Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > June 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-49439 June 29, 1983 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. PASTOR P. REYES

208 Phil. 227:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-49439. June 29, 1983.]

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE PASTOR P. REYES, in his capacity as Presiding Judge (on detail), Court of Agrarian Relations, Seventh Regional District, Branch II, Cavite City, QUIRINO AUSTRIA and LUCIANO AUSTRIA, Respondents.

Lazaro, Aldana & Tan Law Office for Petitioner.

Jacinto Dominguez for Private Respondent.

Natividad Dizon for respondent Judge.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATUTES; PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY. — One of the basic postulates in constitutional law is the presumption of validity of legislative or executive acts. In Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936), the leading ease on the subject until now, Justice Laurel, in speaking of judicial review, made clear that it is not for the judiciary to "pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation." His landmark opinion continues: "More than that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 76 AS AMENDED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 464; BASIS FOR THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR EXPROPRIATED LAND; APPLICATION OF THE LAW ON THE MATTER; CASE AT BAR. — Section 92 of Presidential Decree No. 464 states: "Basis for payment of just compensation in expropriation proceedings. In determining such compensation when private property is acquired by the government for public use, the same shall not exceed the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower." Petitioner’s submission is that the owner’s declaration at P1,400.00 which is lower than the assessor’s assessment, is the just compensation for the respondents’ property, respondents thus being precluded from withdrawing any amount more than P1,400.00. In this particular case, there it failure to challenge the validity of such legislation. Both public and private respondents in their comments considered as answers raised no such constitutional question. Even for it, therefore, as of this stage of litigation, and under the conceded facts, there should he a recognition that the law as it stands must be applied. The Decree having spoken so clearly and unequivocally calls for obedience. It is repeating a common place to state that on a matter where the applicable law speaks in no uncertain language, the Court has no choice except to yield to its command.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROMOTES SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ENDS THE PRACTICE OF UNDERDECLARING PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSE OF TAXATION. — The rule introduced by Presidential Decree No. 76 and reiterated in subsequent decrees not only promotes social justice but also ends the baneful and one-sided practice abetted by the collusive acquiescence of government officials and employees, of underdeclaring properties for the purpose of taxation but ballooning the price thereof when the same properties are to be acquired by the government for public purposes. Put to the test is the power of the government to introduce rationality in the laws and to discourage a deceitful practice that is not only ruinous to the government coffers but also undermines its efforts at awakening a democratic responsiveness of the citizenry toward good government and its economic and social programs. The courts should recognize that the rule introduced by Presidential Decree No. 76 and reiterated in subsequent decrees does not upset the established concepts of justice or the constitutional provision on just compensation for, precisely, the owner is allowed to make his own valuation of his property.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The undisputed fact that in this certiorari proceeding against respondent Judge for failure to comply with the provision of the Presidential Decrees as to the amount to be paid by petitioner to entitle it to a writ of possession in an expropriation proceeding, no question was raised as to their validity, calls for the grant of the remedy sought.

The controversy started with the filing of a complaint with the then Court of Agrarian Relations, Seventh Regional District, Branch II, Cavite City, against private respondents, for the expropriation, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 757, of a parcel of land, with an area of 25,000 square meters, owned and registered in the name of respondent Quirino Austria, and needed for the expansion of the Dasmariñas Resettlement Project. 1 Then came from petitioner about a year later a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. 2 Petitioner was able to secure an order placing it in possession. 3 Thereafter, private respondent Quirino Austria filed a Motion to Withdraw Deposit in the amount of P6,600.00, a sum which was equivalent to the value of the property assessed for taxation purposes and which was deposited by petitioner pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 42. 4 There was an Opposition to the Motion to Withdraw Deposit by petitioner, citing Section 92 of Presidential Decree No. 464 which states: "Basis for payment of just compensation in expropriation proceedings. In determining such compensation when private property is acquired by the government for public use, the same shall not exceed the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower." 5 Petitioner’s submission is that the owner’s declaration at P1,400.00 which is lower than the assessor’s assessment, is the just compensation for the respondents’ property, respondents thus being precluded from withdrawing any amount more than P1,400.00. 6 Respondent Judge, however, issued an order dated July 13, 1978 which, according to petitioner, is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the aforecited laws. 7 There was a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 21, 1978. 8 Its basis is the provision in Presidential Decree No. 1224: "In the determination of just compensation for such private lands and improvement to be expropriated, the government shall choose between the value of the real property and improvements thereon as declared by the owner or administrator thereof or the market value determined by the City or provincial assessor, whichever is lower, at the time of the filing of the expropriation complaint." 9 It was then submitted that under the aforequoted statutory provision, the owner’s declared market value at P1,400.00 which is lower than that fixed by the assessor is the just compensation of respondent Quirino Austria’s property sought to be expropriated. The motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

