G.R. No. 243818 - Raoul C. Villarete vs. Commission on Audit

The Homeowners Association of El Deposito, Barrio Corazon de Jesus, San Juan, Rizal, represented by its president and numerous members.
The Homeowners Association of El Deposito, Barrio Halo Halo, San Juan, Rizal, represented by its president and other members.

Hon. Guardson Lood, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, Pasig, Rizal.
The Municipality of San Juan, Rizal and its Municipal Mayor and Municipal Council.
The Engineering District of Rizal, represented by Nicolas Aldana, Engineer II, Pasig, Rizal.

On April 15, 1970, the petitioners filed an action for certiorari and prohibition coupled with a request for a preliminary injunction.
The petition sought to set aside the lower court’s orders dated February 9, 1970 and March 30, 1970, which denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction aimed at stopping the demolition and removal of their houses and structures.
The grounds supporting their petition included:

The declaration of municipal ordinance No. 89, as amended, being null and void on the basis of being ex post facto legislation.
The contention that respondents were illegally demolishing and removing houses and improvements constructed on a parcel of public land.

On April 20, 1970, a temporary restraining order was issued to halt the demolition pending further orders.
The procedural history involved:

Subsequent answers and memoranda filed by both parties, with the petitioners emphasizing that the main issue was the alleged overreach and abuse of discretion by the respondent judge.
The matter also raised issues about the validity of the local ordinance and the authority to demolish structures without a special judicial demolition order.

A motion to reopen cadastral proceedings was filed on August 2, 1971, challenging the status of the land and seeking relief for alleged public interests.
The Rizal Court of First Instance denied the reopening on August 20, 1971.
A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on November 16, 1971.
A special civil action for certiorari and mandamus was filed on December 13, 1971 and subsequently dismissed on December 16, 1971, with reconsideration also denied on May 23, 1972.

The land in question, popularly known as “El Deposito,” was confirmed to be public land.
Testimonies and documentary evidence, including tax declarations and previous survey results, corroborated that the houses were constructed on land owned by the government (originally the Metropolitan Water District and its successors).
The property had also been partially utilized or leased by government and related bodies for public purposes (e.g., school sites, public infrastructure, and the national shrine for the Battle of Pinaglabanan).

The contested municipal ordinance No. 89, as amended, prohibited squatting on public property and imposed penalties for non-compliance.
The ordinance served as the statutory basis for the removal and demolition of the petitioners’ houses, which were deemed public nuisances and hazards to public health.
Prior judicial decisions, notably by Judge Andres Reyes and the Court of Appeals, had consistently denied preliminary injunctions in similar circumstances, establishing a pattern unfavorable to the petitioners.
The existence and eventual resolution of the cadastral proceedings clarified that there were no pending land title claims challenging the public status of the land.

Whether the respondent judge exceeded his authority and gravely abused his discretion when denying the petitioners’ request for a writ of preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo.
Whether such denial was consistent with previous rulings and established judicial precedents.

Whether the ordinance, which prohibits squatting on public land and provides penalties for such acts, is constitutionally valid or constitutes ex post facto legislation.
Whether the application of the ordinance to the petitioners’ case is proper given the construction and occupancy of public land.

Whether the respondent Engineer was authorized to proceed with the demolition and removal of the petitioners’ houses without obtaining a special court demolition order under the challenged ordinance.

Whether the simultaneous filing of a petition for compulsory registration (cadastral proceedings) by the petitioners precludes enforcement of the municipal ordinance or affects the right to a preliminary injunction.
Clarification that subsequent events established that no such pending proceedings jeopardized the determination of the land’s public character.