Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48685)
Facts:
Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes‑Balaoing, G.R. No. L‑48685, September 30, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cortes, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are private owners of two adjoining lots in Antipolo, Rizal (6,667 sq. m. and 3,333 sq. m.). The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed, on December 5, 1977, a complaint for expropriation covering approximately twenty‑five hectares that included the petitioners’ lots and moved for immediate possession.Along with its complaint, NHA deposited P158,980.00 with the Philippine National Bank representing the "total market value" of the entire 25 hectares, the valuation being calculated at P1.00 per sq. m. in accordance with assessments adopted under the Presidential decrees governing socialized housing expropriations. On January 17, 1978, the trial judge, Hon. Buenaventura Guerrero, ordered issuance of a writ of possession based on that deposit. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration arguing deprivation of possession without due process; the motion was denied on June 28, 1978.
Petitioners thereafter brought the present petition to the Supreme Court challenging the lower court’s orders and attacking the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended, on grounds including lack of jurisdiction/grave abuse, absence of notice and hearing, that “socialized housing” is not a public use, unfair assessor valuations, deprivation of judicial determination of just compensation, and the taking of very small parce...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession without notice and hearing and in denying the motion for reconsideration?
- Does the taking of land for socialized housing under Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended, constitute a valid "public use" for purposes of eminent domain?
- Are the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended (and corollary decrees) that fix valuation procedures and permit immediate taking without ordinary judicial determination constitutional...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)