On January 4, 1979, the Court issued the following resolution: "Considering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction with prayer for a restraining order, the Court Resolved without giving due course to the petition to require the respondents to comment, not to file a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice. The Court further Resolved to issue a temporary restraining order, effective as of this date and continuing until otherwise ordered by the Court." 10 The comment was thereafter submitted by private respondents Quirino Austria and Luciano Austria.

Private respondents stress that while there may be basis for the allegation that respondent Judge did not follow Presidential Decree No. 76 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 464, as further amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 794, 1224 and 1259, the matter is still subject to his final disposition, he having been vested with the original and competent authority to exercise his judicial discretion in the light of the constitutional provisions. 11 There was a comment likewise submitted by counsel on behalf of respondent Judge but again, there was no question raised as to the validity of the aforementioned Decrees. Such comments were considered as answers. The case was originally submitted to the Second Division, and in a resolution of February 21, 1979, it referred this case to the Court en banc.

Under the state of the pleadings as submitted to this Court, it is evident why, as noted at the outset, certiorari lies.

1. One of the basic postulates in constitutional law is the presumption of validity of legislative or executive acts. In Angara v. Electoral Commission, 12 the leading case on the subject until now, Justice Laurel, in speaking of judicial review, made clear that it is not for the judiciary to "pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation." 13 His landmark opinion continues: "More than that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative departments of the government." 14 As pointed out in Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila: 15 "Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the absence of any evidence to offset the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance. As was expressed categorically by Justice Malcolm: "The presumption is all in favor of validity . . .," 16 As of this stage in this particular case, there is a failure to challenge the validity of such legislation. Both public and private respondents in their comments considered as answers raised no such constitutional question. Even for it, therefore, as of this stage of litigation, and under the conceded facts, there should be a recognition that the law as it stands must be applied. The Decree having spoken so clearly and unequivocally calls for obedience. It is repeating a common place to state that on a matter where the applicable law speaks in no uncertain language, the Court has no choice except to yield to its command.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

2. Nor is there any choice for petitioner National Housing Authority for precisely it was created for the laudable purpose of "urban land reform." 17 The first whereas clause speaks of the "magnitude of the housing problem of the country" which "has grown into such proportions that only a purposeful, determined, organized mass housing development program can meet the needs of Filipino families" for decent housing. 18 Moreover, the Presidential Decree is mandated by the Constitution which requires the State to "establish, maintain, and ensure adequate social services in the field of . . . housing . . ." as well as "to guarantee the enjoyment of the people of a decent standard of living." 19 The very first section of the Decree speaks of the following: "Pursuant to the mandate of the New Constitution, there shall be developed a comprehensive and integrated housing program which shall embrace, among others, housing development and resettlement, sources and schemes of financing, and delineation of government and private sector participation. The program shall specify the priorities and targets in accordance with the integrated national human settlements plan prepared by the Human Settlements Commission." 20 In view of the urgency of the housing problem the various decrees mentioned earlier were issued for the purpose of assuring that the government would be in a financial position to cope with such basic human need which in the Philippines, under the welfare state concept, and according to the express language of the Constitution, is an obligation cast upon the State. The memorandum for petitioner submitted by Government Corporate Counsel, now likewise the Presidential Legal Assistant, Justice Manuel M. Lazaro, pursues the matter further in prose impressed with force and clarity: "The issue in this petition for certiorari and mandamus involves the application of a rule introduced by P.D. No. 76 and reiterated in subsequent decrees that not only promotes social justice but also ends the baneful and one-sided practice abetted by the collusive acquiescence of government officials and employees, of underdeclaring properties for the purpose of taxation but ballooning the price thereof when the same properties are to be acquired by the government for public purposes. Put to the test, therefore, is the power of the government to introduce rationality in the laws and to discourage a deceitful practice that is not only ruinous to the government coffers but also undermines its efforts at awakening a democratic responsiveness of the citizenry toward good government and its economic and social programs. The courts should recognize that the rule introduced by P.D. No. 76 and reiterated in subsequent decrees does not upset the established concepts of justice or the constitutional provision on just compensation for, precisely, the owner is allowed to make his own valuation of his property," 21

