that there is a difference or variance between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to the propriety of covering the land under CARP, whether in whole or in part, on the issue of suitability to agriculture, degree of development or slope, and on issues affecting idle lands, the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall jointly conduct further investigation thereon. The team shall submit its report of findings which shall be binding to both DAR and LBP, pursuant to Joint Memorandum Circular of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA dated 27 January 1992.
8 DARMO Screen prospective ARBs BARC and causes the signing of CARP the Application of Purchase Form No. 5 and Farmer's Undertaking (APFU).
9 DARMO Furnishes a copy of the CARP duly accomplished FIR to FormNo 4 the landowner by personaldelivery with proof of service or registered mail Will return card and posts a copy thereof for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the property is located. LGU office concerned CARP notifies DAR about Form No.17 compliance with posting requirement thru return endorsement on CARP Form No.17.
B. Land Survey
10 DARMO Conducts perimeter or Perimeter And/or segregation survey or DENR delineating areas covered Segregation Local Office by OLT, "uncarpable Survey Plan areas such as 18% slope and above, unproductive/unsuitable to agriculture, retention, infrastructure. In case of segregation or subdivision survey, the plan shall be approved by DENR-LMS.
C. Review and Completion of Documents
11. DARMO Forward VOCF/CACF CARP to DARPO. Form No. 6 xxx xxx xxx.
DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and increased the number of government agencies involved in the identification and delineation of the land subject to acquisition. 56 This time, the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner before the conduct of the field investigation and the sending must comply with specific requirements. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office (DARMO) must send the Notice of Coverage to the landowner by "personal delivery with proof of service, or by registered mail with return card," informing him that his property is under CARP coverage and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention, he may choose which area he shall retain. The Notice of Coverage shall also invite the landowner to attend the field investigation to be scheduled at least two weeks from notice. The field investigation is for the purpose of identifying the landholding and determining its suitability for agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be posted for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the property is located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by the DAR Municipal Office to representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR and prospective farmer beneficiaries. The field investigation shall be conducted on the date set with the participation of the landowner and the various representatives. If the landowner and other representatives are absent, the field investigation shall proceed, provided they were duly notified thereof. Should there be a variance between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to whether the land be placed under agrarian reform, the land's suitability to agriculture, the degree or development of the slope, etc., the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall jointly conduct further investigation. The team's findings shall be binding on both DAR and LBP. After the field investigation, the DAR Municipal Office shall prepare the Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map, a copy of which shall be furnished the landowner "by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with return card." Another copy of the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week in the municipal or barangay halls where the property is located.
Clearly then, the notice requirements under the CARL are not confined to the Notice of Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. They also include the Notice of Coverage first laid down in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 and DAR A.O. No.1, Series of 1993. This Notice of Coverage does not merely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention right; it also notifies him, pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990, that a public hearing, shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent matters. Under DAR A.O. No.1, Series of 1993, the Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be present.
B. The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad
In the case at bar, respondent DAR claims that it, through MARO Leopoldo C. Lejano, sent a letter of invitation entitled "Invitation to Parties" dated September 29, 1989 to petitioner corporation, through Jaime Pimentel, the administrator of Hacienda Palico. 57 The invitation was received on the same day it was sent as indicated by a signature and the date received at the bottom left corner of said invitation. With regard to Hacienda Banilad, respondent DAR claims that Jaime Pimentel, administrator also of Hacienda Banilad, was notified and sent an invitation to the conference. Pimentel actually attended the conference on September 21, 1989 and signed the Minutes of the meeting on behalf of petitioner corporation. 58 The Minutes was also signed by the representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries. No letter of invitation was sent or conference meeting held with respect to Hacienda Caylaway because it was subject to a Voluntary Offer to Sell to respondent DAR. When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), sent to the various parties the Notice of Coverage and invitation to the conference, DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989 was already in effect more than a month earlier. The Operating Procedure in DAR Administrative Order No.12 does not specify how notices or letters of invitation shall be sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, the LBP, the farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties. The procedure in the sending of these notices is important to comply with the requisites of due process especially when the owner, as in this case, is a juridical entity. Petitioner is a domestic corporation, and therefore, has a personality separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and employees.
The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to be sent to the landowner by "personal delivery or registered mail." Whether the landowner be a natural or juridical person to whose address the Notice may be sent by personal delivery or registered mail, the law does not distinguish. The DAR Administrative Orders also do not distinguish. In the proceedings before the DAR, the distinction between natural and juridical persons in the sending of notices may be found in the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Service of pleadings before the DARAB is governed by Section 6, Rule V of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure. Notices and pleadings are served on private domestic corporations or partnerships in the following manner:
Sec. 6. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation or Partnership. — If the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors or partners.
Similarly, the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, in Section 13, Rule 14 provides:
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. — If the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors.
Summonses, pleadings and notices in cases against a private domestic corporation before the DARAB and the regular courts are served on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors. These persons are those through whom the private domestic corporation or partnership is capable of action. 62
Jaime Pimentel is not the president, manager, secretary, cashier or director of petitioner corporation. Is he, as administrator of the two Haciendas, considered an agent of the corporation?
The purpose of all rules for service of process on a corporation is to make it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against it. 63 Service must be made on a representative so integrated with the corporation as to make it a priori supposable that he will realize his responsibilities and know what he should do with any legal papers served on him, 64 and bring home to the corporation notice of the filing of the action. 65 Petitioner's evidence does not show the official duties of Jaime Pimentel as administrator of petitioner's haciendas. The evidence does not indicate whether Pimentel's duties is so integrated with the corporation that he would immediately realize his responsibilities and know what he should do with any legal papers served on him. At the time the notices were sent and the preliminary conference conducted, petitioner's principal place of business was listed in respondent DAR's records as "Soriano Bldg., Plaza Cervantes, Manila," 66 and "7th Flr. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg., 101 Aguirre St., Makati, Metro Manila." 67 Pimentel did not hold office at the principal place of business of petitioner. Neither did he exercise his functions in Plaza Cervantes, Manila nor in Cacho-Gonzales Bldg., Makati, Metro Manila. He performed his official functions and actually resided in the haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas, a place over two hundred kilometers away from Metro Manila.
Curiously, respondent DAR had information of the address of petitioner's principal place of business. The Notices of Acquisition over Haciendas Palico and Banilad were addressed to petitioner at its offices in Manila and Makati. These Notices were sent barely three to four months after Pimentel was notified of the preliminary conference. 68 Why respondent DAR chose to notify Pimentel instead of the officers of the corporation was not explained by the said respondent.
Nevertheless, assuming that Pimentel was an agent of petitioner corporation, and the notices and letters of invitation were validly served on petitioner through him, there is no showing that Pimentel himself was duly authorized to attend the conference meeting with the MARO, BARC and LBP representatives and farmer beneficiaries for purposes of compulsory acquisition of petitioner's landholdings. Even respondent DAR's evidence does not indicate this authority. On the contrary, petitioner claims that it had no knowledge of the letter-invitation, hence, could not have given Pimentel the authority to bind it to whatever matters were discussed or agreed upon by the parties at the preliminary conference or public hearing. Notably, one year after Pimentel was informed of the preliminary conference, DAR A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 was issued and this required that the Notice of Coverage must be sent "to the landowner concerned or his duly authorized representative." Assuming further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP coverage of its haciendas, the areas found actually subject to CARP were not properly identified before they were taken over by respondent DAR. Respondents insist that the lands were identified because they are all registered property and the technical description in their respective titles specifies their metes and bounds. Respondents admit at the same time, however, that not all areas in the haciendas were placed under the comprehensive agrarian reform program invariably by reason of elevation or character or use of the land. 70
The acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of the two haciendas, but only portions thereof. Hacienda Palico has an area of 1,024 hectares and only 688.7576 hectares were targetted for acquisition. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050 hectares but only 964.0688 hectares were subject to CARP. The haciendas are not entirely agricultural lands. In fact, the various tax declarations over the haciendas describe the landholdings as "sugarland," and "forest, sugarland, pasture land, horticulture and woodland." 71
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the sending of the Notice of Acquisition specifically requires that the land subject to land reform be first identified. The two haciendas in the instant case cover vast tracts of land. Before Notices of Acquisition were sent to petitioner, however, the exact areas of the landholdings were not properly segregated and delineated. Upon receipt of this notice, therefore, petitioner corporation had no idea which portions of its estate were subject to compulsory acquisition, which portions it could rightfully retain, whether these retained portions were compact or contiguous, and which portions were excluded from CARP coverage. Even respondent DAR's evidence does not show that petitioner, through its duly authorized representative, was notified of any ocular inspection and investigation that was to be conducted by respondent DAR. Neither is there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired compulsorily. The right of retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed in Section 6 of the CARL, viz:
Sec. 6. Retention Limits. — . . . . The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner; Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
Under the law, a landowner may retain not more than five hectares out of the total area of his agricultural land subject to CARP. The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, pertains to the landowner. If the area chosen for retention is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain on the portion or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.
C. The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway
Petitioner was also left in the dark with respect to Hacienda Caylaway, which was the subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). The VOS in the instant case was made on May 6, 1988, before the effectivity of R.A. 6657 on June 15, 1988. VOS transactions were first governed by DAR Administrative Order No. 19, series of 1989, and under this order, all VOS filed before June 15, 1988 shall be heard and processed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Executive Order No. 229, thus:
III. All VOS transactions which are now pending before the DAR and for which no payment has been made shall be subject to the notice and hearing requirements provided in Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989, dated 26 July 1989, Section II, Subsection A, paragraph 3.
All VOS filed before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of the CARL, shall be heard and processed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Executive Order No. 229. xxx xxx xxx.
Sec. 9 of E.O. 229 provides:
Sec. 9. Voluntary Offer to Sell. — The government shall purchase all agricultural lands it deems productive and suitable to farmer cultivation voluntarily offered for sale to it at a valuation determined in accordance with Section 6. Such transaction shall be exempt from the payment of capital gains tax and other taxes and fees.
Executive Order 229 does not contain the procedure for the identification of private land as set forth in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989. Section 5 of E.O. 229 merely reiterates the procedure of acquisition in Section 16, R.A. 6657. In other words, the E.O. is silent as to the procedure for the identification of the land, the notice of coverage and the preliminary conference with the landowner, representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries. Does this mean that these requirements may be dispensed with regard to VOS filed before June 15, 1988? The answer is no.
First of all, the same E.O. 229, like Section 16 of the CARL, requires that the land, landowner and beneficiaries of the land subject to agrarian reform be identified before the notice of acquisition should be issued. 74 Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale in 1989. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles. In two separate Resolutions both dated January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director, formally accepted the VOS over the two of these four titles. 75 The land covered by two titles has an area of 855.5257 hectares, but only 648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage of R.A. 6657. 76 Petitioner claims it does not know where these portions are located.
Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four titles were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied participation therein, The results of the survey and the land valuation summary report, however, do not indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and received by petitioner or its duly authorized representative. 77 To reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay down the operating procedure, much less the notice requirements, before the VOS is accepted by respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner, however, cannot be dispensed with. It is part of administrative due process and is an essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to exercise, at the very least, his right of retention guaranteed under the CARL.
III. The Conversion of the three Haciendas.
It is petitioner's claim that the three haciendas are not subject to agrarian reform because they have been declared for tourism, not agricultural purposes. 78 In 1975, then President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1520 declaring the municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas a tourist zone. Lands in Nasugbu, including the subject haciendas, were allegedly reclassified as non-agricultural 13 years before the effectivity of R. A. No. 6657. 79 In 1993, the Regional Director for Region IV of the Department of Agriculture certified that the haciendas are not feasible and sound for agricultural development. 80 On March 20, 1992, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1520, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas adopted Resolution No. 19 reclassifying certain areas of Nasugbu as non-agricultural. 81 This Resolution approved Municipal Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1992, the Revised Zoning Ordinance of Nasugbu 82 which zoning ordinance was based on a Land Use Plan for Planning Areas for New Development allegedly prepared by the University of the Philippines. 83 Resolution No. 19 of the Sangguniang Bayan was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas on March 8, 1993. 84
Petitioner claims that proclamation No. 1520 was also upheld by respondent DAR in 1991 when it approved conversion of 1,827 hectares in Nasugbu into a tourist area known as the Batulao Resort Complex, and 13.52 hectares in Barangay Caylaway as within the potential tourist belt. 85 Petitioner present evidence before us that these areas are adjacent to the haciendas subject of this petition, hence, the haciendas should likewise be converted. Petitioner urges this Court to take cognizance of the conversion proceedings and rule accordingly. 6
We do not agree. Respondent DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioner's landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural. The agency charged with the mandate of approving or disapproving applications for conversion is the DAR.
At the time petitioner filed its application for conversion, the Rules of Procedure governing the processing and approval of applications for land use conversion was the DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 1990. Under this A.O., the application for conversion is filed with the MARO where the property is located. The MARO reviews the application and its supporting documents and conducts field investigation and ocular inspection of the property. The findings of the MARO are subject to review and evaluation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). The PARO may conduct further field investigation and submit a supplemental report together with his recommendation to the Regional Agrarian Reform Officer (RARO) who shall review the same. For lands less than five hectares, the RARO shall approve or disapprove applications for conversion. For lands exceeding five hectares, the RARO shall evaluate the PARO Report and forward the records and his report to the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs. Applications over areas exceeding fifty hectares are approved or disapproved by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
The DAR's mandate over applications for conversion was first laid down in Section 4 (j) and Section 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987 and reiterated in the CARL and Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President. The DAR's jurisdiction over applications for conversion is provided as follows:
A. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to "approve or disapprove applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses," pursuant to Section 4 (j) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987.
B. Sec. 5 (l) of E.O. 129-A, Series of 1987, vests in the DAR, exclusive authority to approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses.
C. Sec. 65 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, likewise empowers the DAR to authorize under certain conditions, the conversion of agricultural lands.
D. Sec. 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President, provides that "action on applications for land use conversion on individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of the DAR, which shall utilize as its primary reference, documents on the comprehensive land use plans and accompanying ordinances passed upon and approved by the local government units concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy, pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 and E.O. No. 129-A. 87
Applications for conversion were initially governed by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands and Non-Agricultural Uses," and DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 1990 entitled "Rules of Procedure Governing the Processing and Approval of Applications for Land Use Conversion." These A.O.'s and other implementing guidelines, including Presidential issuances and national policies related to land use conversion have been consolidated in DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 1997. Under this recent issuance, the guiding principle in land use conversion is:
to preserve prime agricultural lands for food production while, at the same time, recognizing the need of the other sectors of society (housing, industry and commerce) for land, when coinciding with the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law to promote social justice, industrialization and the optimum use of land as a national resource for public welfare. 88
"Land Use" refers to the manner of utilization of land, including its allocation, development and management. "Land Use Conversion" refers to the act or process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR. 89 The conversion of agricultural land to uses other than agricultural requires field investigation and conferences with the occupants of the land. They involve factual findings and highly technical matters within the special training and expertise of the DAR. DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of 1997 lays down with specificity how the DAR must go about its task. This time, the field investigation is not conducted by the MARO but by a special task force, known as the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI-DAR Central Office). The procedure is that once an application for conversion is filed, the CLUPPI prepares the Notice of Posting. The MARO only posts the notice and thereafter issues a certificate to the fact of posting. The CLUPPI conducts the field investigation and dialogues with the applicants and the farmer beneficiaries to ascertain the information necessary for the processing of the application. The Chairman of the CLUPPI deliberates on the merits of the investigation report and recommends the appropriate action. This recommendation is transmitted to the Regional Director, thru the Undersecretary, or Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Applications involving more than fifty hectares are approved or disapproved by the Secretary. The procedure does not end with the Secretary, however. The Order provides that the decision of the Secretary may be appealed to the Office of the President or the CA as the case may be, viz: Appeal from the decision of the Undersecretary shall be made to the Secretary, and from the Secretary to the Office of the President or the Court of Appeals as the case may be. The mode of appeal/motion for reconsideration, and the appeal fee, from Undersecretary to the Office of the Secretary shall be the same as that of the Regional Director to the Office of the Secretary.
Indeed, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. 91 Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter. The power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the CARL lies with the DAR, not with this Court.
Finally, we stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the CLOA's already issued to the farmer beneficiaries. To assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. In Hacienda Palico alone, CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in 1993. 92 Since then until the present, these farmers have been cultivating their lands. 93 It goes against the basic precepts of justice, fairness and equity to deprive these people, through no fault of their own, of the land they till. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure to observe due process therein. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in this decision and the applicable administrative procedure, the case is hereby remanded to respondent DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's application for conversion. SO ORDERED.
Separate Opinions
MELO, J., concurring and dissenting opinion;
I concur in the ponencia of Justice Ynares-Santiago, broad and exhaustive as it is in its treatment of the issues. However, I would like to call attention to two or three points which I believe are deserving of special emphasis.
The apparent incongruity or shortcoming in the petition is DAR's disregard of a law which settled the non-agricultural nature of the property as early as 1975. Related to this are the inexplicable contradictions between DAR's own official issuances and its challenged actuations in this particular case. Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 has the force and effect of law unless repealed. This law declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourist zone.
Considering the new and pioneering stage of the tourist industry in 1975, it can safely be assumed that Proclamation 1520 was the result of empirical study and careful determination, not political or extraneous pressures. It cannot be disregarded by DAR or any other department of Government.
In Province of Camarines Sur, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (222 SCRA 173, 182 [1993]), we ruled that local governments need not obtain the approval of DAR to reclassify lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use. In the present case, more than the exercise of that power, the local governments were merely putting into effect a law when they enacted the zoning ordinances in question.
Any doubts as to the factual correctness of the zoning reclassifications are answered by the February 2, 1993 certification of the Department of Agriculture that the subject landed estates are not feasible and economically viable for agriculture, based on the examination of their slope, terrain, depth, irrigability, fertility, acidity, and erosion considerations.
I agree with the ponencia's rejection of respondent's argument that agriculture is not incompatible and may be enforced in an area declared by law as a tourist zone. Agriculture may contribute to the scenic views and variety of countryside profiles but the issue in this case is not the beauty of ricefields, cornfields, or coconut groves. May land found to be non-agricultural and declared as a tourist zone by law, be withheld from the owner's efforts to develop it as such? There are also plots of land within Clark Field and other commercial-industrial zones capable of cultivation but this does not subject them to compulsory land reform. It is the best use of the land for tourist purposes, free trade zones, export processing or the function to which it is dedicated that is the determining factor. Any cultivation is temporary and voluntary.
The other point I wish to emphasize is DAR's failure to follow its own administrative orders and regulations in this case.
The contradictions between DAR administrative orders and its actions in the present case may be summarized:
1. DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, subscribes to Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 that lands classified as non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988 when the CARP Law was passed are exempt from its coverage. By what right can DAR now ignore its own Guidelines in this case of land declared as forming a tourism zone since 1975?
2. DAR Order dated January 22, 1991 granted the conversion of the adjacent and contiguous property of Group Developers and Financiers, Inc. (GDFI) into the Batulao Tourist Resort. Why should DAR have a contradictory stance in the adjoining property of Roxas and Co., Inc. found to be similar in nature and declared as such?
3. DAR Exemption Order, Case No. H-9999-050-97 dated May 17, 1999 only recently exempted 13.5 hectares of petitioner's property also found in Caylaway together, and similarly situated, with the bigger parcel (Hacienda Caylaway) subject of this petition from CARL coverage. To that extent, it admits that its earlier blanket objections are unfounded.
4. DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996 identifies the land outside of CARP coverage as:
(a) Land found by DAR as no longer suitable for agriculture and which cannot be given appropriate valuation by the Land Bank;
(b) Land where DAR has already issued a conversion order;
(c) Land determined as exempt under DOJ Opinions Nos. 44 and 181; or
(d) Land declared for non-agricultural use by Presidential Proclamation.
It is readily apparent that the land in this case falls under all the above categories except the second one. DAR is acting contrary to its own rules and regulations. I should add that DAR has affirmed in a Rejoinder (August 20, 1999) the issuance and effectivity of the above administrative orders.
DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996, Paragraph 2 of Part II, Part III and Part IV outlines the procedure for reconveyance of land where CLOAs have been improperly issued. The procedure is administrative, detailed, simple, and speedy. Reconveyance is implemented by DAR which treats the procedure as "enshrined . . . in Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657" (Respondent's Rejoinder). Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996 shows there are no impediments to administrative or judicial cancellations of CLOA's improperly issued over exempt property. Petitioner further submits, and this respondent does not refute, that 25 CLOAs covering 3,338 hectares of land owned by the Manila Southcoast Development Corporation also found in Nasugbu, Batangas, have been cancelled on similar grounds as those in the case at bar.
The CLOAs in the instant case were issued over land declared as non-agricultural by a presidential proclamation and confirmed as such by actions of the Department of Agriculture and the local government units concerned. The CLOAs were issued over adjoining lands similarly situated and of like nature as those declared by DAR as exempt from CARP coverage. The CLOAs were surprisingly issued over property which were the subject of pending cases still undecided by DAR. There should be no question over the CLOAs having been improperly issued, for which reason, their cancellation is warranted.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., concurring and dissenting opinion;
I concur in the basic premises of the majority opinion. However, I dissent in its final conclusions and the dispositive portion.
With all due respect, the majority opinion centers on procedure but unfortunately ignores the substantive merits which this procedure should unavoidably sustain.
