1

Santiago Mendoza, Carmen Urbano, Manuela Urbano, Renato De Company, Inc., and Florencio Deudor, et al.," for subdivision into small lots
Guzman, Raquel De Guzman, Rosette De Guzman, and Romeo De and its resale al cost to the bona fide occupants thereof.
Guzman, petitioners v. National Housing Authority and Angelito
Lazaro, respondents. 111 SCRA 637 Pursuant to RA No. 2616, the Land Tenure Administration was
directed to institute the proceeding for the expropriation of the Tatalon
CONCEPCION JR., J.: Estate. The J.M. Tuason and Company, Inc., claiming to be the owner of the
Tatalon Estate, filed an action with the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Petition for prohibition, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary Quezon City Branch, for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the
injunction and/or restraining order, to restrain the respondents from the Land Tenure Administration, praying that RA No. 2616 be declared
threatened demolition of the petitioners' houses situated in Barangay unconstitutional and to restrain the Land Tenure Administration from
Tatalon, Quezon City; and to declare Presidential Decree No. 1472 instituting such expropriation proceeding. After trial, the CFI promulgated its
unconstitutional. decision holding that RA No. 2616 is unconstitutional and granting the writ of
prohibition prayed for. Upon appeal, however, this Court reversed the
Facts: decision of the CFI and denied the petition for prohibition.

The petitioners are occupants of certain portions of the Tatalon On October 27, 1972, the President of the Philippines issued
Estate in Quezon City. Petitioner Santiago Mendoza claims ownership Letter of Instruction No. 34, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, which
over a portion with an area of 8.5 hectares which he acquired from the directed the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation "to take immediate
DEUDORS, as evidenced by an AGREEMENT entered into by him and steps towards the acquisition of the Tatalon Estate for the purposes stated in
Hilario M. Andaya, Valente M. Andaya, and Calixta M. Andaya on December RA No. 2616, by negotiation with the known and registered owner or owners
4, 1969. Petitioners Carmen Urbano and Manuela Urbano claim title to thereof or by expropriation pursuant to the aforesaid law." In compliance
a portion with an area of 1,500 sq.m. by virtue of a contract, dated May 4, therewith, the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, representing the
1951, and denominated DEED OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO, Republic of the Philippines, filed a complaint on January 23, 1973, with the
INTERESTS IN AND POSSESSION OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT entered into Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, for the condemnation
by them and Tomasa F. de Salanga who acquired the property from Pedro of the Tatalon Estate.
Deudor on March 2, 1949. Petitioners Renato, Raquel, Rosette, and
Romeo, all surnamed de Guzman, upon the other hand, are claiming title On December 12, 1977, The President of the Philippines issued
over a portion with an area of 1,700 sq.m. which they inherited from their Presidential Decree No. 1261 directing the expropriation of a portion of
father Serafin de Guzman, who also acquired it from Tomasa F. de Salanga the Tatalon Estate with an area of 25.26 hectares and designated the
on September 6, 1957. The lot is part of the land which Tomasa F. de National Housing Authority, which had been created not only to take over
Salanga acquired from Pedro Deudor on March 2, 1949. the functions of the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, but also to
develop and implement programs to provide housing for the greatest
On August 3, 1959, Republic Act No. 2616 took effect without number of the people, as the administrator of the Tatalon Estate Housing
executive approval. It authorized "the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate Project. The decree also provided guidelines for the development of the
jointly owned by the J.M. Tuason and Company, Inc., Gregorio Araneta and Tatalon Estate, as well as for the allocation of the lots to the bona fide
occupants thereof, as follows:
 2

