Title
Consular Area Residents Association, Inc. vs. Casanova
Case
G.R. No. 202618
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2016
Residents contested demolition in Fort Bonifacio, claiming structures were in Diplomatic Area, not JUSMAG Area. Supreme Court dismissed petition, ruling demolition lawful and moot post-completion.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 202618)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Statutory and Institutional Background
    • Republic Act No. 7227 (1992) created the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to convert military reservations into productive uses and to raise funds by selling portions of Metro Manila military camps; Executive Order No. 40 (1992) earmarked Fort Bonifacio among camps to be transferred to BCDA.
    • Proclamation No. 1725 (2009) declared the Diplomatic and Consular Area in Fort Bonifacio as alienable and disposable and transferred its administration to BCDA for maintenance and development.
  • JUSMAG and Diplomatic and Consular Areas; Pre-Litigation Events
    • The Joint US Military Army Group (JUSMAG) Area is a 34.5-hectare tract along Lawton Avenue originally housing AFP officers; it is slated for redevelopment by Megaworld Corporation as “McKinley West.”
    • BCDA, using DENR-approved Relocation Survey Plan Rel-00-001297, conducted ground surveys and house-tagging to identify informal settlers in the JUSMAG Area; the Local Housing Board of Taguig City issued on July 18, 2012 a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition under Section 28 of RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992).
    • BCDA President Casanova sent a July 20, 2012 letter requiring residents to accept relocation packages or vacate within seven days; petitioners (residents’ association) filed a petition for “Prohibition with plea for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction,” claiming their structures are in the Diplomatic and Consular Area (not JUSMAG), alleging BCDA had no property rights there, and challenging Casanova’s appointment as “anomalous and irregular.”
    • Respondents (Casanova, BCDA officers, Local Housing Board, City Government) argued demolition covered only JUSMAG structures, was valid under Section 28(b) RA 7279 without court order, Casanova was duly appointed, and that demolition was completed on September 21, 2012; they also asserted the petition was improperly filed in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the petition is properly characterized as one for prohibition or injunction and whether it was properly filed in the Supreme Court.
  • Whether petitioners’ structures are located within the Diplomatic and Consular Area or the JUSMAG Area.
  • Whether demolition under Section 28(b) of RA 7279 for a government project with available funding is valid without a court order.
  • Whether injunctive relief should be granted in light of the completed demolition.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.