The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals had only one basic reason for its denial of the petition, i.e., the application of the doctrine of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. This Court's majority ponencia correctly reverses the Court of Appeals on this issue. The ponencia now states that the issuance of CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries deprived petitioner Roxas & Co. of its property without just compensation. It rules that the acts of the Department of Agrarian Reform are patently illegal. It concludes that petitioner's rights were violated, and thus to require it to exhaust administrative remedies before DAR was not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Correctly, petitioner sought immediate redress from the Court of Appeals to this Court.
However, I respectfully dissent from the judgment which remands the case to the DAR. If the acts of DAR are patently illegal and the rights of Roxas & Co. violated, the wrong decisions of DAR should be reversed and set aside. It follows that the fruits of the wrongful acts, in this case the illegally issued CLOAs, must be declared null and void.
Petitioner Roxas & Co. Inc. is the registered owner of three (3) haciendas located in Nasugbu, Batangas, namely: Hacienda Palico comprising of an area of 1,024 hectares more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 985 (Petition, Annex "G"; Rollo, p. 203); Hacienda Banilad comprising an area of 1,050 hectares and covered by TCT No. 924 (Petition, Annex "I"; Rollo, p. 205); and Hacienda Caylaway comprising an area of 867.4571 hectares and covered by TCT Nos. T-44655 (Petition, Annex "O"; Rollo, p. 216), T-44662 (Petition, Annex "P"; Rollo, p. 217), T-44663 (Petition, Annex "Q"; Rollo, p. 210) and T-44664 (Petition, Annex "R"; Rollo, p. 221).
Sometime in 1992 and 1993, petitioner filed applications for conversion with DAR. Instead of either denying or approving the applications, DAR ignored and sat on them for seven (7) years. In the meantime and in acts of deceptive lip-service, DAR excluded some small and scattered lots in Palico and Caylaway from CARP coverage. The majority of the properties were parceled out to alleged farmer-beneficiaries, one at a time, even as petitioner's applications were pending and unacted upon.
The majority ponencia cites Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6657 on the procedure for acquisition of private lands.
The ponencia cites the detailed procedures found in DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 for the identification of the land to be acquired. DAR did not follow its own prescribed procedures. There was no valid issuance of a Notice of Coverage and a Notice of Acquisition.
The procedure on the evaluation and determination of land valuation, the duties of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) and the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), the documentation and reports on the step-by-step process, the screening of prospective Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs), the land survey and segregation survey plan, and other mandatory procedures were not followed. The landowner was not properly informed of anything going on.
Equally important, there was no payment of just compensation. I agree with the ponencia that due process was not observed in the taking of petitioner's properties. Since the DAR did not validly acquire ownership over the lands, there was no acquired property to validly convey to any beneficiary. The CLOAs were null and void from the start.
Petitioner states that the notices of acquisition were sent by respondents by ordinary mail only, thereby disregarding the procedural requirement that notices be served personally or by registered mail. This is not disputed by respondents, but they allege that petitioner changed its address without notifying the DAR. Notably, the procedure prescribed speaks of only two modes of service of notices of acquisition — personal service and service by registered mail. The non-inclusion of other modes of service can only mean that the legislature intentionally omitted them. In other words, service of a notice of acquisition other than personally or by registered mail is not valid. Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. The reason is obvious. Personal service and service by registered mail are methods that ensure the receipt by the addressee, whereas service by ordinary mail affords no reliable proof of receipt.
Since it governs the extraordinary method of expropriating private property, the CARL should be strictly construed. Consequently, faithful compliance with its provisions, especially those which relate to the procedure for acquisition of expropriated lands, should be observed. Therefore, the service by respondent DAR of the notices of acquisition to petitioner by ordinary mail, not being in conformity with the mandate of R.A. 6657, is invalid and ineffective.
With more reason, the compulsory acquisition of portions of Hacienda Palico, for which no notices of acquisition were issued by the DAR, should be declared invalid.
The entire ponencia, save for the last six (6) pages, deals with the mandatory procedures promulgated by law and DAR and how they have not been complied with. There can be no debate over the procedures and their violation. However, I respectfully dissent in the conclusions reached in the last six pages. Inspite of all the violations, the deprivation of petitioner's rights, the non-payment of just compensation, and the consequent nullity of the CLOAs, the Court is remanding the case to the DAR for it to act on the petitioner's pending applications for conversion which have been unacted upon for seven (7) years.
Petitioner had applications for conversion pending with DAR. Instead of deciding them one way or the other, DAR sat on the applications for seven (7) years. At that same time it rendered the applications inutile by distributing CLOAs to alleged tenants. This action is even worse than a denial of the applications because DAR had effectively denied the application against the applicant without rendering a formal decision. This kind of action preempted any other kind of decision except denial. Formal denial was even unnecessary. In the case of Hacienda Palico, the application was in fact denied on November 8, 1993.
There are indisputable and established factors which call for a more definite and clearer judgment.
The basic issue in this case is whether or not the disputed property is agricultural in nature and covered by CARP. That petitioner's lands are non-agricultural in character is clearly shown by the evidence presented by petitioner, all of which were not disputed by respondents. The disputed property is definitely not subject to CARP.
The nature of the land as non-agricultural has been resolved by the agencies with primary jurisdiction and competence to decide the issue, namely — (1) a Presidential Proclamation in 1975; (2) Certifications from the Department of Agriculture; (3) a Zoning Ordinance of the Municipality of Nasugbu, approved by the Province of Batangas; and (4) by clear inference and admissions, Administrative Orders and Guidelines promulgated by DAR itself.
The records show that on November 20, 1975 even before the enactment of the CARP law, the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas was declared a "tourist zone" in the exercise of lawmaking power by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos under Proclamation No. 1520 (Rollo, pp. 122-123). This Presidential Proclamation is indubitably part of the law of the land.
On 20 March 1992 the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu promulgated its Resolution No. 19, a zonification ordinance (Rollo, pp. 124-200), pursuant to its powers under Republic Act No. 7160, i.e., the Local Government Code of 1991. The municipal ordinance was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas (Rollo, p. 201). Under this enactment, portions of the petitioner's properties within the municipality were re-zonified as intended and appropriate for non-agricultural uses. These two issuances, together with Proclamation 1520, should be sufficient to determine the nature of the land as non-agricultural. But there is more.The records also contain a certification dated March 1, 1993 from the Director of Region IV of the Department of Agriculture that the disputed lands are no longer economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes (Rollo, p. 213).DAR itself impliedly accepted and determined that the municipality of Nasugbu is non-agricultural when it affirmed the force and effect of Presidential Proclamation 1520. In an Order dated January 22, 1991, DAR granted the conversion of the adjoining and contiguous landholdings owned by Group Developer and Financiers, Inc. in Nasugbu pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation. The property alongside the disputed properties is now known as "Batulao Resort Complex". As will be shown later, the conversion of various other properties in Nasugbu has been ordered by DAR, including a property disputed in this petition, Hacienda Caylaway.Inspite of all the above, the Court of Appeals concluded that the lands comprising petitioner's haciendas are agricultural, citing, among other things, petitioner's acts of voluntarily offering Hacienda Caylaway for sale and applying for conversion its lands from agricultural to non-agricultural.Respondents, on the other hand, did not only ignore the administrative and executive decisions. It also contended that the subject land should be deemed agricultural because it is neither residential, commercial, industrial or timber. The character of a parcel of land, however, is not determined merely by a process of elimination. The actual use which the land is capable of should be the primordial factor.
RA 6657 explicitly limits its coverage thus:The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account, ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for a agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon." (RA 6657, Sec. 4; emphasis provided)
In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, this Court had occasion to rule that agricultural lands are only those which are arable and suitable.
It is at once noticeable that the common factor that classifies land use as agricultural, whether it be public or private land, is its suitability for agriculture. In this connection, RA 6657 defines "agriculture" as follows:
Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprises or Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities, and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical. (RA 6657, sec. 3[b]) In the case at bar, petitioner has presented certifications issued by the Department of Agriculture to the effect that Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are not feasible and economically viable for agricultural development due to marginal productivity of the soil, based on an examination of their slope, terrain, depth, irrigability, fertility, acidity, and erosion factors (Petition, Annex "L", Rollo, p. 213; Annex "U", Rollo, p. 228). This finding should be accorded respect considering that it came from competent authority, said Department being the agency possessed with the necessary expertise to determine suitability of lands to agriculture. The DAR Order dated January 22, 1991 issued by respondent itself stated that the adjacent land now known as the Batulao Resort Complex is hilly, mountainous, and with long and narrow ridges and deep gorges. No permanent sites are planted. Cultivation is by kaingin method. This confirms the findings of the Department of Agriculture.Parenthetically, the foregoing finding of the Department of Agriculture also explains the validity of the reclassification of petitioner's lands by the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas, pursuant to Section 20 of the Local Government Code of 1991. It shows that the condition imposed by respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform on petitioner for withdrawing its voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway, i.e., that the soil be unsuitable for agriculture, has been adequately met. In fact, the DAR in its Order in Case No. A-9999-050-97, involving a piece of land also owned by petitioner and likewise located in Caylaway, exempted it from the coverage of CARL (Order dated May 17, 1999; Annex "D" of Petitioner's Manifestation), on these grounds. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the subject lands are within an area declared in 1975 by Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 to be part of a tourist zone. This determination was made when the tourism prospects of the area were still for the future. The studies which led to the land classification were relatively freer from pressures and, therefore, more objective and open-minded. Respondent, however, contends that agriculture is not incompatible with the lands' being part of a tourist zone since "agricultural production, by itself, is a natural asset and, if properly set, can command tremendous aesthetic value in the form of scenic views and variety of countryside profiles." (Comment, Rollo, 579).The contention is untenable. Tourist attractions are not limited to scenic landscapes and lush greeneries. Verily, tourism is enhanced by structures and facilities such as hotels, resorts, rest houses, sports clubs and golf courses, all of which bind the land and render it unavailable for cultivation. As aptly described by petitioner:
The development of resorts, golf courses, and commercial centers is inconsistent with agricultural development. True, there can be limited agricultural production within the context of tourism development. However, such small scale farming activities will be dictated by, and subordinate to the needs or tourism development. In fact, agricultural use of land within Nasugbu may cease entirely if deemed necessary by the Department of Tourism (Reply, Rollo, p. 400).
The lands subject hereof, therefore, are non-agricultural. Hence, the voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway should not be deemed an admission that the land is agricultural. Rather, the offer was made by petitioner in good faith, believing at the time that the land could still be developed for agricultural production. Notably, the offer to sell was made as early as May 6, 1988, before the soil thereon was found by the Department of Agriculture to be unsuitable for agricultural development (the Certifications were issued on 2 February 1993 and 1 March 1993). Petitioner's withdrawal of its voluntary offer to sell, therefore, was not borne out of a whimsical or capricious change of heart. Quite simply, the land turned out to be outside of the coverage of the CARL, which by express provision of RA 6657, Section 4, affects only public and private agricultural lands. As earlier stated, only on May 17, 1999, DAR Secretary Horacio Morales, Jr. approved the application for a lot in Caylaway, also owned by petitioner, and confirmed the seven (7) documentary evidences proving the Caylaway area to be non-agricultural (DAR Order dated 17 May 1999, in Case No. A-9999-050-97, Annex "D" Manifestation).
