Case Digest (G.R. No. 122089)
Facts:
Meliton Zabat and Marylou Zabat v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122089, August 23, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are Meliton and Marylou Zabat; respondents include the Court of Appeals (as respondent in a Rule 45 petition), the Presiding Judge, Branch 114, Pasay City, the National Housing Authority (NHA), and Alejandra and Guillermo Mauri, Jr. (the Mauris).The dispute concerns Lot 8, Block 7, Phase I‑a in the Tramo/F Victor upgrading project of the NHA (sixty square meters). In 1977 the NHA census recorded two structures on the lot — one associated with Marylou Zabat and another with the Mauris — and assigned a tag number to Mrs. Zabat’s structure. A 1981 NHA verification found the Zabat structure rented to a Conrado Briones and classified Mrs. Zabat as an absentee structure owner, making her ineligible under NHA Memo Circular No. 13 (Section 1(a)). The lot was awarded to the Mauris.
Mrs. Zabat appealed to the NHA Awards and Arbitration Committee (AAC) on March 15, 1983. On March 5, 1985 the AAC reconsidered and declared her a project beneficiary but assigned her a different lot because the contested lot had already been allocated to the Mauris (resolution No. 85‑14). Her motion for reconsideration was denied on August 16, 1985. On August 24, 1985 the NHA awarded the lot to the Mauris and executed a conditional contract to sell in their favor; the Mauris tendered amortized payments. Thereafter the NHA sent demolition notices to the Zabats.
On July 23, 1991 the Zabats filed Civil Case No. 8294 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City to enjoin eviction. A fire at Pasay City Hall destroyed court records, and their motion to reconstitute the records was denied on procedural grounds on October 22, 1992. On October 22, 1992 the Zabats filed Civil Case No. 9365 (injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction) to enjoin the NHA and the Mauris from demolishing their structure. The Mauris and the NHA moved to dismiss on grounds including prior judgment, laches, and lack of existing right; the RTC denied those motions on November 17, 1992 and the defendants answered.
The RTC denied the Zabats’ prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction on March 1, 1993 for failure to establish a clear and positive right. On August 23, 1993 the RTC rendered judgment dismissing Civil Case No. 9365 and ordered the plaintiffs to pay attorney’s fees and costs. The Zabats appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on February 24, 1995 affirmed the RTC judgment but deleted the award of attorney’s fee...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was filing a complaint for injunction the proper remedy for the Zabats to challenge the NHA award of the lot?
- Were the Zabats required to exhaust available NHA and other administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief?
- Had the Zabats’ claim become stale or barred by laches, making injuncti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)