Mendoza v. NHA

8/11/2019 Mendoza v. NHA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mendoza-v-nha 1/15

Group 1

Presenter: Joyce Baylon

Members:

Carl Au

Joyce BaylonLanz Olives

Jimuel Matias

Case to be Presented:

Mendoza v. NHA 111 SCRA 837



FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Santiago Mendoza, Carmen Urbano, Manuela Urbano,Renato De Guzman, Raquel De Guzman, Rosette DeGuzman, And Romeo De Guzman (Mendoza et.al.),petitioners, are occupants of certain portions of theTatalon Estate in Quezon City. They all claim ownershipof their occupied lands: – Santiago Mendoza: acquired from the DEUDORS, as

evidenced by an AGREEMENT

– Carmen Urbano and Manuela Urbano : by virtue of a contractand denominated DEED OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO,

INTERESTS IN AND POSSESSION OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT – Renato, Raquel, Rosette, and Romeo, all surnamed de

Guzman: inherited from their father Serafin de Guzman



• On August 3, 1959, Republic Act No. 2616, took effect - authorized "theexpropriation of the Tatalon Estate jointly owned by the J.M. Tuason andCompany, Inc., Gregorio Araneta and Company, Inc., and Florencio Deudor, etal.," for subdivision into small lots and its resale al cost to the bona fide occupants thereof

• Land Tenure Administration (LTA) was directed to institute the proceeding forthe expropriation of the Tatalon Estate

• Before the complaint for eminent domain could be filed, the J.M. Tuason andCompany, Inc., claiming to be the owner of the Tatalon Estate which was sought

to be condemned, filed an action for prohibition with preliminary injunctionagainst the LTA, praying that Republic Act No. 2616 be declaredunconstitutional: DENIED.

• On September 15, 1978, the trial court recognized the Compromise Agreementmade by the Republic of the Philippines, now represented by the NationalHousing Authority, and the J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc.

• On June 11, 1978, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential DecreeNo. 1472, authorizing the National Housing Authority (NHA) to summarilyeject any and all squatters from government resettlement projects without thenecessity of a judicial order.





• In a letter, dated June 5, 1981, NHA also informed Romeo de

Guzman and Renato de Guzman that they cannot be granted a

lot in the Tatalon Estate after development because they were

absentee structure owners, as well. NHA, however, offered tobuy their at a price to be determined by it in order to avoid

economic waste, but that if the owner was not willing to sell

the structure, he should demolish the same within 10 days

from notice, otherwise NHA would summarily demolish the

same without further notice.

• In a letter dated August 27, 1981, the National Housing

Authority also ordered the petitioner Santiago Mendoza, "to

demolish the illegal extension of (his) structure located at theTatalon Estate which encroaches to the adjacent lot

boundaries and pose obstruction/delay in the allocation

process", within 10 days from receipt thereof, otherwise the

NHA would summarily demolish the illegal construction after

the expiration of the period without further notice.



• Due to the threat of demolition, Mendoza

et.al. filed a petition for prohibition, with aprayer for the issuance of a writ of

preliminary injunction and/or restraining

order, to restrain the NHA from thethreatened demolition of the petitioners'

houses situated in Barangay Tatalon,

Quezon City; and to declare PresidentialDecree No. 1472 unconstitutional.



Petitioners (Mendoza et.al)

• They are rightful possessors

of parcels of land within the

Tatalon Estate.• The enforcement of

Presidential Decree No. 1472

against them is illegal and

unconstitutional as it would

deprive them of theirproperty without due

process of law.

Respondents (NHA)• Urbano and the De Guzmans, being

absentee structure owners, are notentitled to lot allocations as they arebona fide occupants under P.D. 1261: –

“SECTION 3. Allocation of lots and/orhousing units in the project area shall bemade by the Authority according to thefollowing priority:

1. 1Present occupants who were listedin the 1958 Araneta Census List ofOccupants;

2. Present occupants as determined bythe Authority in its 1976 CensusSurvey; and

3. Squatter families in the TatalonEstate after the 1976 CensusSurvey.”

• Mendoza created an illegal extensionof his structure on the subject lot and,thus, must demolish the same.



ISSUE/S:

• Whether or not Mendoza et.al. are entitled

to a lot allocation in the Tatalon Estate



RULING:

• No. They are not entitled to lot allocations. – They falsely claim ownership over parcels of the Tatalon Estate. The

subject land is a property of the state after the expropriation proceedings.They even admitted the State’s title when they applied for inclusion asbeneficiaries.

– The petitioners, having actual knowledge of the expropriation of the

Tatalon Estate,should have vindicated their claim of ownership to the landclaimed by them in the expropriation proceedings, as intimated by theCourt in the case of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration.

• Presidential Decree No. 1472 does not violate the constitutional due processclause since it requires proper notice of ejectment to the squatter or illegaloccupant concerned either by personal service or by posting the same in the

lot or door of the apartment as the case may be at least 10 days before hisscheduled ejectment from the premises, which has been amply complied within the case of the petitioners. Here, notices of ejectment were served upon thepetitioners after it had been determined that they are not "Tatalon Estatebeneficiaries" and, consequently, squatters on the land occupied by them.



DOCTRINE:•

Squatters are a public nuisance which can be abated evenwithout judicial proceedings.

• Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment,business, condition of property, or anything else which:

(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or

(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or

(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or

(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any publichighway or street, or any body of water; or

(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

• Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or

(2) A civil action; or

(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.



• Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate itby removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing whichconstitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of thepeace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensablethat the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public

nuisance by a private person be followed.

• Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudiciallyabating a nuisance shall be liable for damages:

(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or

(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not areal nuisance.



QUESTION:

• Why are the petitioners not entitled to lot

allocations?



ANSWER:

– They falsely claim ownership over parcels of theTatalon Estate. The subject land is a property of thestate after the expropriation proceedings. Theyeven admitted the State’s title when they applied

for inclusion as beneficiaries. – The petitioners, having actual knowledge of the

expropriation of the Tatalon Estate,should havevindicated their claim of ownership to the land

claimed by them in the expropriation proceedings,as intimated by the Court in the case of J.M. Tuason& Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration.



QUESTION:

• What are the remedies against public

nuisance?



ANSWER:

• Art. 699. The remedies against a public

nuisance are:

(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any

local ordinance: or

(2) A civil action; or

(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

Documents

Mendoza v. NHA