The DAR itself has issued administrative circulars governing lands which are outside of CARP and may not be subjected to land reform. Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996 declares in its policy statement what landholdings are outside the coverage of CARP. The AO is explicit in providing that such non-covered properties shall be reconveyed to the original transferors or owners.
These non-covered lands are:
a. Land, or portions thereof, found to be no longer suitable for agriculture and, therefore, could not be given appropriate valuation by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);
b. Those were a Conversion Order has already been issued by the DAR allowing the use of the landholding other than for agricultural purposes in accordance with Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 and Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994;
c. Property determined to be exempted from CARP coverage pursuant to Department of Justice Opinion Nos. 44 and 181; or
d. Where a Presidential Proclamation has been issued declaring the subject property for certain uses other than agricultural. (Annex "F", Manifestation dated July 23, 1999)
The properties subject of this Petition are covered by the first, third, and fourth categories of the Administrative Order. The DAR has disregarded its own issuances which implement the law.
To make the picture clearer, I would like to summarize the law, regulations, ordinances, and official acts which show beyond question that the disputed property is non-agricultural, namely:
(a) The Law. Proclamation 1520 dated November 20, 1975 is part of the law of the land. It declares the area in and around Nasugbu, Batangas, as a Tourist Zone. It has not been repealed, and has in fact been used by DAR to justify conversion of other contiguous and nearby properties of other parties.
(b) Ordinances of Local Governments. Zoning ordinance of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, affirmed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, expressly defines the property as tourist, not agricultural. The power to classify its territory is given by law to the local governments.
(c) Certification of the Department of Agriculture that the property is not suitable and viable for agriculture. The factual nature of the land, its marginal productivity and non-economic feasibility for cultivation, are described in detail.
(d) Acts of DAR itself which approved conversion of contiguous or adjacent land into the Batulao Resorts Complex. DAR described at length the non-agricultural nature of Batulao and of portion of the disputed property, particularly Hacienda Caylaway.
(e) DAR Circulars and Regulations. DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 subscribes to the Department of Justice opinion that the lands classified as non-agricultural before the CARP Law, June 15, 1988, are exempt from CARP. DAR Order dated January 22, 1991 led to the Batulao Tourist Area. DAR Order in Case No. H-9999-050-97, May 17, 1999, exempted 13.5 hectares of Caylaway, similarly situated and of the same nature as Batulao, from coverage. DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996, if followed, would clearly exclude subject property from coverage.
As earlier shown, DAR has, in this case, violated its own circulars, rules and regulations.
In addition to the DAR circulars and orders which DAR itself has not observed, the petitioner has submitted a municipal map of Nasugbu, Batangas (Annex "E", Manifestation dated July 23, 1999). The geographical location of Palico, Banilad, and Caylaway in relation to the GDFI property, now Batulao Tourist Resort, shows that the properties subject of this case are equally, if not more so, appropriate for conversion as the GDFI resort.
Petitioner's application for the conversion of its lands from agricultural to non-agricultural was meant to stop the DAR from proceeding with the compulsory acquisition of the lands and to seek a clear and authoritative declaration that said lands are outside of the coverage of the CARL and can not be subjected to agrarian reform.
Petitioner assails respondent's refusal to convert its lands to non-agricultural use and to recognize Presidential Proclamation No. 1520, stating that respondent DAR has not been consistent in its treatment of applications of this nature. It points out that in the other case involving adjoining lands in Nasugbu, Batangas, respondent DAR ordered the conversion of the lands upon application of Group Developers and Financiers, Inc. Respondent DAR, in that case, issued an Order dated January 22, 1991 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the farmers thereon and finding that:
In fine, on November 27, 1975, or before the movants filed their instant motion for reconsideration, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1520, declaring the municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in the province of Cavite and the municipality of Nasugbu in the province of Batangas as tourist zone. Precisely, the landholdings in question are included in such proclamation. Up to now, this office is not aware that said issuance has been repealed or amended (Petition, Annex "W"; Rollo, p. 238).
The DAR Orders submitted by petitioner, and admitted by DAR in its Rejoinder (Rejoinder of DAR dated August 20, 1999), show that DAR has been inconsistent to the extent of being arbitrary.Apart from the DAR Orders approving the conversion of the adjoining property now called Batulao Resort Complex and the DAR Order declaring parcels of the Caylaway property as not covered by CARL, a major Administrative Order of DAR may also be mentioned. The Department of Justice in DOJ Opinion No. 44 dated March 16, 1990 (Annex "A" of Petitioner's Manifestation) stated that DAR was given authority to approve land conversions only after June 15, 1988 when RA 6657, the CARP Law, became effective. Following the DOJ Opinion, DAR issued its AO No. 06, Series of 1994 providing for the Guidelines on Exemption Orders (Annex "B", Id.). The DAR Guidelines state that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the enactment of CARL are exempt from its coverage. Significantly, the disputed properties in this case were classified as tourist zone by no less than a Presidential Proclamation as early as 1975, long before 1988. The above, petitioner maintains, constitute unequal protection of the laws. Indeed, the Constitution guarantees that "(n)o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws" (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1). Respondent DAR, therefore, has no alternative but to abide by the declaration in Presidential Proclamation 1520, just as it did in the case of Group Developers and Financiers, Inc., and to treat petitioners' properties in the same way it did the lands of Group Developers, i.e., as part of a tourist zone not suitable for agriculture.On the issue of non-payment of just compensation which results in a taking of property in violation of the Constitution, petitioner argues that the opening of a trust account in its favor did not operate as payment of the compensation within the meaning of Section 16 (e) of RA 6657. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals (249 SCRA 149, at 157 [1995]), this Court struck down as null and void DAR Administrative Circular No. 9, Series of 1990, which provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in bonds contemplated in Section 16 (e) of RA 6657.
It is very explicit therefrom (Section 16 [e]) that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit." xxx xxx xxxIn the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its powers to enact rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as compensation for his property because, as heretofore discussed, section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." In the same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 because these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law. Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking down Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void.
There being no valid payment of just compensation, title to petitioner's landholdings cannot be validly transferred to the Government. A close scrutiny of the procedure laid down in Section 16 of RA 6657 shows the clear legislative intent that there must first be payment of the fair value of the land subject to agrarian reform, either directly to the affected landowner or by deposit of cash or LBP bonds in the DAR-designated bank, before the DAR can take possession of the land and request the register of deeds to issue a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. This is only proper inasmuch as title to private property can only be acquired by the government after payment of just compensation In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (175 SCRA 343, 391 [1989]), this Court held:
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.
Necessarily, the issuance of the CLOAs by respondent DAR on October 30, 1993 and their distribution to farmer-beneficiaries were illegal inasmuch as no valid payment of compensation for the lands was as yet effected. By law, Certificates of Land Ownership Award are issued only to the beneficiaries after the DAR takes actual possession of the land (RA 6657, Sec. 24), which in turn should only be after the receipt by the landowner of payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, after the deposit of the compensation for the land in cash or in LBP bonds (RA 6657, Sec. 16[e]).
Respondents argue that the Land Bank ruling should not be made to apply to the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's landholdings in 1993, because it occurred prior to the promulgation of the said decision (October 6, 1995). This is untenable. Laws may be given retroactive effect on constitutional considerations, where the prospective application would result in a violation of a constitutional right. In the case at bar, the expropriation of petitioner's lands was effected without a valid payment of just compensation, thus violating the Constitutional mandate that "(p)rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation" (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 9). Hence, to deprive petitioner of the benefit of the Land Bank ruling on the mere expedient that it came later than the actual expropriation would be repugnant to petitioner's fundamental rights.The controlling last two (2) pages of the ponencia state: Finally, we stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the CLOA's already issued to the farmer beneficiaries. To assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. In Hacienda Palico alone, CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in 1993. Since then until the present, these farmers have been cultivating their lands. It goes against the basic precepts of justice, fairness and equity to deprive these people, through no fault of their own, of the land they till. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land. I disagree with the view that this Court cannot nullify illegally issued CLOA's but must ask the DAR to first reverse and correct itself.
Given the established facts, there was no valid transfer of petitioner's title to the Government. This being so, there was also no valid title to transfer to third persons; no basis for the issuance of CLOAs. Equally important, CLOAs do not have the nature of Torrens Title. Administrative cancellation of title is sufficient to invalidate them.
The Court of Appeals said so in its Resolution in this case. It stated:
Contrary to the petitioner's argument that issuance of CLOAs to the beneficiaries prior to the deposit of the offered price constitutes violation of due process, it must be stressed that the mere issuance of the CLOAs does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein. At most the certificate merely evidences the government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the statutory mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land. Thus failure on the part of the farmer/grantee to comply with his obligations is a ground for forfeiture of his certificate of transfer. Moreover, where there is a finding that the property is indeed not covered by CARP, then reversion to the landowner shall consequently be made, despite issuance of CLOAs to the beneficiaries. (Resolution dated January 17, 1997, p. 6)DAR Administrative Order 03, Series of 1996 (issued on August 8, 1996; Annex "F" of Petitioner's Manifestation) outlines the procedure for the reconveyance to landowners of properties found to be outside the coverage of CARP. DAR itself acknowledges that they can administratively cancel CLOAs if found to be erroneous. From the detailed provisions of the Administrative Order, it is apparent that there are no impediments to the administrative cancellation of CLOAs improperly issued over exempt properties. The procedure is followed all over the country. The DAR Order spells out that CLOAs are not Torrens Titles. More so if they affect land which is not covered by the law under which they were issued. In its Rejoinder, respondent DAR states:
3.2. And, finally, on the authority of DAR/DARAB to cancel erroneously issued Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificate of Landownership Awards (CLOAs), same is enshrined, it is respectfully submitted, in Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657.
In its Supplemental Manifestation, petitioner points out, and this has not been disputed by respondents, that DAR has also administratively cancelled twenty five (25) CLOAs covering Nasugbu properties owned by the Manila Southcoast Development Corporation near subject Roxas landholdings. These lands were found not suitable for agricultural purposes because of soil and topographical characteristics similar to those of the disputed properties in this case.
The former DAR Secretary, Benjamin T. Leong, issued DAR Order dated January 22, 1991 approving the development of property adjacent and contiguous to the subject properties of this case into the Batulao Tourist Resort. Petitioner points out that Secretary Leong, in this Order, has decided that the land —
1. Is, as contended by the petitioner GDFI "hilly, mountainous, and characterized by poor soil condition and nomadic method of cultivation, hence not suitable to agriculture."
