G.R. No. 154060 - Yusen Air and Sea Service Phil. Inc. vs. Villamor

Parties, nature of petitioner, and land subject of controversy
Barrio Balagbag of Pasay City Neighborhood Association, Inc., for and in behalf of the residents of Barrio Balagbag of Pasay City (petitioner) was a non-stock domestic corporation whose members were residents of an area of land situated in Barrio Balagbag, San Roque and Maricaban, Pasay City (subject area).
The subject area comprised part of the properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6735.
The subject area had been previously under the control and supervision of Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) (respondent).
The other respondents were Office of the President (OP) and MIAA.

Proclamations affecting the subject area and intended disposition for socialized housing
On January 18, 2002, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 144 (Proc. No. 144).
Proc. No. 144 segregated certain areas from the principal parcel of land covered under TCT No. 6735 and declared them open to disposition to qualified applicants under Act No. 3038, in relation to Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 as amended.
Proc. No. 144 further required that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) shall conduct or supervise the actual boundary survey and subdivision survey of the subject area.
On May 28, 2003, Proc. No. 144 was amended by Proclamation No. 391 (Proc. No. 391).
Proc. No. 391 designated the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC)/National Housing Authority (NHA), in coordination with MIAA, as the primary agency responsible and authorized to administer and dispose the lots covered by Proc. No. 144 in favor of bonafide and qualified residents thereat for socialized housing purposes under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279, the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.
On March 6, 2006, Proc. No. 1027 was issued, reducing the land previously declared available for disposition under Proc. No. 144 by segregating certain portions as areas for retention by MIAA.

Petitioner’s action and the executive proclamations challenged
On May 4, 2006, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief against OP and MIAA.
Petitioner prayed that Proc. No. 1027 be declared invalid.
Petitioner argued that:

Its members had been residing in the subject property for a period of time.
Its members were qualified to avail of the benefits of Proc. No. 144.
Its members’ chance to own the land they were occupying was effectively abridged by the issuance of Proc. No. 1027.
Proc. No. 1027 rendered futile and useless the time, money, and effort its members spent to implement Proc. No. 144.

OP filed an Answer alleging that the President had the prerogative to retain certain portions of public land for public use and that the case was not predicated on any justiciable controversy.
MIAA filed an Answer alleging that petitione...(Subscriber-Only)

Justiciability of the petition for declaratory relief
Whether an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening seeds” of one existed between adverse interests, satisfying Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.

Merits on the validity of Proclamation No. 1027
Whether the President had authority, consistent with law, to withdraw specified portions of the subject areas from disposition by issuing Proc. No. 1027, thereby retaining those areas for MIAA. ...(Subscriber-Only)