G.R. No. 143976 April 3, 2003Spouses OSCAR and HAYDEE BADILLO, petitioners, vs. Hon.
ARTURO
G. TAYAG as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Malolos,Bulacan; and the NATIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondents.G.R. No. 145846 April 3, 2003Spouses OSCAR and HAYDEE
BADILLO, petitioners, vs. Hon. BASILIO A. GABO JR. as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
11, Malolos,Bulacan; and the NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondents.Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
Facts
A parcel of land, claimed to be owned by the petitioners, was part of the Bagong Silang
Resettlement Project. NHA then developed and subdivided the land and distributed to qualified
beneficiaries.
Petitioners are plaintiffs in the case where MTC of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan ordered the NHAto
vacate the disputed land; to return possession thereof to petitioners; to pay rental for its useand
occupation at the rate of P10 per square meter per month; and to shoulder the attorney’sfees, the
litigation expenses and the costs of suit.
Thereafter, the Writ of Execution was actually issued by the MTC. The sheriff served a Notice of
Garnishment of NHA’s funds in the Landbank of the Philippines. The bank, however, refused to
release the garnished amount.
On June 9, 2000, the NHA filed a Motion however, it was denied by the MTC
Two consolidated petitions for review seek to set aside two rulings of the RTC Malolos, Bulacan.
Issue W/N the failure of the NHA to pay the appellate docket fee within the fifteen-day
reglementaryperiod is a ground to dismiss its appeal?o
Although NHA is a GOCC that is required to pay legal fees under Sec 21 of Rule 141 ofthe 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, it contends that it is exempt from paying all kinds offees and charges, because it
performs governmental functions. It cites Public EstatesAuthority v. Yujuico, which holds that the Public
Estates Authority (PEA), a GOCC, isexempt from paying docket fees whenever it files a suit in relation to
its governmentalfunctions.o Insofar as appeals from the MTC to the RTC are concerned, the 1997 Rules
of CivilProcedure do not mandate the dismissal of an appeal as a consequence of
thenonpayment of the required fee.o In this case, upon filing of NHA of its appeal, the MTC then and
there lost its jurisdiction.The MTC therefore acted without jurisdiction in issuing the May 23, 2000 Order
and theMay 30, 2000 Writ of Execution.
W/N the NHA is exempt from filing the supersedeas bond in order to stay the execution of theMTC
judgment?o Such bond is required to assure the payment of damages to the winning party in case
theappeal is found frivolous. When a case involves provable rents or damages incurred by agovernment-
owned or controlled corporation, the real party in interest is the Republic ofthe Philippines. When the
State litigates, it is not required to put up a bond for damagesor even an appeal bond -- either directly or
indirectly through its authorized officers --because it is presumed to be always solvent. Again, the State
is not required to file abond for the obvious reason that it is capable of paying its obligation; therefore,
in anyevent, the NHA has already paid the appellate docket fees and filed the supersedeasbond as
ordered by the RTC, albeit late.
W/N it was proper for RTC Branch 11 to delete the rentals awarded by the MTC?o
Indeed, courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent for the use and occupation of adisputed property,
but it must still base its action on the evidence adduced by the parties.o In the instant cases, the RTC has
already declared that there is no evidence on record tosupport the MTC’s award of rent. We find
no cogent reason to disturb thispronouncement.
Held The petition is denied, costs against petitioners.
Ratio
The belated prayer of the NHA for the dismissal of the forcible entry case cannot be granted, because
itappealed the RTC Decision to the CA, not to this Court. As a mere respondent in these appealed
cases,the NHA is not entitled to any affirmative relief. Besides, we would not want to preempt the CA’s
action onthe said appeal
