DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
With due respect, I dissent from the majority decision or ponencia of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno insofar as it failed and refused to rule on the unconstitutionality of P.D. No. 1315, subject of the second assignment of error of the petition in the case at bench. However, I concur in the result insofar as the ponencia dismisses the petition at bar for failure of the petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies.
Before us is a petition for review of the Decision1 [Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Alfredo M. Marigomen and Fortunato A. Vailoces, Rollo, pp. 51-55.] and Resolution2 [Id., pp. 57-58.] of the Court of Appeals3 [Sixth Division.] dated April 24, 1992 and August 31, 1992, respectively, denying the petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition as well as of a writ of mandamus to compel respondent National Housing Authority (NHA), represented by its project manager, respondent Annabelle D. Carangdang, to relocate the 24 squatter families occupying petitioner Pilo Militante’s land in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The ratio decidendi of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals is that P.D. No. 1315 is presumed constitutional. Hence, the petitioner in his second assignment of error questions whether P.D. No. 1315 can be declared void for being unconstitutional at least up to the extent of his properties adversely affected thereby. Kycalrâ
The pertinent facts are:
Petitioner is the registered owner of three (3) parcels of contiguous land denominated as lot nos. 3603, 3605 and 3607, with an aggregate area of 1,590 square meters situated in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City, covered and described in Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 53066-A4 [Annex "E" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 65-66.], 530675 [Annex "D" of the Petition, Id., pp. 61-62.] and 530686 [Annex "C" of the Petition, Id., pp. 59-60.] respectively of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City. Said titles were all derived from TCT No. 71357.7 [Annexes "C", "D", and "E", supra.]
Around twenty-four (24) squatter families lived on petitioner’s land. They claimed to be beneficiaries of P.D. No. 13158 [Promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on March 26, 1978 entitled, "Providing for the expropriation of a landed estate registered under TCT No. 70298, 73960, portion of 71357, 2017 and 2018 and all transfer certificates of title derived therefrom, in Bagong Barrio, Calocan City for the upgrading and the disposal of lots therein to their present bonafide occupants and other qualified squatter families and authorizing the appropriation of funds for the purpose."] which mandated the expropriation of petitioner’s land as part of the landed estate in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City and covered by the Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program and Zonal Improvement Program.
The National Housing Authority (NHA) undertook the implementation of P.D. No. 1315 in seven (7) phases called the Bagong Barrio Project (BBP). The properties covered by phases 1 to 6 were acquired in 1978 and 1979 while those covered by phase 7, including petitioner’s subject lots, were left untouched due to inadequate funds of the NHA at that time.
During this hiatus, petitioner sought to prevent the impending expropriation of his subject lots by seeking a declaration of non-coverage from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC). As a result, HSRC Commissioner Raymundo R. Dizon issued a certification9 [Annex "H" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 72.], dated October 2, 1981, declaring petitioner’s lots to be outside the coverage of P.D. No. 1315. CalrkyÓ
Armed with the said certification, petitioner asked the NHA to relocate the squatters living on his land. The NHA then called them for a dialogue on January 15, 1982 to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement but they did not attend the meeting. Thus, Joaquin Castaño, Acting Division Manager of the Resettlement Division of the NHA, recommended the issuance of a demolition clearance.10 [Annex "J" of the Petition, Id., p. 74.]
On January 21, 1982, Gaudencio V. Tobias, as the then General Manager of the NHA, granted the demolition clearance, and requested then Caloocan City Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr., to implement the same.11 [Annex "K" of the Petition, Id., p. 75-76.]
In 1986, an emergency fund in the amount of two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) was appropriated and approved by the NHA for the acquisition of the lots covered by phase 7 of the Bagong Barrio Project. Thus, in September 1987, the NHA started negotiations with petitioner for the acquisition of his subject lots. Initially, petitioner offered to sell his lots at P200.00 per square meter while the NHA offered to buy the same at P175.00 per square meter.12 [Comment, p. 4, Rollo, p. 98.] But in a letter dated April 28, 1988, petitioner upped his asking price to P1,000.00 per square meter and in another letter, the price was further increased to P3,000.00 per square meter. The NHA’s final offer was P500.00 per square meter which the petitioner rejected in a letter dated March 20, 1989.13 [Ibid.]
