Title
Chavez vs. National Housing Authority
Case
G.R. No. 164527
Decision Date
Aug 15, 2007
A case challenging the constitutionality of the Smokey Mountain Project's Joint Venture Agreement, seeking nullification, enforcement restraint, and public document disclosure. Mandamus granted for transparency.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 70836)

Joint Venture Under the BOT Law

After RA 6957 (July 1990) and Joint Resolution No. 3 (Feb. 1992) authorized BOT projects, NHA invited bids. TECHCOM and EXECOM evaluations declared RBI top bidder (88.475%) in August 1992. President Ramos’s Proclamation No. 39 (Sept. 9, 1992) reserved and conveyed dumpsite and 400,000 m² foreshore to NHA. October 7, 1992 authorization paved the way for the March 19, 1993 JVA under PD 757, MO 161-A, and MO 415.

Presidential Approvals and Land Conveyance

MO 415-A (Jan. 1992) directed NHA to implement SMDRP via private joint venture; PEA and DENR joined EXECOM/TECHCOM. Special Patents Nos. 3591 and 3592 (Sept. 1994) conveyed dumpsite (211,975 m²) and 401,485 m² reclaimed land to NHA. Proclamation No. 465 (Aug. 31, 1994) expanded reclamation to 790,000 m² (79 ha) and issued Special Patent No. 3598 for an additional 390,000 m².

Amendments and Asset Pool Formation

February 21, 1994 ARJVA delineated Phase I (temporary housing, medium-rise units, 79 ha reclamation) and Phase II (incinerator, 119 ha reclamation). August 11, 1994 AARJVA clarified port integration and compensation upon termination. September 26, 1994 Asset Pool Agreement with PNB and HIGC secured financing and guarantees.

Project Implementation and Suspension

DENR granted ECC; RBI commenced preparatory work and construction. Clean Air Act (1999) outlawed incinerator, halting Phase II. By August 1996 reclamation completed. EXECOM approved change orders exceeding 25% contract price; Supplemental Agreement (Mar. 20, 1998) covered additional works, but approval delayed under President Estrada. Work suspended August 1, 1998 due to lack of enabling component and financing shortfall.

Subsequent Supplemental Agreements and MOA

Estrada’s Nov. 1998 reconstitution of EXECOM led to proposed additional reclamation (150 ha) and conveyance of 17 ha NHA Vitas property. March 23, 2000 OP Memorandum authorized completion of SMDRP; NHA resolutions (2000–2002) approved Vitas transfer and PhP 480 M advances. Cabinet directed public bidding for remaining works (2002). August 27, 2003 MOA terminated JVA, ARJVA, Supplemental Agreements; provided cash and property compensation mechanism for RBI claims subject to validation.

Counsel’s Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus

Former Solicitor General Chavez filed Rule 65 petition (Aug. 5, 2004), seeking nullification of JVA, amendments, Asset Pool Agreement, and related transactions for unconstitutionality; prohibitory injunction against NHA; and mandamus compelling disclosure of all SMDRP documents and financial data.

Procedural Issues of Locus Standi and Jurisdiction

SC held petitioner, as taxpayer, had standing given issues of transcendent public importance (constitutional use of public land, right to information) and indirect public-fund involvement. Direct SC recourse was justified by urgency, constitutional questions, and national significance, despite general preference for lower courts. Factual core was undisputed.

Applicability of PEA Precedent and Factual Basis

PEA v. Chavez (2002) concerned EO 525/PD 1084 reclamation by PEA/Amari without bidding; SMDRP differed materially: NHA–RBI JVA under BOT Law, proper bidding, presidential proclamations and patents, completion and termination pre-dating petition. Hence, PEA precedent not controlling.

Authority to Reclaim: Executive and Implied Powers

SC found valid reclamation authority: (a) Presidential powers under PD 3-A (reclamation exclusive to National Government), EO 525 (delegation to agencies), and Revised Administrative Code; (b) NHA’s implied reclamation power under PD 757, successor to TFDA (PD 570), including land development and joint ventures; (c) explicit BOT Law authorization for reclamation as repayment; (d) PEA consultation via EXECOM/TECHCOM and DENR involvement; (e) issuance of Special Patents conveying reclaimed lands to NHA.

Classification of Reclaimed Lands and Sale Authority

Reclaimed lands became alienable/disposable upon Proclamations 39/465 and Special Patents 3591, 3592, 3598, then patrimonial property when titled to NHA. BOT Law Sec. 6 presumes such lands eligible as non-monetary payment. NHA charter (PD 757) empowers disposition of patrimonial assets; CA 141 leasing/sale provisions inapplicable to patrimonial lands held by NHA.

Public Bidding and Contractor Acquisition of Lands

Bidding covered SMDRP joint venture right (not direct land sale). CA 141 Sections 63–67 govern disposition of public-domain lands by Director of Lands, not patrimonial assets of NHA post-patent. PD 1445 p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.