2. Has as contiguous properties two haciendas of Roxas y Cia and found by Agrarian Reform Team Leader Benito Viray to be "generally rolling, hilly and mountainous and strudded (sic) with long and narrow ridges and deep gorges. Ravines are steep grade ending in low dry creeks."
3. Is found in an. area where "it is quite difficult to provide statistics on rice and corn yields because there are no permanent sites planted. Cultivation is by Kaingin Method."
4. Is contiguous to Roxas Properties in the same area where "the people entered the property surreptitiously and were difficult to stop because of the wide area of the two haciendas and that the principal crop of the area is sugar . . .." (emphasis supplied).
I agree with petitioner that under DAR AO No. 03, Series of 1996, and unlike lands covered by Torrens Titles, the properties falling under improperly issued CLOAs are cancelled by mere administrative procedure which the Supreme Court can declare in cases properly and adversarially submitted for its decision. If CLOAs can under the DAR's own order be cancelled administratively, with more reason can the courts, especially the Supreme Court, do so when the matter is clearly in issue.
With due respect, there is no factual basis for the allegation in the motion for intervention that farmers have been cultivating the disputed property.
The property has been officially certified as not fit for agriculture based on slope, terrain, depth, irrigability, fertility, acidity, and erosion. DAR, in its Order dated January 22, 1991, stated that "it is quite difficult to provide statistics on rice and corn yields (in the adjacent property) because there are no permanent sites planted. Cultivation is by kaingin method." Any allegations of cultivation, feasible and viable, are therefore falsehoods.
The DAR Order on the adjacent and contiguous GDFI property states that "(T)he people entered the property surreptitiously and were difficult to stop . . .."
The observations of Court of Appeals Justices Verzola and Magtolis in this regard, found in their dissenting opinion (Rollo, p. 116), are relevant:
2.9 The enhanced value of land in Nasugbu, Batangas, has attracted unscrupulous individuals who distort the spirit of the Agrarian Reform Program in order to turn out quick profits. Petitioner has submitted copies of CLOAs that have been issued to persons other than those who were identified in the Emancipation Patent Survey Profile as legitimate Agrarian Reform beneficiaries for particular portions of petitioner's lands. These persons to whom the CLOAs were awarded, according to petitioner, are not and have never been workers in petitioner's lands. Petitioners say they are not even from Batangas but come all the way from Tarlac. DAR itself is not unaware of the mischief in the implementation of the CARL in some areas of the country, including Nasugbu. In fact, DAR published a "WARNING TO THE PUBLIC" which appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer of April 15, 1994 regarding this malpractice.
2.10 Agrarian Reform does not mean taking the agricultural property of one and giving it to another and for the latter to unduly benefit therefrom by subsequently "converting" the same property into non-agricultural purposes.
2.11 The law should not be interpreted to grant power to the State, thru the DAR, to choose who should benefit from multi-million peso deals involving lands awarded to supposed agrarian reform beneficiaries who then apply for conversion, and thereafter sell the lands as non-agricultural land.
Respondents, in trying to make light of this problem, merely emphasize that CLOAs are not titles. They state that "rampant selling of rights", should this occur, could be remedied by the cancellation or recall by DAR.
In the recent case of "Hon. Carlos O. Fortich, et. al. vs. Hon. Renato C. Corona, et. al." (G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998), this Court found the CLOAs given to the respondent farmers to be improperly issued and declared them invalid. Herein petitioner Roxas and Co., Inc. has presented a stronger case than petitioners in the aforementioned case. The procedural problems especially the need for referral to the Court of Appeals are not present. The instant petition questions the Court of Appeals decision which acted on the administrative decisions. The disputed properties in the present case have been declared non-agricultural not so much because of local government action but by Presidential Proclamation. They were found to be non-agricultural by the Department of Agriculture, and through unmistakable implication, by DAR itself. The zonification by the municipal government, approved by the provincial government, is not the only basis.
On a final note, it may not be amiss to stress that laws which have for their object the preservation and maintenance of social justice are not only meant to favor the poor and underprivileged. They apply with equal force to those who, notwithstanding their more comfortable position in life, are equally deserving of protection from the courts. Social justice is not a license to trample on the rights of the rich in the guise of defending the poor, where no act of injustice or abuse is being committed against them. As we held in Land Bank (supra.):
It has been declared that the duty of the court to protect the weak and the underprivileged should not be carried out to such an extent as to deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and justice happen to be on his side. As eloquently stated by Justice Isagani Cruz: . . . social justice — or any justice for that matter — is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor simply because they are poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to eject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, I vote to grant the petition for certiorari; and to declare Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all situated in Nasugbu, Batangas, to be non-agricultural and outside the scope of Republic Act No. 6657. I further vote to declare the Certificates of Land Ownership Award issued by respondent Department of Agrarian Reform null and void and to enjoin respondents from proceeding with the compulsory acquisition of the lands within the subject properties. I finally vote to DENY the motion for intervention.
GR No March 18, 1991 BRUNO S. CABRERA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PROVINCE OF CATANDUANES, VICENTE M. ALBERTO, ENCARNACION TORRES, SANTIAGO VALDERAMA, JEREMIAS TRINIDAD, ALFREDO DAYAWON, ZACARIAS TATAD, FELIXBERTO CAMACHO, RUBEN GONZALES, FELIX RUBIO, RENE ALCANTARA, ARISTEO ARCILLA, PAMFILO DAYAWON, REMEDIOS BAGADIONG, FREDESWINDO ALCALA, ELENA S. LATORRE, BALDOMERO TOLENTINO, EULOGIA ALEJANDRO, ANGELES S. VARGAS, ISIDRO REYES, ANSELMO PEÑA, and CATALINA VELA, respondents.
On September 19, 1969, the Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution No. 158, providing as follows:
RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to close the old road leading to the new Capitol Building of this province to traffic effective October 31, 1969, and to give to the owners of the properties traversed by the new road equal area as per survey by the Highway District Engineer's office from the old road adjacent to the respective remaining portion of their properties.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Honorable Provincial Governor be, as he is hereby authorized to sign for and in behalf of the province of Catanduanes, the pertinent Deed of Exchange and or other documents pertaining thereto;
Pursuant thereto, Deeds of Exchange were executed under which the Province of Catanduanes conveyed to Remedios R. Bagadiong, Fredeswindo F. Alcala, Elena S. Latorre, Baldomero Tolentino, Eulogia T. Alejandro, Angeles S. Vargas, and Juan S. Reyes portions of the closed road in exchange for their own respective properties, on which was subsequently laid a new concrete road leading to the Capitol Building.
In 1978, part of the northern end of the old road fronting the petitioner's house was planted to vegetables in 1977 by Eulogia Alejandro. Anselmo Peña, who had bought Angeles Vargas's share, also in the same part of the road, converted it into a piggery farm. Learning about Resolution 158, the petitioner filed on December 29, 1978, a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes for "Restoration of Public Road and/or Abatement of Nuisance, Annulment of Resolutions and Documents with Damages." He alleged that the land fronting his house was a public road owned by the Province of Catanduanes in its governmental capacity and therefore beyond the commerce of man. He contended that Resolution No. 158 and the deeds of exchange were invalid, as so too was the closure of the northern portion of the said road.
In a decision dated November 21, 1980, Judge Graciano P. Gayapa, Jr., while holding that the land in question was not a declared public road but a mere "passageway" or "short-cut," nevertheless sustained the authority of the provincial board to enact Resolution No. 158 under existing law. 1 Appeal was taken to the respondent court, 2 which found that the road was a public road and not a trail but just the same also upheld Resolution 158. It declared:
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 5185, municipal authorities can close, subject to the approval or direction of the Provincial Board, thoroughfares under Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code. Although in this case the road was not closed by the municipality of Catanduanes but by the provincial board of Catanduanes, the closure, nevertheless, is valid since it was ordered by the approving authority itself. However, while it could do so, the provincial government of Catanduanes could close the road only if the persons prejudiced thereby were indemnified, Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code being very explicit on this. Before us now, the petitioner insists that Sec. 2246 is not applicable because Resolution No. 158 is not an order for the closure of the road in question but an authority to barter or exchange it with private properties. He maintains that the public road was owned by the province in its governmental capacity and, without a prior order of closure, could not be the subject of a barter. Control over public roads, he insists, is with Congress and not with the provincial board.
The petitioner alleges that the closure of the road has especially injured him and his family as they can no longer use it in going to the national road leading to the old capitol building but must instead pass through a small passageway. For such inconvenience, he is entitled to damages in accordance with law. The petition has no merit.
The Court cannot understand how the petitioner can seriously argue that there is no order of closure when it is there in the resolution, in black and white. Resolution 158 clearly says that it is "hereby resolved to close the old road." The closure is as plain as day except that the petitioner, with the blindness of those who will not see, refuses to acknowledge it. The Court has little patience with such puerile arguments. They border dangerously on a trifling with the administration of justice and can only prejudice the pleader's cause. The authority of the provincial board to close that road and use or convey it for other purposes is derived from the following provisions of Republic Act No 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code: R.A. No 5185, Section 11 (II) (a):
II. The following actions by municipal officials or municipal councils, as provided for in the pertinent sections of the Revised Administrative Code shall take effect without the need of approval or direction from any official of the national government: Provided, That such actions shall be subject to approval or direction by the Provincial Board:
(a) Authority to close thoroughfare under Section 2246; xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 2246. Authority to close thoroughfare. — With the prior authorization of the Department Head, a municipal council may close any municipal road, street, alley, park, or square; but no such way or place aforesaid or any part thereof, shall be closed without indemnifying any person prejudiced thereby.
Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the municipality might be lawfully used or conveyed.
In the case of Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles, 3 the Court held the closure of a city street as within the powers of the city council under the Revised Charter of Cebu City, which provided:
Sec. 31. Legislative Powers.— Any provision of law and executive order to the contrary notwithstanding, the City Council shall have the following legislative powers: xxx xxx xxx (34) . . .; to close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed; It sustained the subsequent sale of the land as being in accordance not only with the charter but also with Article 422 of the Civil Code, which provides: "Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." In the case of Favis vs. City of Baguio, 4 the power of the City Council of Baguio City to close city streets and withdraw them from public use was also assailed. This Court said:
5. So it is, that appellant may not challenge the city council's act of withdrawing a strip of Lapu-Lapu Street at its dead end from public use and converting the remainder thereof into an alley. These are acts well within the ambit of the power to close a city street. The city council, it would seem to us, is the authority competent to determine whether or not a certain property is still necessary for public use.
Such power to vacate a street or alley is discretionary. And the discretion will not ordinarily be controlled or interfered with by the courts, absent a plain case of abuse or fraud or collusion. Faithfulness to the public trust will be presumed. So the fact that some private interests may be served incidentally will not invalidate the vacation ordinance.