On September 8, 1990, petitioner requested the NHA to revalidate his demolition clearance issued to him on January 21, 1982.14 [Rollo, p. 80.] He also requested for a certification of the availability of lots in the slum relocation areas of the NHA in Sapang Palay and Bagong Silang, both located in Caloocan City, for occupancy by the squatters living on his land.15 [Ibid.]
On January 15, 1991, Monico V. Jacob, then the General Manager of the NHA, revalidated the said demolition clearance.16 [Annex "P" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 81.] The task of relocating the squatters from petitioner’s land to Sapang Palay and Bagong Silang fell on respondent Annabelle D. Carangdang as Project Director of the NHA. She, however, refused to eject the squatters on the ground that their right to occupy petitioner’s land was protected by P.D. No. 1315. Mesmä
Consequently, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus with Declaration as Inexistent and Unconstitutional Presidential Decree No. 131517 [Annex "P" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 81.] against respondents NHA and Carangdang. However, this Court, in its Resolution dated July 11, 1991, referred the same to the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner argued that P.D. No. 1315 relied upon by respondent Carangdang is unconstitutional and does not vest in the squatters any right to occupy petitioner’s land. As such, petitioner insisted that prohibition and mandamus lie.
The Court of Appeals, however, denied the said petition. Hence, this petition for review of the said Decision and Resolution dated April 24, 1992 and August 31, 1992, respectively of the Court of Appeals.
In the instant petition for review, the petitioner alleges that respondent Court of Appeals erred in ruling only on the issue of constitutionality of P.D. No. 1315 and not on the petition for prohibition and mandamus against respondents NHA and Carangdang. In the petition for review before this Court, the petitioner states two (2) specific assignment of errors, to wit:
"I
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ANNABELLE CARANGDANG CAN BE COMPELLED TO EFFECT THE DIRECTIVE/MEMORANDUM OF RELOCATION/RESETTLEMENT SUBJECTING THE SAID 24 SQUATTER FAMILIES FROM UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING PETITIONER’S SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOUT DECLARING P.D. 1315 AS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND ScslxÓ
II
WHETHER OR NOT SAID P.D. 1315 AT LEAST UP TO THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER’S PROPERTIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED CAN BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID FOR BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL."18 [Petition, pp. 14-15, Rollo, pp. 31-32.]
The sequence of events that transpired in the instant case reveals an unmistakable attempt by petitioner to eject the squatters occupying his land first by purely executive action on the part of respondent NHA in coordination with the local officials of Caloocan City, and then when that did not materialize, via prohibition and mandamus proceedings which was first instituted in this Court but later referred to and then ultimately denied by respondent Court of Appeals. We cannot countenance such an underhanded scheme to circumvent our laws vesting in the metropolitan and municipal trial courts the exclusive and original jurisdiction over ejectment cases. Having resorted to judicial intervention with "unclean hands," so to speak, petitioner deserves no relief from us. Since it is truly the ejectment of the squatters living on his land that petitioner seeks, it is an ejectment case that he should file in the proper court. Besides, prohibition is manifestly the wrong remedy in this case.
However, we reverse respondent Court of Appeals insofar as it held that P.D. No. 1315 is still presumed constitutional. Insofar as the second issue explicitly raised by the petitioner in this instant petition for review is concerned, we hereby declare P.D. No. 1315 as unconstitutional for being inherently so and in the light of our ruling in the 1987 case of Manotok v. National Housing Authority.19 [150 SCRA 89 (1987)]
In Manotok, we invalidated P.D. Nos. 1669 and 167020 [Both PDs were issued on January 28, 1980.] expropriating the Tambunting Estate and real properties along the Estero de Sunog-Apog, both in Manila, respectively, because by the mere issuance of the Presidential decrees, the said properties were automatically expropriated, and declared as such, thereby depriving the owners thereof their right as such without being given the chance to oppose such direct, absolute and immediate compulsory sale of their private lands to the government.
We detailed, thus: Slxsä c
"On January 28, 1980, the President issued the challenged Presidential Decrees Nos. 1669 and 1670 which respectively declared the Tambunting Estate and the Sunog-Apog area expropriated.