renounces, any and all rights, if any, to impugn or question the validity of
SECTION 3. Allocation of lots and/or housing units in the project area shall P.D. No. 1261.
be made by the Authority according to the following priority:
(3) the expropriation or condemnation of the 25.26 hectares portion of the
1. Present occupants who were listed in the 1958 Araneta Census List of Tatalon Estate subject of the expropriation case before this Court as
Occupants; mandated by Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1261, be judicially declared and confirmed
by this Honorable Court.
2. Present occupants as determined by the Authority in its 1976 Census
Survey; and Meanwhile, on June 11, 1978, the President of the Philippines
issued Presidential Decree No. 1472, authorizing the National Housing
3. Squatter families in the Tatalon Estate after the 1976 Census Survey. Authority to summarily eject any and all squatters from government
resettlement projects without the necessity of a judicial order.
In the event that the number of homelots in the expropriated area is not
sufficient to accommodate all families falling under the foregoing categories, On January 27, 1981, the National Housing Authority wrote the
the Authority shall accommodate such excess families in any of its sites and petitioner Manuela Urbano, informing her that her request for inclusion in the
services projects. list of Tatalon Estate beneficiaries could not be favorably considered for
being an absentee structure owner, and demanding that she demolish her
On July 28, 1978, the Republic of the Philippines, now represented structure built on Tatalon Estate and vacate the premises within 15 days
by the National Housing Authority, and the J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. from receipt thereof, otherwise, the National Housing Authority would
submitted a Compromise Agreement to the trial court and prayed that summarily demolish her structure after the expiration of the period without
judgment be rendered in accordance therewith. On September 15, 1978, the further notice. The said petitioner sought a reconsideration of the order of
trial court promulgated its decision, approving the compromise agreement demolition and the National Housing Authority informed them that after a
and enjoining the parties to strictly follow the terms and conditions which careful re-evaluation of the records of their petition, they may now "be
provides that: considered for allocation under the third priority of the squatter families
(Section 3, Par. 3 of PD 1261) in Tatalon Estate" The reconsideration,
(1) the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines, represented by the National however, did not alter the standing order of demolition of their structures in
Housing Authority and the herein defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. have the lots occupied by them.
agreed conformably with Sec. 7 of P.D. 1261 and that the defendant J.M.
Tuason & Co., Inc. is entitled to a net total SUM OF TWENTY SEVEN The National Housing Authority also informed the petitioners
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED Romeo de Guzman and Renato de Guzman of its decision declaring them
FIFTY FIVE & 50/100 (P27,888,955.50) PESOS, as just compensation for as absentee structure owners, denying their petition for inclusion in the 1976
the expropriation of the 25.26 hectares portion of the Tatalon Estate; Census List of bona fide residents of Tatalon Estate and ordering them to
demolish their structure on the subject lot stands within 10 days from notice,
(2) the herein defendant J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. has accepted, as it hereby otherwise the National Housing Authority would summarily demolish the
accepts and/or has waived and renounced, as it hereby waives and same without further notice. Petitioners De Guzman sought for reversal of
the said decision but it was denied.
 3

Presidential Decree No. 1261, issued on December 12, 1977. As a matter of

The National Housing Authority also ordered petitioner Santiago fact, the petitioners Manuela Urbano, Carmen Urbano, Renato de Guzman,
Mendoza, "to demolish the illegal extension of his structure in Tatalon Estate and Romeo de Guzman had admitted the title of the Government over said
which pose obstruction/delay in the allocation process", within 10 days from lots when they applied for inclusion in the list of "Tatalon Estate
receipt thereof, otherwise the National Housing Authority would summarily beneficiaries. Besides, the land is registered in the name of the Government
demolish the illegal construction after the expiration of the period without and its title thereto had become indefeasible. The petitioners, having actual
further notice. knowledge of the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate, should have vindicated
their claim of ownership to the land claimed by them in the expropriation
In view of this threatened demolition of their houses, the petitioners proceedings, as intimated by the Court in the case of J.M. Tuason & Co.,
have filed this present Petition for prohibition, with a prayer for the issuance Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration.
of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, to restrain the
respondents from the threatened demolition of the petitioners' houses At any rate, Presidential Decree No. 1472 does not violate the
situated in Barangay Tatalon, Quezon City; and to declare Presidential constitutional due process clause since it requires proper notice of ejectment
Decree No. 1472 unconstitutional. to the squatter or illegal occupant concerned either by personal service or by
posting the same in the lot or door of the apartment as the case may be at
The petitioners contend that the enforcement of Presidential least 10 days before his scheduled ejectment from the premises, which has
Decree No. 1472 against them is illegal and unconstitutional as it would been amply complied with in the case of the petitioners. Here, notices of
deprive them of their property without due process of law. They claim that ejectment were served upon the petitioners after it had been determined that
the National Housing Authority has no jurisdiction over them since the lots they are not "Tatalon Estate beneficiaries" and, consequently, squatters on
occupied by them "are outside the perimeter of the appropriate area of the the land occupied by them. As squatters, they are a public nuisance which
Tatalon Estate and are not also embraced under Proclamation No. 1967". can be abated even without judicial proceedings.

Issue: It is beyond question that the lots occupied or claimed by the

Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1472 is unconstitutional for petitioners are among those expropriated by the Government. The fact that
being violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. the said lots are not included within the area proclaimed for priority
development under Proclamation No. 1967, dated May 8, 1980, does not
Ruling: preclude the National Housing Authority from exercising administrative
No. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners cannot be said to be control and supervision over the disposition of said lots. The National
deprived of property which is not legally theirs. Housing Authority was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 757,
dated July 31, 1975, not only to take over the functions of the People's
To begin with, the petition is based upon the premise that the Homesite and Housing Corporation, but also to develop and implement
petitioners are owners of the lots occupied by them for having acquired them housing programs, and was expressly designated, under Presidential
from DEUDORS, which is false, since the property occupied by them belong Decree No. 1261, dated December 12, 1977, the Administrator for the
to the Republic of the Philippines after the expropriation proceedings made national government of the Tatalon Estate. Since the lots occupied or
pursuant to Republic Act No. 2616, the administration and control of which claimed by the herein petitioners are, as previously stated. within the Tatalon
had been entrusted to respondent National Housing Authority under
 4

Estate, the National Housing Authority has supervision and control over the
disposition of the said lots.

WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED.

With costs against the petitioners.