While it is true that the above cases dealt with city councils and not the provincial board, there is no reason for not applying the doctrine announced therein to the provincial board in connection with the closure of provincial roads. The provincial board has, after all, the duty of maintaining such roads for the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of the province. Moreover, this authority is inferable from the grant by the national legislature of the funds to the Province of Catanduanes for the construction of provincial roads. On this matter, Governor Vicente Alberto of Catanduanes testified as follows:
. . . when the Province was given funds to construct a road that will be more convenient to the public, more solid and wider and to have a better town planning whereby the Capitol would be reached directly from the pier for purposes of improving services to the public, it was recommended by the District Highway Engineer that a new road would be constructed connecting the Capitol with the veterans fountain, and believing this recommendation was for the good of the community, it was carried out. The original passageway was already unnecessary and since there was a problem of compensation the land owners where the new road was going to pass, so they decided to close this passageway and instead of paying the owners of the property where the new road was to be constructed, they exchanged some portions of this passageway with properties where the proposed road would pass. 5
The lower court found the petitioner's allegation of injury and prejudice to be without basis because he had "easy access anyway to the national road, for in fact the vehicles used by the Court and the parties during the ocular inspection easily passed and used it, reaching beyond plaintiff's house." However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the he "was prejudiced by the closure of the road which formerly fronted his house. He and his family were undoubtedly inconvenienced by the loss of access to their place of residence for which we believe they should be compensated."
On this issue, the governing principle was laid down in Favis thus:
. . . The general rule is that one whose property does not abut on the closed section of a street has no right to compensation for the closing or vacation of the street, if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets. The circumstances in some cases may be such as to give a right to damages to a property owner, even though his property does not abut on the closed section. But to warrant recovery in any such case the property owner must show that the situation is such that he has sustained special damages differing in kind, and not merely in degree, from those sustained by the public generally.
This rule was based on the following observations made in Richmond v. City of Hinton 6 which were quoted with approval by this Court:
The Constitution does not undertake to guarantee to a property owner the public maintenance of the most convenient route to his door. The law will not permit him to be cut off from the public thoroughfares, but he must content himself with such route for outlet as the regularly constituted public authority may deem most compatible with the public welfare. When he acquires city property, he does so in tacit recognition of these principles. If, subsequent to his acquisition, the city authorities abandon a portion of the street to which his property is not immediately adjacent, he may suffer loss because of the inconvenience imposed, but the public treasury cannot be required to recompense him. Such case is damnum absque injuria.
Following the above doctrine, we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to damages because the injury he has incurred, such as it is, is the price he and others like him must pay for the welfare of the entire community. This is not a case where his property has been expropriated and he is entitled to just compensation. The construction of the new road was undertaken under the general welfare clause. As the trial judge acutely observed, whatever inconvenience the petitioner has suffered "pales in significance compared to the greater convenience the new road, which is wide and concrete, straight to the veterans fountain and down to the pier, has been giving to the public, plus the fact that the new road adds beauty and color not only to the town of Virac but also to the whole province of Catanduanes." For the enjoyment of those benefits, every individual in the province, including the petitioner, must be prepared to give his share.
The dispositive portion of the challenged decision awarded the petitioner the sum of P5,000.00 as nominal and/or temperate damages, and the sum of P2,000.00 as and for attorney's fees. For the reasons stated above, these awards should all be deleted. The petitioner must content himself with the altruistic feeling that for the prejudice he has suffered, the price he can expect is the improvement of the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of Catanduanes, of whom he is one. That is not a paltry recompense.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 17, 1987, is AFFIRMED as above modified, with costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.
GR No 135962 March 27, 2000 METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.
BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.
Not infrequently, the government is tempted to take legal shortcuts solve urgent problems of the people. But even when government is armed with the best of intention, we cannot allow it to run roughshod over the rule of law. Again, we let the hammer fall and fall hard on the illegal attempt of the MMDA to open for public use a private road in a private subdivision. While we hold that the general welfare should be promoted, we stress that it should not be achieved at the expense of the rule of law.
Petitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. Respondent Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City. Respondent BAVA is the registered owner of Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village.
On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice dated December 22, 1995 requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996. The notice reads:
SUBJECT: NOTICE of the Opening of Neptune Street to Traffic.
Dear President Lindo,
Please be informed that pursuant to the mandate of the MMDA law or Republic Act No. 7924 which requires the Authority to rationalize the use of roads and/or thoroughfares for the safe and convenient movement of persons, Neptune Street shall be opened to vehicular traffic effective January 2, 1996. In view whereof, the undersigned requests you to voluntarily open the points of entry and exit on said street. Thank you for your cooperation and whatever assistance that may be extended by your association to the MMDA personnel who will be directing traffic in the area. Finally, we are furnishing you with a copy of the handwritten instruction of the President on the matter.
Very truly yours, PROSPERO I. ORETA Chairman On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished.
On January 2, 1996, respondent instituted against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City, Civil Case No. 96-001 for injunction. Respondent prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order the following day.
On January 23, 1996, after due hearing, the trial court denied issuance of a preliminary injunction. 2 Respondent questioned the denial before the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No 39549. The appellate court conducted an ocular inspection of Neptune Street 3 and on February 13, 1996, it issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the MMDA's proposed action. 4
On January 28, 1997, the appellate court rendered a Decision on the merits of the case finding that the MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and cause the demolition of its perimeter walls. It held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by ordinance. The decision disposed of as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED; the challenged Order dated January 23, 1995, in Civil Case No. 96-001, is SET ASIDE and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued on February 13, 1996 is hereby made permanent.
For want of sustainable substantiation, the Motion to Cite Roberto L. del Rosario in contempt is denied. No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.
The Motion for Reconsideration of the decision was denied on September 28, 1998. Hence, this recourse. Petitioner MMDA raises the following questions:
I HAS THE METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMDA) THE MANDATE TO OPEN NEPTUNE STREET TO PUBLIC TRAFFIC PURSUANT TO ITS REGULATORY AND POLICE POWERS?
II IS THE PASSAGE OF AN ORDINANCE A CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE THE MMDA MAY ORDER THE OPENING OF SUBDIVISION ROADS TO PUBLIC TRAFFIC?
III IS RESPONDENT BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OR ASSAILING THE AUTHORITY OF THE MMDA TO OPEN THE SUBJECT STREET?
IV WAS RESPONDENT DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS DESPITE THE SEVERAL MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN MMDA AND THE AFFECTED EEL-AIR RESIDENTS AND BAVA OFFICERS?
V HAS RESPONDENT COME TO COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS?7
Neptune Street is owned by respondent BAVA. It is a private road inside Bel-Air Village, a private residential subdivision in the heart of the financial and commercial district of Makati City. It runs parallel to Kalayaan Avenue, a national road open to the general public. Dividing the two (2) streets is a concrete perimeter wall approximately fifteen (15) feet high. The western end of Neptune Street intersects Nicanor Garcia, formerly Reposo Street, a subdivision road open to public vehicular traffic, while its eastern end intersects Makati Avenue, a national road. Both ends of Neptune Street are guarded by iron gates.
Petitioner MMDA claims that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. One of these basic services is traffic management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the general public. It is alleged that the police power of MMDA was affirmed by this Court in the consolidated cases of Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court. 8 From the premise that it has police power, it is now urged that there is no need for the City of Makati to enact an ordinance opening Neptune street to the public. Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. 10 The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. It bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. 12 It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. 13 The National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units. 14 Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body. A local government is a "political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs." 17 — one endowed with powers as a political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory. 18 Local government units are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.hey are also the territorial and political subdivisions of the state. Our Congress delegated police power to the local government units in the Local Government Code of 1991. This delegation is found in Section 16 of the same Code, known as the general welfare clause, viz:
Sec. 16. General Welfare. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.
Local government units exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies. The legislative body of the provincial government is the sangguniang panlalawigan, that of the city government is the sangguniang panlungsod, that of the municipal government is the sangguniang bayan, and that of the barangay is the sangguniang barangay. The Local Government Code of 1991 empowers the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod and sangguniang bayan to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the [province, city or municipality, as the case may be], and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of the Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the [province, city municipality] provided under the Code . . . " 22 The same Code gives the sangguniang barangay the power to "enact ordinances as may be necessary to discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law or ordinance and to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants thereon." 23
Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several local government units — i.e., twelve (12) cities and five (5) municipalities, namely, the cities of Caloocan, Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon, Muntinlupa, Las Pinas, Marikina, Paranaque and Valenzuela, and the municipalities of Malabon, Navotas, Pateros, San Juan and Taguig. With the passage of Republic Act (R. A.) No 7924 24 in 1995, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a "special development and administrative region" and the Administration of "metro-wide" basic services affecting the region placed under "a development authority" referred to as the MMDA. 25
"Metro-wide services" are those "services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units comprising Metro Manila." 26 There are seven (7) basic metro-wide services and the scope of these services cover the following: (1) development planning; (2) transport and traffic management; (3) solid waste disposal and management; (4) flood control and sewerage management; (5) urban renewal, zoning and land use planning, and shelter services; (6) health and sanitation, urban protection and pollution control; and (7) public safety. The basic service of transport and traffic management includes the following:
(b) Transport and traffic management which include the formulation, coordination, and monitoring of policies, standards, programs and projects to rationalize the existing transport operations, infrastructure requirements, the use of thoroughfares, and promotion of safe and convenient movement of persons and goods; provision for the mass transport system and the institution of a system to regulate road users; administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs, including the institution of a single ticketing system in Metropolitan Manila;" In the delivery of the seven (7) basic services, the MMDA has the following powers and functions:
Sec. 5. Functions and powers of the Metro Manila Development Authority. — The MMDA shall:
(a) Formulate, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium and long-term plans and programs for the delivery of metro-wide services, land use and physical development within Metropolitan Manila, consistent with national development objectives and priorities;
(b) Prepare, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium-term investment programs for metro-wide services which shall indicate sources and uses of funds for priority programs and projects, and which shall include the packaging of projects and presentation to funding institutions;
(c) Undertake and manage on its own metro-wide programs and projects for the delivery of specific services under its jurisdiction, subject to the approval of the Council. For this purpose, MMDA can create appropriate project management offices;
(d) Coordinate and monitor the implementation of such plans, programs and projects in Metro Manila; identify bottlenecks and adopt solutions to problems of implementation;
(e) The MMDA shall set the policies concerning traffic in Metro Manila, and shall coordinate and regulate the implementation of all programs and projects concerning traffic management, specifically pertaining to enforcement, engineering and education. Upon request, it shall be extended assistance and cooperation, including but not limited to, assignment of personnel, by all other government agencies and offices concerned;
(f) Install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or non-moving in nature, and confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, the provisions of RA 4136 and PD 1605 to the contrary notwithstanding. For this purpose, the Authority shall impose all traffic laws and regulations in Metro Manila, through its traffic operation center, and may deputize members of the PNP, traffic enforcers of local government units, duly licensed security guards, or members of non-governmental organizations to whom may be delegated certain authority, subject to such conditions and requirements as the Authority may impose; and
(g) Perform other related functions required to achieve the objectives of the MMDA, including the undertaking of delivery of basic services to the local government units, when deemed necessary subject to prior coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned.