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted and the order of respondent Judge of July 13, 1978 is hereby nullified and set aside. The restraining order issued by this Court on January 4, 1979 is hereby made permanent. The case is remanded to the lower court for further action conformably to law and to the above opinion. No costs.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, Aquino and De Castro, JJ., took no part.

Makasiar, J., in the result.

Melencio-Herrera and Vasquez, JJ., are on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Petition, par. 3.

2. Ibid, par. 6.

3. Ibid, par. 9.

4. Ibid, par. 10.

5. Presidential Decree No. 464, Section 92.

6. Petition, par. 11.

7. Ibid, par. 12.

8. Ibid, par. 13.

9. Presidential Decree No. 1224, Section 2.

10. Resolution of this Court dated January 4, 1979.

11. He cited Article IV of the Constitution on the due process and equal protection clauses, Section 1 and the just compensation requirement in Section 2.

12. 63 Phil. 139 (1936).

13. Ibid, 158.

14. Ibid, 158-159. Cf. Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20837, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 424 and Vera v. Arca, L-25721, May 26, 1969, 28 SCRA 351.

15. L-24693, July 31, 1967, 20 SCRA 849. The opinion cited U.S. v. Salaveria, 39 Phil. 102 (1918).

16. Ibid, 856.

17. Presidential Decree No. 757, creating the National Housing Authority (1975). "Urban land reform" is mentioned in the third whereas clause.

18. Ibid, first whereas clause.

19. Ibid, second whereas clause. Cf. Section 7, Article II of the Constitution.

20. Ibid, Section 1.

21. Memorandum for Petitioner, 1-2.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47331 June 21, 1983 - PABLO DE LOS REYES v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    207 Phil. 574

  • G.R. No. L-46131 June 22, 1983 - EPIFANIA V. LAVILLA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    207 Phil. 578

  • G.R. No. L-47739 June 22, 1983 - SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD. v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO

    207 Phil. 585

  • G.R. No. L-49069 June 22, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROTACIO AMONCIO

    207 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-52133 June 23, 1983 - NORMA B. NAJERA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-60364 June 23, 1983 - BRITTA B. QUISUMBING v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 607

  • G.R. No. L-28841 June 24, 1983 - RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO v. CONCEPCION B. BUENCAMINO

    207 Phil. 615

  • G.R. No. L-31442 June 24, 1983 - BHAGWANDAS GIDWANI v. DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

    207 Phil. 623

  • G.R. No. L-32244 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO SORIANO

    207 Phil. 630

  • G.R. No. L-33522 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO LOJO

    207 Phil. 643

  • G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY v. VICENTE G. ERICTA

    207 Phil. 648

  • G.R. No. L-35171 June 24, 1983 - FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA v. ALEJANDRO ESPIRITU

    207 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-35853 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBRADO CARIAS

