(G.R. No.
L-48685 September 30, 1987)
LORENZO SUMULONG and EMILIA VIDANES-BALAOING, petitioners,
vs.
HON. BUENAVENTURA GUERRERO and NATIONAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY, respondents.
DOCTRINE:
The doctrine established is that socialized housing falls within the confines of
“public use” for expropriation purposes, as it addresses the acute housing
shortage and promote the general welfare. However, the provisions allowing
arbitrary valuation by assessors and immediate taking without due process
were declared unconstitutional.
FACTS:
On December 5, 1977, The National Housing Authority filed a complaint for
expropriation of parcels of land covering 25 hectares including the lots of
petitioners Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing with an area of
6,667 square meters and 3,333 square meters respectively.
The land sought to be expropriated were valued by the NHA at one peso
(P1.00) per square meter adopting the market value fixed by the provincial
assessor in accordance with presidential decrees prescribing the valuation of
property in expropriation proceedings. Together with the complaint was a
motion for immediate possession of the properties.
Plaintiff having deposited with the Philippine National Bank, Heart Center
Extension Office, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, the amount of
P158,980.00 representing the total market value of the subject parcels of
land, let a... writ of possession be issued.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that they had been
deprived of the possession of their property without due process of law.
This was however, denied.
Hence, this petition challenging the orders of respondent Judge and assailing
the constitutionality of Pres. Decree No. 1224
ISSUE:
Whether or not Pres. Decree 1224, as amended, is unconstitutional for being
violative of the due process clause.
RULING:
Yes. Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended, is unconstitutional for being
violative of the due process clause.
Pres. Decree 1224, as amended, violates procedural due process as it allows
immediate taking of possession, control and disposition of property without
giving the owner his day in court. Respondent Judge ordered the issuance
of... a writ of possession without notice and without hearing.
The Court holds that "socialized housing" defined in Pres. Decree No. 1224,
as amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 1259 and 1313, constitutes "public use" for
purposes of expropriation. However, as previously held by this Court, the
provisions of such decrees on just compensation are unconstitutional; and in
the instant case the Court finds that the Orders issued pursuant to the
corollary provisions of those decrees authorizing immediate taking without
notice and hearing are violative of due process.
Hence, the Orders of the lower court dated January 17, 1978 and June 28,
1978 issuing the writ of possession on the basis of the market value
appearing therein are annulled for having been issued in excess of
jurisdiction. Let the case be remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings to determine the compensation the petitioners are entitled to be
paid.
