Case Digest (G.R. No. 200903) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 200903, decided on July 22, 2014, petitioners Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc., represented by Vice-President Carlito Badion; Corazon de Jesus Homeowners Association, represented by President Arnold Repique; and individual residents Fernando Sevilla, Estrelieta Bagasbas, Jocy Lopez, Elvira Vidol, and Delia Frayres occupied parcels of land owned by the Cities of San Juan, Navotas, and Quezon City. Acting through Mayors Guia Gomez (San Juan), John Rey Tiangco (Navotas), and Herbert Bautista (Quezon City), and the National Housing Authority under Secretary Jessie Robredo and its General Manager, the respondents served notices of eviction and demolition pursuant to Section 28(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 7279 (the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) to clear danger areas and sites for government infrastructure projects. On March 23, 2012, the petitioners directly filed with the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition and mandamus to enjoin enforcement of S Case Digest (G.R. No. 200903) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Petition
- Petitioners
- Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc., represented by its Vice-President Carlito Badion
- Corazon de Jesus Homeowners Association, represented by its President Arnold Repiqué
- Individual settlers: Fernando Sevilla, Estrelieta Bagasbas, Jocy Lopez, Elvira Vidol, Delia Frayres
- Respondents
- Jessie Robredo, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
- Guia Gomez, Mayor of San Juan City
- Herbert Bautista, Mayor of Quezon City
- John Rey Tiangco, Mayor of Navotas City
- General Manager, National Housing Authority (NHA)
- Factual Antecedents
- Occupation and Eviction Notices
- Petitioners occupied lands in San Juan, Navotas, and Quezon City owned or administered by the LGUs and NHA.
- Respondents issued notices of eviction and demolition under Section 28(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act), citing danger-area occupation and imminent infrastructure projects.
- Direct Petition to the Supreme Court
- On March 23, 2012, petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition for prohibition and mandamus, seeking to enjoin evictions and compel judicial process before demolition.
- They challenged the constitutionality of Section 28(a) and (b) of RA 7279 as violative of due process (Art. 1 & 6, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution), right to adequate housing, and humane-eviction standards (Art. 13, Sec. 10).
- Respondents’ Objections
- Procedural Defects
- Violation of the hierarchy of courts by filing directly with the Supreme Court.
- Improper invocation of writs of prohibition and mandamus.
- Lack of justiciable controversy, mootness, and prescription.
- Substantive Defense
- Section 28(a) and (b) of RA 7279 consistent with Section 10, Article 13 of the Constitution (“in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner”).
- RA 7279’s implementing rules afford 30-day notice, consultations, local-official presence, disturbance-control measures, and relocation assistance.
- Petitioners lack a vested right to occupy public or LGU property.
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Did the petitioners violate the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly filing a Rule 65 petition with the Supreme Court?
- Did the petitioners correctly invoke the writs of prohibition and mandamus as remedies?
- Substantive Issue
- Are Sections 28(a) and (b) of RA 7279 unconstitutional under Sections 1 and 6, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution for authorizing evictions and demolitions without prior court order?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)