Title
Consular Area Residents Association, Inc. vs. Casanova
Case
G.R. No. 202618
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2016
Residents contested demolition in Fort Bonifacio, claiming structures were in Diplomatic Area, not JUSMAG Area. Supreme Court dismissed petition, ruling demolition lawful and moot post-completion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221103)

Petitioner

Consular Area Residents Association, Inc., through its president and board members, seeking to enjoin demolition of structures they assert lie within the Diplomatic and Consular Area, not the JUSMAG Area.

Respondents

• BCDA, represented by Casanova and Engr. Macrohon, executing demolition under Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992) and Executive Order No. 40 (Series of 1992)
• Local Housing Board of Taguig City and the Taguig City Government, certifying compliance with humane demolition requirements under Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992)

Key Dates

• March 13, 1992 – RA 7227 enacted, creating BCDA
• December 8, 1992 – EO No. 40 designating Fort Bonifacio for conversion
• February 10, 2009 – Proclamation No. 1725 declaring Diplomatic and Consular Area alienable
• July 18, 2012 – Local Housing Board issues Certificate of Compliance on Demolition
• July 20–27, 2012 – BCDA’s seven-day notice to affected residents for relocation or voluntary dismantling
• September 21, 2012 – Demolition activities in JUSMAG Area completed
• April 12, 2016 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 jurisprudential framework)
• Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), especially Section 21 (injunctions over conversion projects) and Section 9 (composition of BCDA Board)
• Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992), especially Section 28(b) (permitting demolition for funded government infrastructure projects without court order)
• Rule 65, Section 4, Rules of Court (distinguishing petitions for prohibition vs. injunction)
• Civil Code Article 536 (requirement for judicial order in possession disputes, unless statutory exception)

Facts

  1. RA 7227 and EO 40 transferred portions of Fort Bonifacio, including the JUSMAG and Diplomatic and Consular Areas, to BCDA for redevelopment to raise funds.
  2. JUSMAG residents occupied AFP-constructed housing; Diplomatic and Consular Area housed foreign mission residences.
  3. Proclamation No. 1725 (2009) declared the Diplomatic and Consular Area alienable and under BCDA’s control.
  4. Local Housing Board (Taguig City) certified on July 18, 2012 that BCDA complied with “just and humane demolition” requirements under RA 7279.
  5. BCDA issued a notice giving residents seven days (ending July 27, 2012) to coordinate relocation or dismantle structures.
  6. CARA filed a petition for “Prohibition with plea for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction,” arguing their homes lie in the Diplomatic and Consular Area, not JUSMAG, and that Casanova’s appointment violated RA 7227.

Issue

Whether the demolition of structures occupied by petitioners should be enjoined.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

  1. Nature of Proceeding: Although styled as a petition for prohibition, the complaint sought to enjoin demolition, making it essentially an injunction. Under Section 21 of RA 7227 only the Supreme Court may restrain conversion projects.
  2. Prohibition vs. Injunction: Prohibition applies only to acts by tribunals or officers in excess of jurisdiction and cannot collaterally attack a public officer’s title (Casanova’s appointment could only be challenged by quo warranto).
  3. Clear Legal Right: Petitioners failed to prove their structures lie within the Diplomatic and Consular Area. Respondents’ DENR-approved survey plans, structural maps, ground surveys, and joint inspections with local authorities established

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.