G.R. No. 202618 - Consular Area Residents Association, Inc. vs. Casanova

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202618)

Factual Background

Congress created the BCDA under RA 7227 to convert military reservations and raise funds by selling portions of Metro Manila military camps. EO No. 40 identified Fort Bonifacio for development and disposition. The JUSMAG Area (34.5 hectares along Lawton Avenue) contained housing units occupied by military officers and families and was targeted for conversion into a residential/mixed-use development (Megaworld’s McKinley West) pursuant to a Joint Venture Agreement with BCDA. The Diplomatic and Consular Area was declared alienable and disposable by Proclamation No. 1725 and its administration and supervisory responsibilities were transferred to BCDA. In July 2012 local authorities issued a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition, and BCDA informed occupants they had seven days to coordinate relocation or voluntary dismantling; demolition activities were carried out and respondents asserted completion on September 21, 2012.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner filed a petition captioned as one for prohibition with a plea for temporary restraining order and injunction, seeking to enjoin BCDA from demolishing structures they claim lie within the Diplomatic and Consular Area. Respondents filed comments defending the demolition as limited to the JUSMAG Area, invoking Section 28(b) of RA 7279 (government infrastructure projects with available funding) and asserting authority in the BCDA officials’ actions. The Local Housing Board and City Government additionally contended that the petition belonged in the Regional Trial Court under Rule 65, Section 4.

Nature of the Remedy and Proper Forum

The Court analyzed the petition’s substance and concluded that, despite its label as a petition for prohibition, it was essentially a petition for injunctive relief because the petition sought to enjoin demolition rather than prevent a tribunal or officer from exercising a power beyond jurisdiction. Prohibition requires a showing that the respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and that no adequate legal remedy exists; those requisites were not the operative matters here. Because the petition was effectively for injunction, Section 4, Rule 65 (which directs certain prohibition petitions to the RTC) did not govern. Instead, Section 21 of RA 7227 expressly vests the Supreme Court with exclusive authority to issue injunctions restraining implementation of conversion projects of military reservations, making the Supreme Court the proper forum in this context.

Collateral Challenge to Official Title

Petitioner collaterally attacked respondent Casanova’s appointment, alleging it was irregular and that he lacked authority under Section 9 of RA 7227 (which prescribes that the BCDA chairman shall also be its president). The Court held that collateral attack on the title to a public office is improper in the present proceedings; the proper remedy to contest a public officer’s title or appointment is a direct quo warranto action. Prohibition is not available to inquire into the validity of a public officer’s appointment. Thus, petitioner’s request to enjoin Casanova from acting pending resolution of his purported irregularity could not be entertained in this petition.

Substantive Standard for Injunction

The Court reiterated the established requisites for issuance of a writ of injunction: (a) existence of a clear and unmistakable right deserving protection (right in esse); (b) violation or threatened violation of that right; and (c) urgency and necessity to prevent serious and irreparable damage. An injunction is a preservative remedy that protects substantial, existing rights and will not issue to protect contingent or speculative rights.

Petitioner's Burden and Evidentiary Findings on Location of Structures

Petitioner’s central factual claim was that the structures at issue were within the Diplomatic and Consular Area (and thus outside the JUSMAG Area) and therefore not subject to BCDA demolition. Petitioner relied primarily on (a) a printed BCDA website statement characterizing the Diplomatic and Consular Area as a non-BCDA property and (b) a map showing metes and bounds of BCDA properties. The Court found these materials insufficient to establish that the petitioners’ structures lay within the Diplomatic and Consular Area. Records produced by respondents included a DENR-approved Relocation Survey Plan and a BCDA Structural Map of the JUSMAG Area, ground survey results, and house-tagging identifying affected informal settlers. The Court accorded prima facie credibility to these authoritative and concrete survey documents over petitioner’s unsubstantial evidence, concluding respondents correctly identified the structures as located within the JUSMAG Area. Because petitioner’s asserted right depended on the contested location, the failure to establish that the dwellings were outside the JUSMAG Area meant no clear right in esse was shown.

Legality of Demolition under RA 7279 Section 28

Petitioner argued that demolition required a court order under Article 536 of the Civil Code and Section 28 of RA 7279. The Court applied existing jurisprudence (notably Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, Inc. v. Robredo) holding that eviction or demolition may be lawfully carried out without a judicial order when the eviction/demolition falls squarely within Section 28(b) of RA 7279 — i.e., when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented. The Court found that the JUSMAG conversion into a residential and mixed-use development pursuant to the BCDA-Megaworld Joint Venture Agreement qualified as such a government project with available funding, bringing the demolition within Section 28(b) and thus not requiring prior judicial authorization.