    207 Phil. 664

  • G.R. No. L-37483 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO OQUIÑO

    207 Phil. 676

  • G.R. No. L-37792 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO MAALA

    207 Phil. 690

  • G.R. No. L-39049 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS ALVIS

    207 Phil. 693

  • G.R. No. L-40103 June 24, 1983 - ARCADIO DUAY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    207 Phil. 710

  • G.R. No. L-46495 June 24, 1983 - ANDREA C. DECOLONGON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 718

  • G.R. No. L-46894 June 24, 1983 - TERESA M. ARMEÑA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    207 Phil. 726

  • G.R. No. L-47686 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BALBAS

    207 Phil. 734

  • G.R. No. L-49781 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-52709 June 24, 1983 - MANILA PRESS, INC. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

    207 Phil. 747

  • G.R. No. L-54753 June 24, 1983 - MARIETTA E. DAKUDAO v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION

    207 Phil. 750

  • G.R. No. L-56340 June 24, 1983 - ALVARO PASTOR, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 758

  • G.R. No. L-58414 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO HERMOSILLA

    207 Phil. 775

  • G.R. No. L-58613 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO RHODA

    207 Phil. 780

  • G.R. No. L-58635 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO VALMORES

    207 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-59951 June 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO AQUINO

    207 Phil. 800

  • G.R. No. L-60151 June 24, 1983 - SALVADOR L. BUDLONG v. AQUILES T. APALISOK

    207 Phil. 804

  • G.R. No. L-61438 June 24, 1983 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 814

  • G.R. No. L-63135 June 24, 1983 - GLORIA DARROCHA DE CALISTON v. COURT OF APPEALS

    207 Phil. 827

  • A.C. No. 1596 June 28, 1983 - MAXIMA MURILLO VDA. DE GARBE v. RODRIGO A. LIPORADA

    208 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-27294 June 28, 1983 - ALFREDO ROA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 2

  • G.R. No. L-29141 June 28, 1983 - MANUEL L. LIMSICO v. JOSE G. BAUTISTA

    208 Phil. 49

  • G.R. No. L-29141 June 28, 1983 - MANUEL L. LIMSICO v. JOSE G. BAUTISTA

    208 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-33216 June 28, 1983 - TAN CHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    208 Phil. 57

  • G.R. No. L-33305 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO LAMPITAO

    208 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-33431 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS LOBATON

    208 Phil. 70

  • G.R. No. L-33899 June 28, 1983 - MUNICIPALITY OF LA TRINIDAD v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BAGUIO-BENGUET

    208 Phil. 78

  • G.R. No. L-35247 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROMENCIO TOME

    208 Phil. 85

  • G.R. No. L-38278 June 28, 1983 - GREGORIO LOBETE v. CARLOS SUNDIAM

    208 Phil. 90

  • G.R. No. L-45645 June 28, 1983 - FRANCISCO A. TONGOY v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 95

  • G.R. No. L-48424 June 28, 1983 - CONSTANCIO MANZANO v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO

    208 Phil. 124

  • G.R. No. L-51304 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN MANDOLADO

    208 Phil. 125

  • G.R. No. L-54114 June 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO BORJA

    208 Phil. 146

  • G.R. No. L-58961 June 28, 1983 - SOLEDAD SOCO v. FRANCIS MILITANTE

    208 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59330 June 28, 1983 - MANUEL GUANZON v. PATERNO D. MONTESCLAROS

    208 Phil. 171

  • G.R. No. L-63130 June 28, 1983 - GUILLERMO ROBES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    208 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-63372 June 28, 1983 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT

    208 Phil. 188

  • G.R. No. L-31330 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR REMOLLO

    208 Phil. 196

  • G.R. No. L-37518 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERONIMO SURBAN

    208 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-38002 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO VEGA

    208 Phil. 221

  • G.R. No. L-49439 June 29, 1983 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. PASTOR P. REYES

    208 Phil. 227

  • G.R. No. L-62737 June 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-63398 June 29, 1983 - LEONCIO P. VILORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-34202 June 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BARCENA

    208 Phil. 239