"Presidential Decree No. 1669, provides, among others:
‘Section 1. The real properties known as the ‘Tambunting Estate and covered by TCT Nos. 119059, 122450, 122459, 122452, and Lots Nos. 1-A, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F and 1-H of (LRC) Psd- 230517 (Previously covered by TCT No. 119058) of the Register of Deeds of Manila with an area of 52,688.70 square meters, more or less are hereby declared expropriated. The National Housing Authority hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’ is designated administrator of the National Government with authority to immediately take possession, control, disposition, with the power of demolition of the expropriated properties and their improvements and shall evolve and implement a comprehensive development plan for the condemned properties.
‘xxx......xxx......xxx
‘Section 6. Notwithstanding any provision of law or decree to the contrary and for the purpose of expropriating this property pegged at the market value determined by the City Assessor pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 76, as amended, particularly by Presidential Decree No. 1533 which is in force and in effect at the time of the issuance of this decree. In assessing the market value, the City Assessor shall consider existing conditions in the area notably, that no improvement has been undertaken on the land and that the land is squatted upon by resident families which should considerably depress the expropriation cost. Subject to the foregoing, the just compensation for the above property should not exceed a maximum of SEVENTEEN MILLION PESOS (P17,000,000.00) which shall be payable to the owners within a period of five (5) years in five (5) equal installments.’ slxä mis
"Presidential Decree No. 1670, on the other hand, provides:
‘Section 1. The real property along the Estero de Sunog-Apog in Tondo, Manila formerly consisting of Lots Nos. 55-A, 55-B and 55-C, Block 2918 of the subdivision plan Psd-11746, covered by TCT Nos. 49286, 49287 and 49288, respectively, of the Registry of Deeds of Manila, and formerly owned by the Manotok Realty Inc., with an area of 72,428.6 square meters, more or less, is hereby declared expropriated. The National Housing Authority hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’ is designated administrator of the National Government with authority to immediately take possession, control and disposition, with the power of demolition of the expropriated properties and their improvements and shall evolve and implement a comprehensive development plan for the condemned properties.
‘xxx......xxx......xxx
‘Section 6. Notwithstanding any provision of law or decree to the contrary and for the purpose of expropriating this property pegged at the market value determined by the City Assessor pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 76, as amended, particularly by Presidential Decree No. 1533 which is in force and in effect at the time of the issuance of this decree. In assessing the market value, the City Assessor shall consider existing conditions in the area notably, that no improvement has been undertaken on the land and that the land is squatted upon by resident families which should considerably depress the expropriation cost. Subject to the foregoing, the just compensation for the above property should not exceed a maximum of EIGHT MILLION PESOS (P8,000,000.00), which shall be payable to the owners within a period of five (5) years in five equal installment.’ Missdaa
"xxx......xxx......xxx
"The challenged decrees are uniquely unfair in the procedures adopted and the powers given to the respondent NHA.
"The Tambunting subdivision is summarily proclaimed a blighted area and directly expropriated by decree without the slightest semblance of a hearing or any proceeding whatsoever. The expropriation is instant and automatic to take effect immediately upon the signing of the decree. No deposit before taking is required under the decree. The P3,400,000.00 appropriated from the general fund is not a deposit but constitutes an installment payment for the property, the maximum price of which is fixed so as not to exceed P17,000,000.00. there is no provision for any interests to be paid on the unpaid installments spread out over a period of five years. Not only are the owners given absolutely no opportunity to contest the expropriation, plead their side, or question the amount of payments fixed by decree, but the decisions, rulings, orders, or resolutions of the NHA are expressly declared as beyond the reach of judicial review. An appeal may be made to the Office of the President but the courts are completely enjoined from any inquiry or participation whatsoever in the expropriation of the subdivision or its incidents.
"xxx......xxx......xxx
"The due process clause cannot be rendered nugatory everytime a specific decree or law orders the expropriation of somebody’s property and provides its own peculiar manner of taking the same. Neither should the courts adopt a hands-off policy just because the public use has been ordained as existing by the decree or the just compensation has been fixed and determined beforehand by a statute. SdaÓ adsc
"xxx......xxx......xxx
In other words, although due process does not always necessarily demand that a proceeding be had before a court of law, it still mandates some form of proceeding wherein notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard are given to the owner to protect his property rights. xxx
"xxx......xxx......xxx
In the instant petitions, there is no showing whatsoever as to why the properties involved were singled out for expropriation through decrees or what necessity impelled the particular choices or selections. In expropriations through legislation, there are, at least, debates in Congress open to the public, scrutiny by individual members of the legislature, and very often, public hearings before the statute is enacted. Congressional records can be examined. In these petitions, the decrees show no reasons whatsoever for the choice of the properties as housing projects. The anonymous adviser who drafted the decrees for the President’s signature cannot be questioned as to any possible error or partiality, act of vengeance, or other personal motivations which may have led him to propose the direct expropriation with its onerous provisions.