Compliance with "Just and Humane" Eviction Requirements

RA 7279 prescribes mandatory safeguards for eviction and demolition involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, including (inter alia) at least 30 days’ notice, adequate consultations, presence of local government representatives, identification of demolition actors, timing limitations, and adequate relocation or compensation mechanisms. The Court reviewed the record for compliance and found substantial if not full compliance: a Local Inter-Agency Committee convened to conduct consultations and formulate relocation and compensation packages; several 30-day notices were issued with warnings that failure to respond would forfeit claims under the offer; and the Local Housing Board of Taguig issued a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition stating BCDA complied with Section 28’s requirements. In the absence of clear and convincing evidenc

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 202618)

Title, Court and Citation

Decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division.
G.R. No. 202618, April 12, 2016.
Reported at 784 Phil. 400.
Opinion authored by Justice Perlas-Bernabe; Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Parties

Petitioner:
- Consular Area Residents Association, Inc., an association composed of residents of the Diplomatic and Consular Area of Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.
- Represented by its President Benjamin V. Zabat, and by Romeo Jugado, Jr., and Nancy Quino.
Respondents:
- Arnel Paciano D. Casanova — President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA).
- Engr. Tomas Y. Macrohon — officer of the BCDA (exact designation not ascertainable from the record).
- Local Housing Board of Taguig City.
- City Government of Taguig.
Other entities appearing in the record or factual background:
- Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) — a government-owned and controlled corporation created under RA 7227.
- Megaworld Corporation — developer of the JUSMAG area as McKinley West.
- National agencies and local offices involved in relocation, tagging and validation (DENR, Urban Poor Affairs Office of Taguig City, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor, Commission on Human Rights, various barangays).

Nature of the Action and Reliefs Sought

Petition filed before the Supreme Court denominated as "Prohibition with plea for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction."
Petitioner seeks to enjoin the BCDA (and named respondents) from demolishing structures which petitioner claims are within the Diplomatic and Consular Area of Fort Bonifacio and therefore not subject to demolition.
Petitioner prayed, among other things, for issuance of a writ of prohibition and injunctive relief to permanently restrain the demolition of petitioner’s properties.

Procedural Posture and Respondents’ Procedural Contentions

Respondents Casanova and Engr. Macrohon filed a Comment contesting petitioners’ factual and legal positions, asserting authority of the BCDA to conduct clearing operations on the JUSMAG area and arguing demolition permitted under Section 28(b) of RA 7279 when government infrastructure projects with available funding are to be implemented.
Local Housing Board of Taguig City and City Government of Taguig filed comments adopting respondents’ contentions and further argued that the petition was improperly filed with the Supreme Court and should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Respondents also contended the case was rendered moot and academic because demolition of the remaining structures in the JUSMAG Area had been completed on September 21, 2012.

Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Framework Cited in the Decision

Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992) — creation and powers of BCDA; authorization to own, hold and administer portions of Metro Manila military camps transferred by the President.
Executive Order No. 40, Series of 1992 — identifying Fort Bonifacio among military camps earmarked for development and disposition.
Proclamation No. 1725 (signed February 10, 2009) — declaring the Diplomatic and Consular Area as alienable and disposable and transferring administration to the BCDA.
Section 21, RA 7227 — provides that implementation of projects for conversion of military reservations shall not be restrained or enjoined except by order of the Supreme Court.
Section 9, RA 7227 — composition of the BCDA Board of Directors (includes requirement that chairman shall also be president).
Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) — Section 28 on Eviction and Demolition, including subparagraph (b) permitting eviction or demolition when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented, and mandatory pre-eviction/demolition safeguards (30-day notice, consultations, presence of local officials, identification of demolition personnel, office hours and good weather rule, limitation on heavy equipment, police procedures, adequate relocation or compensation).
Rule 65, Section 4, Rules of Court — procedural rule on where petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus are to be filed.
Article 536, Civil Code — provides that possession cannot be acquired through force where possessor objects and that the aggrieved must invoke aid of competent court if holder refuses to deliver.

Facts (as found in the record)

In 1992, Congress enacted RA 7227 creating the BCDA to convert military reservations and raise funds through sale of portions of Metro Manila military camps.
EO No. 40 (1992) identified Fort Bonifacio as a military camp slated for conversion/disposition; located in Fort Bonifacio are the JUSMAG Area and the Diplomatic and Consular Area.
JUSMAG Area:
- A 34.5-hectare area along Lawton Avenue where military officers (active and retired) and families occupied housing units originally constructed by the AFP.
- Under development by Megaworld Corporation as McKinley West.
Diplomatic and Consular Area:
- Declared alienable and disposable by Proclamation No. 1725 (Feb. 10, 2009).
- Administrative jurisdiction, supervision and control transferred to BCDA; BCDA responsible for maintaining usefulness of the area.
On July 18, 2012, the Local Housing Board of Taguig City issued a Certificate of Compliance on Demolition declaring BCDA had complied with "Just and Humane Demolition and Eviction" under Section 28 RA 7279 for demolition of structures within the JUSMAG Area.
On July 20, 2012, respondent Casanova sent a letter informing petitioner and its members to, within seven (7) days ending July 27, 2012, coordinate with BCDA officials to accept relocation package or voluntarily dismantle structures and vacate.
Petitioner filed the present petition to enjoin demolition, asserting that the structures were within the Diplomatic and Consular Area (not JUSMAG), pointing to a BCDA website statement that the Diplomatic and Consular Area is not a BCDA property, and asserting occupancy with consent of the Republic at time of their assignments.
Petitioner additionally alleged respondent Casanova's appointment as BCDA President was "highly anomalous and irregular" and lacked authority.
Respondents asserted the clearing operations covered the JUSMAG Area, that Section 28(b) authorizes demolition for government infrastructure projects with available funding without court order, and that Casanova was duly appointed by the President.
Records sho