The implementation of the MMDA's plans, programs and projects is undertaken by the local government units, national government agencies, accredited people's organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector as well as by the MMDA itself. For this purpose, the MMDA has the power to enter into contracts, memoranda of agreement and other arrangements with these bodies for the delivery of the required services Metro Manila. 28
The governing board of the MMDA is the Metro Manila Council. The Council is composed of the mayors of the component 12 cities and 5 municipalities, the president of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors' League and the president of the Metro Manila Councilors' League. 29 The Council is headed by Chairman who is appointed by the President and vested with the rank of cabinet member. As the policy-making body of the MMDA, the Metro Manila Council approves metro-wide plans, programs and projects, and issues the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of said plans; it approves the annual budget of the MMDA and promulgate the rules and regulations for the delivery of basic services, collection of service and regulatory fees, fines and penalties. These functions are particularly enumerated as follows:
Sec. 6. Functions of the Metro Manila Council. —
(a) The Council shall be the policy-making body of the MMDA;
(b) It shall approve metro-wide plans, programs and projects and issue rules and regulations deemed necessary by the MMDA to carry out the purposes of this Act;
(c) It may increase the rate of allowances and per diems of the members of the Council to be effective during the term of the succeeding Council. It shall fix the compensation of the officers and personnel of the MMDA, and approve the annual budget thereof for submission to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM);
(d) It shall promulgate rules and regulations and set policies and standards for metro-wide application governing the delivery of basic services, prescribe and collect service and regulatory fees, and impose and collect fines and penalties.
Clearly, the scope of the MMDA's function is limited to the delivery of the seven (7) basic services. One of these is transport and traffic management which includes the formulation and monitoring of policies, standards and projects to rationalize the existing transport operations, infrastructure requirements, the use of thoroughfares and promotion of the safe movement of persons and goods. It also covers the mass transport system and the institution of a system of road regulation, the administration of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs, including the institution of a single ticketing system in Metro Manila for traffic violations. Under the service, the MMDA is expressly authorized "to set the policies concerning traffic" and "coordinate and regulate the implementation of all traffic management programs." In addition, the MMDA may "install and administer a single ticketing system," fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all traffic violations.
It will be noted that the powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in R.A. No 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Even the Metro Manila Council has not been delegated any legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in R.A. No 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions appropriate funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, "development authority." 30 It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, people's organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its functions are administrative in nature and these are actually summed up in the charter itself, viz:
Sec. 2. Creation of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. — . . . .
The MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring and coordinative functions, and in the process exercise regulatory and supervisory authority over the delivery of metro-wide services within Metro Manila, without diminution of the autonomy of the local government units concerning purely local matters.
Petitioner cannot seek refuge in the cases of Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court 32 where we upheld a zoning ordinance issued by the Metro Manila Commission (MMC), the predecessor of the MMDA, as an exercise of police power. The first Sangalang decision was on the merits of the petition, while the second decision denied reconsideration of the first case and in addition discussed the case of Yabut v. Court of Appeals. Sangalang v. IAC involved five (5) consolidated petitions filed by respondent BAVA and three residents of Bel-Air Village against other residents of the Village and the Ayala Corporation, formerly the Makati Development Corporation, as the developer of the subdivision. The petitioners sought to enforce certain restrictive easements in the deeds of sale over their respective lots in the subdivision. These were the prohibition on the setting up of commercial and advertising signs on the lots, and the condition that the lots be used only for residential purposes. Petitioners alleged that respondents, who were residents along Jupiter Street of the subdivision, converted their residences into commercial establishments in violation of the "deed restrictions," and that respondent Ayala Corporation ushered in the full commercialization" of Jupiter Street by tearing down the perimeter wall that separated the commercial from the residential section of the village. 35
The petitions were dismissed based on OrdinanceNo. 81 of the Municipal Council of Makati and Ordinance No. 81-01 of the Metro Manila Commission (MMC). Municipal Ordinance No. 81 classified Bel-Air Village as a Class A Residential Zone, with its boundary in the south extending to the center line of Jupiter Street. The Municipal Ordinance was adopted by the MMC under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the National Capital Region and promulgated as MMC Ordinance No. 81-01. Bel-Air Village was indicated therein as bounded by Jupiter Street and the block adjacent thereto was classified as a High Intensity Commercial Zone. We ruled that since both Ordinances recognized Jupiter Street as the boundary between Bel-Air Village and the commercial district, Jupiter Street was not for the exclusive benefit of Bel-Air residents. We also held that the perimeter wall on said street was constructed not to separate the residential from the commercial blocks but simply for security reasons, hence, in tearing down said wall, Ayala Corporation did not violate the "deed restrictions" in the deeds of sale.
We upheld the ordinances, specifically MMC Ordinance No. 81-01, as a legitimate exercise of police power. 37 The power of the MMC and the Makati Municipal Council to enact zoning ordinances for the general welfare prevailed over the "deed restrictions". In the second Sangalang/Yabut decision, we held that the opening of Jupiter Street was warranted by the demands of the common good in terms of "traffic decongestion and public convenience." Jupiter was opened by the Municipal Mayor to alleviate traffic congestion along the public streets adjacent to the Village. 38 The same reason was given for the opening to public vehicular traffic of Orbit Street, a road inside the same village. The destruction of the gate in Orbit Street was also made under the police power of the municipal government. The gate, like the perimeter wall along Jupiter, was a public nuisance because it hindered and impaired the use of property, hence, its summary abatement by the mayor was proper and legal. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the two Sangalang cases do not apply to the case at bar. Firstly, both involved zoning ordinances passed by the municipal council of Makati and the MMC. In the instant case, the basis for the proposed opening of Neptune Street is contained in the notice of December 22, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent BAVA, through its president. The notice does not cite any ordinance or law, either by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City or by the MMDA, as the legal basis for the proposed opening of Neptune Street. Petitioner MMDA simply relied on its authority under its charter "to rationalize the use of roads and/or thoroughfares for the safe and convenient movement of persons." Rationalizing the use of roads and thoroughfares is one of the acts that fall within the scope of transport and traffic management. By no stretch of the imagination, however, can this be interpreted as an express or implied grant of ordinance-making power, much less police power.
Secondly, the MMDA is not the same entity as the MMC in Sangalang. Although the MMC is the forerunner of the present MMDA, an examination of Presidential Decree (P. D.)No. 824, the charter of the MMC, shows that the latter possessed greater powers which were not bestowed on the present MMDA. Metropolitan Manila was first created in 1975 by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 824. It comprised the Greater Manila Area composed of the contiguous four (4) cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay and Caloocan, and the thirteen (13) municipalities of Makati, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Las Pinas, Malabon, Navotas, Pasig, Pateros, Paranaque, Marikina, Muntinlupa and Taguig in the province of Rizal, and Valenzuela in the province of Bulacan. 40 Metropolitan Manila was created as a response to the finding that the rapid growth of population and the increase of social and economic requirements in these areas demand a call for simultaneous and unified development; that the public services rendered by the respective local governments could be administered more efficiently and economically if integrated under a system of central planning; and this coordination, "especially in the maintenance of peace and order and the eradication of social and economic ills that fanned the flames of rebellion and discontent [were] part of reform measures under Martial Law essential to the safety and security of the State." 41
Metropolitan Manila was established as a "public corporation" with the following powers:
Sec. 1. Creation of the Metropolitan Manila. — There is hereby created a public corporation, to be known as the Metropolitan Manila, vested with powers and attributes of a corporation including the power to make contracts, sue and be sued, acquire, purchase, expropriate, hold, transfer and dispose of property and such other powers as are necessary to carry out its purposes. The Corporation shall be administered by a Commission created under this Decree. 42
The administration of Metropolitan Manila was placed under the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) vested with the following powers:
Sec. 4. Powers and Functions of the Commission. — The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
1. To act as a central government to establish and administer programs and provide services common to the area;
2. To levy and collect taxes and special assessments, borrow and expend money and issue bonds, revenue certificates, and other obligations of indebtedness. Existing tax measures should, however, continue to be operative until otherwise modified or repealed by the Commission;
3. To charge and collect fees for the use of public service facilities;
4. To appropriate money for the operation of the metropolitan government and review appropriations for the city and municipal units within its jurisdiction with authority to disapprove the same if found to be not in accordance with the established policies of the Commission, without prejudice to any contractual obligation of the local government units involved existing at the time of approval of this Decree;
5. To review, amend, revise or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and acts of cities and municipalities within Metropolitan Manila;
6. To enact or approve ordinances, resolutions and to fix penalties for any violation thereof which shall not exceed a fine of P10,000.00 or imprisonment of six years or both such fine and imprisonment for a single offense;
7. To perform general administrative, executive and policy-making functions;
8. To establish a fire control operation center, which shall direct the fire services of the city and municipal governments in the metropolitan area;
9. To establish a garbage disposal operation center, which shall direct garbage collection and disposal in the metropolitan area;
10. To establish and operate a transport and traffic center, which shall direct traffic activities;
11. To coordinate and monitor governmental and private activities pertaining to essential services such as transportation, flood control and drainage, water supply and sewerage, social, health and environmental services, housing, park development, and others;
12. To insure&monitor the undertaking of a comprehensive social, economic&physical planning and development of the area;
13. To study the feasibility of increasing barangay participation in the affairs of their respective local governments and to propose to the President of the Philippines definite programs and policies for implementation;
14. To submit within thirty (30) days after the close of each fiscal year an annual report to the President of the Philippines and to submit a periodic report whenever deemed necessary; and
15. To perform such other tasks as may be assigned or directed by the President of the Philippines.
The MMC was the "central government" of Metro Manila for the purpose of establishing and administering programs providing services common to the area. As a "central government" it had the power to levy and collect taxes and special assessments, the power to charge and collect fees; the power to appropriate money for its operation, and at the same time, review appropriations for the city and municipal units within its jurisdiction. It was bestowed the power to enact or approve ordinances, resolutions and fix penalties for violation of such ordinances and resolutions. It also had the power to review, amend, revise or repeal all ordinances, resolutions and acts of any of the four (4) cities and thirteen (13) municipalities comprising Metro Manila.
P.D. No. 824 further provided:
Sec. 9. Until otherwise provided, the governments of the four cities and thirteen municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila shall continue to exist in their present form except as may be inconsistent with this Decree. The members of the existing city and municipal councils in Metropolitan Manila shall, upon promulgation of this Decree, and until December 31, 1975, become members of the Sangguniang Bayan which is hereby created for every city and municipality of Metropolitan Manila.