"xxx......xxx......xxx
"After a careful examination of the questioned decrees, we find P.D. Nos. 1669 and 1670 to be violative of the petitioner’s right to due process of law and, therefore, they must fail the test of constitutionality.
The decrees do not by themselves, provide for any form of hearing or procedure by which the petitioners can question the propriety of the expropriation of their properties or the reasonableness of the just compensation. xxx. Obviously, it did not deem it necessary because of the enactment of the questioned decrees which rendered, by their very passage, any questions with regard to the expropriation of the properties, moot and academic. In effect, the properties, under the decrees were "automatically expropriated. xxx
"This is hardly the due process of law which the state is expected to observe when it exercises the power of eminent domain.
"xxx......xxx......xxx
"In P.D. No. 76, P.D. No. 464, P.D. No. 794, and P.D. No. 1533, the basis for determining just compensation was fixed at the market value declared by the owner or the market value determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. RtcÓ spped
"P.D.s 1669 and 1670 go further. There is no mention of any market value declared by the owner. Sections 6 of the two decrees peg just compensation at the market value determined by the City Assessor. The City Assessor is warned by the decrees to ‘consider existing conditions in the area notably, that no improvement has been undertaken on the land and that the land is squatted upon by resident families which should considerably depress the expropriation costs.’
"In other cases involving expropriations under P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533, this Court has decided to invalidate the mode of fixing just compensation under said decrees. (See Export Processing Zone Authority v. Hon. Ceferino E. Dulay, et al. G.R. No. 59603) With more reason should the method in P.D.s [sic] 1669 and 1670 be declared infirm.
"The market value stated by the city assessor alone cannot substitute for the court’s judgment in expropriation proceedings. It is violative of the due process and the eminent domain provisions of the Constitution to deny to a property owner the opportunity to prove that the valuation made by a local assessor is wrong or prejudiced. The statements made in tax documents by the assessor may serve as one of the factors to be considered but they cannot exclude or prevail over a court determination made after expert commissioners have examined the property and all partinent circumstances are taken into account and after the parties have had the opportunity to fully plead their cases before a competent and unbiased tribunal. To enjoin this Court by decree from looking into alleged violations of the due process, equal protection, and eminent domain clauses of the Constitution is impermissible encroachment on its independence and prerogatives."21 [Manotok v. National Housing Authority, 150 SCRA 89,94-96, 100-105, 108-109 (1987). Underscoring and emphasis ours.]
Manotok squarely applies to the instant case, as P.D. No. 1315 is worded exactly like P.D. Nos. 1669 and 1670. Pertinent portions of P.D. No. 1315 which explicitly declared petitioner’s subject property as expropriated, read as follows: Korteä
"Section 1. The real properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 70289, 73960 and a portion of 71357 identified as Lot Nos. 3593, 3594 and 3629 in the name of Maria B. Castro and Lot No. 3206 in the name of Bonifacio Co as per Tax Declaration No. 3206 in the name of Bonifacio Co as per Tax Declaration No. 25395 with an aggregate area of 403,799 square meters, more or less; Lot Nos. 3591 and 3592 containing a total area of 1,440 square meters in the name of Abdon Chan as per Tax Declaration Nos. 24853 and 24854 and Lot Nos. 3603, 3605 and 3607 containing a combined area of 1,590 square meters in the name of Pio Militante as per Tax Declaration No. 24876 all of which are were previously covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. 71357 and the adjacent real properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. 2017 and 2018 registered in the name of Leonora Carriedo containing an area of 141,133 square meters, more or less and all located at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, having been identified as a blighted area and included in the SIR Program established under Letters [sic] of Instructions [sic] No. 555 and ZIP Program as provided by Executive Order No. 6-77 dated 21 July 1977 of the Governor, Metropolitan Manila, are hereby declared expropriated. The National Housing Authority hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’ is designated administrator for the national government and is authorized to immediately take possession, control and disposition of the expropriated properties with the power of demolition of their improvements. Pursuant thereto, the Authority with the government of Caloocan City and in consultation with the Metro Manila Commission shall evolve and implement a comprehensive development plan for the condemned properties.
