G.R. No. 147511 - Reyes vs. National Housing Authority

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147511)

Petitioner

Marina Z. Reyes; Alfredo A. Francisco; Angelita Z. Garcia; Alfredo Z. Francisco, Jr.; Armando Z. Francisco; Alma C. Francisco; Eugenia Z. Luna; Clarita Z. Zaballero; Leonardo Z. Zaballero, Jr.; Teodoro Z. Zaballero; Augusto M. Zaballero; Frine A. Zaballero; Elena Fronda Zaballero; Victor Gregorio F. Zaballero; Maria Elena F. Zaballero; Lourdes Zaballero‐Lava; Socorro Emilia Zaballero‐Yap; Teresita F. Zaballero (in substitution of Leonardo M. Zaballero).

Respondent

National Housing Authority (NHA).

Key Dates

• 1977 – NHA files expropriation suits for Lot Nos. 6450, 6448‐E, 6198‐A and 6199 before the Court of First Instance of Cavite.
• October 29, 1987 – Supreme Court affirms expropriation judgment (155 SCRA 224), final November 26, 1987.
• February 24, 1989 – Expropriation court issues alias writ of execution ordering transfer of titles and payment of just compensation, including attorney’s fees.
• April 28, 1992 – Petitioners file complaint for forfeiture of rights in Quezon City RTC, Branch 79 (Civil Case No. Q-92-12093).
• September 29, 1995 – RTC dismisses forfeiture complaint.
• September 29, 2000 – Court of Appeals affirms RTC decision.
• January 20, 2003 – Supreme Court resolves appeal.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 9 (private property, public use, just compensation); Article XIII, Section 1 (social justice, equitable use of property).
• Property Registration Law (PD 1529).
• Jurisprudence on public use: Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes (125 SCRA 220, 1983); Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan (42 Phil 28, 1921); Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002).

Factual Background

NHA sought to expand the Dasmariñas Resettlement Project by expropriating petitioners’ sugarcane lands to relocate Metro Manila squatters. The trial court ordered condemnation of the lots and payment of just compensation. NHA’s possession and payment obligations were confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1987.

Expropriation Execution Order

The expropriation court’s 1989 writ of execution directed: (1) transfer of several titles to NHA; (2) immediate payment of adjudicated compensation to petitioners and attorney’s fees to counsel; (3) coordination on capital gains tax by petitioners. NHA’s alleged noncompliance prompted the forfeiture action.

Complaint for Forfeiture and Trial Court Findings

In 1992 petitioners alleged NHA failed to relocate squatters and withheld compensation. Ocular inspections in 1994 showed partial occupation by relocatees and other occupants. The RTC dismissed the complaint in 1995, holding that:

No abandonment of public purpose because relocation is inherently protracted and NHA contracted for low-cost housing;
The expropriation decree contained no reversion condition;
Payment of compensation is independent of petitioners’ tax obligations;
Compensation is measured by value at taking.

Public Use under the 1987 Constitution

Section 9, Article III protects private property but allows expropriation for public use with just compensation. The Supreme Court has adopted an expansive “public interest” concept, including socialized housing. NHA’s contract to develop low-cost housing for qualified beneficiaries furthers the resettlement objective and falls squarely within the public-use requirement of Article XIII, Section 1.

Absence of Reversion Condition

Under Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan, a conditional reversion arises only if expressly provided in the expropriation decree. Here the 1977 judgment conveyed fee simple title to NHA unconditionally; no clause mandated reversion if relocation plans changed.

Nonforfeiture Despite Delay in Compens