261. Manapat v. CA, GR171496, Mar.
3, 2014, 717 SCRA 601
FACTS
The three-decade saga of the parties herein has for its subject parcels of land forming
part of what was originally known as the Grace Park Subdivision in Caloocan City and
formerly owned by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM) and/or the
Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). Sometime in the 1960’s, RCAM allowed a number
of individuals to occupy the Grace Park property on condition that they would vacate the
premises should the former push through with the plan to construct a school in the area.
The plan, however, did not materialize, thus, the occupants offered to purchase the
portions they occupied. Later, as they could not afford RCAM’s proposed price, the
occupants, organizing themselves as exclusive members of the Eulogio Rodriguez, Jr.
Tenants Association, Inc., petitioned the Government for the acquisition of the said
property, its subdivision into home lots, and the resale of the subdivided lots to them at
a low price.
Acting on the association’s petition, the Government, in 1963, through the Land Tenure
Administration (LTA), later succeeded by the People’s Homesite and Housing
Corporation (PHHC), negotiated for the acquisition of the property from RCAM/PRC.
But because of the high asking price of RCAM and the budgetary constraints of the
Government, the latter’s effort to purchase and/or to expropriate the property was
discontinued. RCAM then decided to effect, on its own, the subdivision of the property
and the sale of the individual subdivided lots to the public. Petitioners Manapat and Lim
and respondents Loberanes, Quimque, Vega, Santos, Oracion and Mercado in these
consolidated cases were among those who purchased individual subdivided lots of
Grace Park directly from RCAM and/or PRC.
A significant turn of events however happened in 1977 when the late President
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1072, appropriating ₱1.2M
out of the President’s Special Operations Funds to cover the additional amount needed
for the expropriation of Grace Park. The National Housing Authority (NHA), PHHC’s
successor, then filed several expropriation proceedings over the already subdivided lots
for the purpose of developing Grace Park under the Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP)
and subdividing it into small lots for distribution and resale at a low cost to the residents
of the area.
The CA applied R.A. No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and
Housing Act of 1992 which provides that, for purposes of urban development and
housing under the Act, where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by
small property owners shall be exempted. "Small property owners" are owners of
residential lands with an area not exceeding 300 sq m in highly urbanized cities and 800
sq m in other urban areas and who do not own any other real property. Invoking this
limitation under the said law, the appellate court in the questioned rulings exempted
from expropriation the lots owned by Loberanes, Quimque, Mercado, Vega and Santos,
and partially exempted the lot of Oracion.
ISSUE
Whether or not the subject lots are exempted from expropriation by virtue of R.A. No.
7279?
RULLING
No. The CA’s ruling on this point is incorrect. R.A. No. 7279 was enacted in 1992,
almost two decades after the expropriation cases against the property owners herein
were instituted with the RTC in 1977. Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet,
non praeteritis. A new statute should affect the future, not the past. The law looks
forward, not backward.
It is unmistakable that all the requirements for the valid exercise of the power of eminent
domain have been complied with. Thus, the NHA may validly expropriate the subject
parcels of land. The subject cases are emanded to the trial court for the determination
of the amount of just compensation.