"xxx......xxx......xxx
"Section 6. Notwithstanding any provision of law or decree to the contrary and for the purpose of expropriating these properties pegged at the market value determined by the City Assessor pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 76, as amended and in force and in effect at the time of the issuance of this decree. In assessing the market value, the City Assessor shall consider existing conditions in the area notably, that no improvement has been undertaken on the land and that the land is squatted upon by resident families which should considerably depressed [sic] the expropriation cost. Subject to the foregoing, the just compensation for the above properties should not exceed a maximum of FORTY MILLION PESOS (P40,000,000.00) which shall be payable to the owners within a period of five (5) years in five (5) equal installments. Sclawä
"xxx......xxx......xxx
"Section 11. The decisions, rulings, orders or resolutions of the Authority relative to the disposition of the lots or dwelling units or such rights acquired hereunder, or to the ejections [sic] of delinquent beneficiaries cannot be the subject of judicial review and shall be final, unless appealed to the Office of the President within thirty (30) days from receipt of such decision, rulings, orders or resolutions; provided, however, that the Office of the President is deemed to have affirmed and appealed such decision, ruling, order or resolution if within sixty (60) days from notice of appeal the said Office has not reversed nor modified."22 [Underscoring and emphasis ours.]
For the same reasons as those we expounded in Manotok, and finding that P.D. No. 1315 inherently violates the due process and just compensation guarantees enshrined in our Constitution, it is my view that P.D. No. 1315 should be as it is hereby declared unconstitutional and void. Another reason for this Court to declare the unconstitutionality and nullity of P.D. No. 1315 is the need to rule on the second assignment of error ("Whether or not said P.D. 1315 at least up to the extent of petitioner’s properties adversely affected can be declared null and void for being unconstitutional") considering that the explicit ratio decidendi of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, that is, that "P.D. is presumed constitutional". As a Filipino citizen, entitled to certain constitutional rights including due process and just compensation, the petitioner has the right, not merely a privilege, to seek the explicit ruling of this Court on the unconstitutionality of P.D. No. 1315 inasmuch as the squatters on his subject three (3) parcels of land claim the right to occupy the petitioner’s land by virtue of that Presidential Decree.
Contrary to the ponencia, the petitioner, in the light of the facts in the case at bar, is not estopped from asserting that P.D. No. 1315 is unconstitutional. It was not the petitioner but the NHA that sought to implement Pres. Decree No. 1315. Petitioner even rejected the final offer of NHA to purchase his lots at Php500.00 per square meter.
I reject the apprehension and dispute the view in the ponencia, apparently believing the exaggerated and baseless warning of the Solicitor General, that to allow the petitioner to question the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1315 many years after its promulgation "might spawn legal and social ramification which cannot be lightly ignored." The warning refers to the fact that other parcels of land have been earlier purchased in 1978 and 1979 by the government by virtue of P.D. No. 1315. However, this Court has already ruled in at least two (2) cases23 [Ministerio v. Court of First Instance, 40 SCRA 467 (1971); Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360 (1972)] that if property is taken by the government without the benefit of proper expropriation proceedings and is devoted for public use for many years, the property owner may no longer bring an action for recovery of his land but may only demand payment of just compensation thereof. Besides, any action for recovery of those other lots purchased and acquired by the government in 1978 and 1979 and/or for just compensation has already prescribed. ScÓ lex
Finally, it appears that: (1) prohibition, is manifestly the wrong remedy in this case and needs no further discussion; and (2) mandamus will not lie for failure of petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner could have appealed to the General Manager and/or Board of Directors of the NHA to compel respondent Annabelle D. Carangdang, NHA Project Manager, to effect the Directives/Memorandum of Relocation/Settlement of the 24 squatter families who are occupying the petitioner’s subject property. But he did not.
ACCORDINGLY, it is my considered opinion that P.D. No. 1315 should be as it is hereby declared unconstitutional. The assailed Decision dated April 24, 1992 and the Resolution dated August 31, 1992 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the petition for mandamus is hereby DISMISSED for failure of petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies. The petition for prohibition is also DISMISSED for being patently the wrong remedy in the case at bench.
- end -