In addition, the Sangguniang Bayan shall be composed of as many barangay captains as may be determined and chosen by the Commission, and such number of representatives from other sectors of the society as may be appointed by the President upon recommendation of the Commission. xxx xxx xxx
The Sangguniang Bayan may recommend to the Commission ordinances, resolutions or such measures as it may adopt; Provided, that no such ordinance, resolution or measure shall become effective, until after its approval by the Commission; and Provided further, that the power to impose taxes and other levies, the power to appropriate money and the power to pass ordinances or resolutions with penal sanctions shall be vested exclusively in the Commission.
The creation of the MMC also carried with it the creation of the Sangguniang Bayan. This was composed of the members of the component city and municipal councils, barangay captains chosen by the MMC and sectoral representatives appointed by the President. The Sangguniang Bayan had the power to recommend to the MMC the adoption of ordinances, resolutions or measures. It was the MMC itself, however, that possessed legislative powers. All ordinances, resolutions and measures recommended by the Sangguniang Bayan were subject to the MMC's approval. Moreover, the power to impose taxes and other levies, the power to appropriate money, and the power to pass ordinances or resolutions with penal sanctions were vested exclusively in the MMC.
Thus, Metropolitan Manila had a "central government," i.e., the MMC which fully possessed legislative police powers. Whatever legislative powers the component cities and municipalities had were all subject to review and approval by the MMC.
After President Corazon Aquino assumed power, there was a clamor to restore the autonomy of the local government units in Metro Manila. Hence, Sections 1 and 2 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution provided:
Sec. 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as herein provided.
Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
The Constitution, however, recognized the necessity of creating metropolitan regions not only in the existing National Capital Region but also in potential equivalents in the Visayas and Mindanao. 43 Section 11 of the same Article X thus provided:
Sec. 11. The Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination.
Constitution itself expressly provides that Congress may, by law, create "special metropolitan political subdivisions" which shall be subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected; the jurisdiction of this subdivision shall be limited to basic services requiring coordination; and the cities and municipalities comprising this subdivision shall retain their basic services requiring coordination; and the cities and municipalities comprising this subdivision shall retain their basic autonomy and their own local executive and legislative assemblies. 44 Pending enactment of this law, the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution gave the President of the Philippines the power to constitute the Metropolitan Authority, viz:
Sec. 8. Until otherwise provided by Congress, the President may constitute the Metropolitan Authority to be composed of the heads of all local government units comprising the Metropolitan Manila area. 45
In 1990, President Aquino issued Executive Order (E. O.) No 392 and constituted the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA). The powers and functions of the MMC were devolved to the MMA. 46 It ought to be stressed, however, that not all powers and functions of the MMC were passed to the MMA. The MMA's power was limited to the "delivery of basic urban services requiring coordination in Metropolitan Manila." 47 The MMA's governing body, the Metropolitan Manila Council, although composed of the mayors of the component cities and municipalities, was merely given power of: (1) formulation of policies on the delivery of basic services requiring coordination and consolidation; and (2) promulgation resolutions and other issuances, approval of a code of basic services and the exercise of its rule-making power. 48
Under the 1987 Constitution, the local government units became primarily responsible for the governance of their respective political subdivisions. The MMA's jurisdiction was limited to addressing common problems involving basic services that transcended local boundaries. It did not have legislative power. Its power was merely to provide the local government units technical assistance in the preparation of local development plans. Any semblance of legislative power it had was confined to a "review [of] legislation proposed by the local legislative assemblies to ensure consistency among local governments and with the comprehensive development plan of Metro Manila," and to "advise the local governments accordingly." 49
When R.A. No 7924 took effect, Metropolitan Manila became a "special development and administrative region" and the MMDA a "special development authority" whose functions were "without prejudice to the autonomy of the affected local government units." The character of the MMDA was clearly defined in the legislative debates enacting its charter.
R.A.No 7924 originated as House Bill No. 14170/11116 and was introduced by several legislators led by Dante Tinga, Roilo Golez and Feliciano Belmonte. It was presented to the House of Representatives by the Committee on Local Governments chaired by Congressman Ciriaco R. Alfelor. The bill was a product of Committee consultations with the local government units in the National Capital Region (NCR), with former Chairmen of the MMC and MMA, 50 and career officials of said agencies. When the bill was first taken up by the Committee on Local Governments, the following debate took place: THE CHAIRMAN [Hon. Ciriaco Alfelor]: Okay, Let me explain. This has been debated a long time ago, you know. It's a special . . . we can create a special metropolitan political subdivision. Actually, there are only six (6) political subdivisions provided for in the Constitution: barangay, municipality, city, province, and we have the Autonomous Region of Mindanao and we have the Cordillera. So we have 6. Now. . . . . HON. [Elias] LOPEZ: May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman. In the case of the Autonomous Region, that is also specifically mandated by the Constitution. THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. But it is considered to be a political subdivision. What is the meaning of a political subdivision? Meaning to say, that it has its own government, it has its own political personality, it has the power to tax, and all governmental powers: police power and everything. All right. Authority is different; because it does not have its own government. It is only a council, it is an organization of political subdivision, powers, "no, which is not imbued with any political power. If you go over Section 6, where the powers and functions of the Metro Manila Development Authority, it is purely coordinative. And it provides here that the council is policy-making. All right. Under the Constitution is a Metropolitan Authority with coordinative power. Meaning to say, it coordinates all of the different basic services which have to be delivered to the constituency. All right. There is now a problem. Each local government unit is given its respective . . . as a political subdivision. Kalookan has its powers, as provided for and protected and guaranteed by the Constitution. All right, the exercise. However, in the exercise of that power, it might be deleterious and disadvantageous to other local government units. So, we are forming an authority where all of these will be members and then set up a policy in order that the basic services can be effectively coordinated. All right.
Of course, we cannot deny that the MMDA has to survive. We have to provide some funds, resources. But it does not possess any political power. We do not elect the Governor. We do not have the power to tax. As a matter of fact, I was trying to intimate to the author that it must have the power to sue and be sued because it coordinates. All right. It coordinates practically all these basic services so that the flow and the distribution of the basic services will be continuous. Like traffic, we cannot deny that. It's before our eyes. Sewerage, flood control, water system, peace and order, we cannot deny these. It's right on our face. We have to look for a solution. What would be the right solution? All right, we envision that there should be a coordinating agency and it is called an authority. All right, if you do not want to call it an authority, it's alright. We may call it a council or maybe a management agency. xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDA's functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. This was explicitly stated in the last Committee deliberations prior to the bill's presentation to Congress. Thus:
THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but we have to go over the suggested revision. I think this was already approved before, but it was reconsidered in view of the proposals, set-up, to make the MMDA stronger. Okay, so if there is no objection to paragraph "f". . . And then next is paragraph "b," under Section 6. "It shall approve metro-wide plans, programs and projects and issue ordinances or resolutions deemed necessary by the MMDA to carry out the purposes of this Act." Do you have the powers? Does the MMDA... because that takes the form of a local government unit, a political subdivision.
HON. [Feliciano] BELMONTE: Yes, I believe so, your Honor. When we say that it has the policies, it's very clear that those policies must be followed. Otherwise, what's the use of empowering it to come out with policies. Now, the policies may be in the form of a resolution or it may be in the form of a ordinance. The term "ordinance" in this case really gives it more teeth, your honor. Otherwise, we are going to see a situation where you have the power to adopt the policy but you cannot really make it stick as in the case now, and I think here is Chairman Bunye. I think he will agree that that is the case now. You've got the power to set a policy, the body wants to follow your policy, then we say let's call it an ordinance and see if they will not follow it.
THE CHAIRMAN: That's very nice. I like that. However, there is a constitutional impediment. You are making this MMDA a political subdivision. The creation of the MMDA would be subject to a plebiscite. That is what I'm trying to avoid. I've been trying to avoid this kind of predicament. Under the Constitution it states: if it is a political subdivision, once it is created it has to be subject to a plebiscite. I'm trying to make this as administrative. That's why we place the Chairman as a cabinet rank.
HON. BELMONTE: All right, Mr. Chairman, okay, what you are saying there is . . . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: In setting up ordinances, it is a political exercise, Believe me.
HON. [Elias] LOPEZ: Mr. Chairman, it can be changed into issuances of rules and regulations. That would be . . . it shall also be enforced.
HON. BELMONTE: Okay, I will . . . .
HON. LOPEZ: And you can also say that violation of such rule, you impose a sanction. But you know, ordinance has a different legal connotation.
HON. BELMONTE: All right, I defer to that opinion, your Honor.
THE CHAIRMAN: So instead of ordinances, say rules and regulations.
HON. BELMONTE: Or resolutions. Actually, they are actually considering resolutions now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Rules and resolutions.
HON. BELMONTE: Rules, regulations and resolutions. 52
The draft of H. B. No. 14170/11116 was presented by the Committee to the House of Representatives. The explanatory note to the bill stated that the proposed MMDA is a "development authority" which is a "national agency, not a political government unit." 53 The explanatory note was adopted as the sponsorship speech of the Committee on Local Governments. No interpellations or debates were made on the floor and no amendments introduced. The bill was approved on second reading on the same day it was presented. 54
When the bill was forwarded to the Senate, several amendments were made. These amendments, however, did not affect the nature of the MMDA as originally conceived in the House of Representatives. 55
It is thus beyond doubt that the MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed with legislative power. It is not even a "special metropolitan political subdivision" as contemplated in Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. The creation of a "special metropolitan political subdivision" requires the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected." 56 R. A. No. 7924 was not submitted to the inhabitants of Metro Manila in a plebiscite. The Chairman of the MMDA is not an official elected by the people, but appointed by the President with the rank and privileges of a cabinet member. In fact, part of his function is to perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the President, 57 whereas in local government units, the President merely exercises supervisory authority. This emphasizes the administrative character of the MMDA.
Clearly then, the MMC under P.D. No. 824 is not the same entity as the MMDA under R.A. No. 7924. Unlike the MMC, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the local government units, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling. We desist from ruling on the other issues as they are unnecessary.
We stress that this decision does not make light of the MMDA's noble efforts to solve the chaotic traffic condition in Metro Manila. Everyday, traffic jams and traffic bottlenecks plague the metropolis. Even our once sprawling boulevards and avenues are now crammed with cars while city streets are clogged with motorists and pedestrians. Traffic has become a social malaise affecting our people's productivity and the efficient delivery of goods and services in the country. The MMDA was created to put some order in the metropolitan transportation system but unfortunately the powers granted by its charter are limited. Its good intentions cannot justify the opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision without any legal warrant. The promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law.1âwphi1.nêt
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No 39549 are affirmed. SO ORDERED.
No comments:
Post a Comment