Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Belen v. Court of Appeals
GR No. 76182, 195 SCRA 59 - March 11, 1991
FACTS:
A small portion of land (Lot No. 10, Block 18 at Sunog Apog, Tondo, Manila) measuring a hundred (100) square meters, more or less, belonging to the Manotoc Services, Inc., was leased to Pedro M. Belen, which the latter has built a house.
Respondents Alfredo Juliano and his family occupied a portion of the said land and later on bought a house standing thereon, not belonging to Belen and moved in without the latter's knowledge.
On learning of this, Belen had a talk with Juliano, and they came to an agreement that Juliano could continue staying on the land temporarily and would pay one-half of the rental to Manotok Realty, Inc. Belen v. Court of Appeals
Later a fire razed both Belen's and Juliano's houses to the ground. Belen told Juliano not to build anything on the land any more. However, on Juliano's pleas, Belen acceded to Juliano's continued stay on the land on the explicit condition that his occupancy should not be longer than two and a half (2 1/2) years.
Juliano failed to leave after the stipulated term. Belen v. Court of Appeals
Read: Manosca v. Court of Appeals
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Manotok Realty, Inc divested its title to the National Housing Authority and was there an appropriate action of eminent domain. Belen v. Court of Appeals
HELD:
The petition was hereby granted and the challenged judgment of the Court of Appeals, reversed.
Presidential Decree No. 1670 was struck down as "unconstitutional and therefore, null and void."
Also refer to:
The decrees do not by themselves, provide for any form of hearing or procedure by which the petitioners can question the propriety of the expropriation of their properties or the reasonableness of the just compensation. Belen v. Court of Appeals
Having failed to provide for a hearing, the Government should have filed an expropriation case under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court but it did not do so.
Obviously, it did not deem it necessary because the enactment of the questioned decrees which rendered, by their very passage, any questions with regard to the expropriation of the properties, moot and academic.
Read: People vs. Copro
In effect, the properties under the decrees were "automatically expropriated."
This becomes more evident when the NHA wrote the Register of Deeds and requested her to cancel the certificate of titles of the petitioners, furnishing said Register of Deeds only with copies of the decrees to support its request. Belen v. Court of Appeals
This is hardly the due process of law which the state is expected to observe when it exercises the power of eminent domain.
The Court found that both the decrees, being "violative of the petitioners' (owners') right to due process of law," failed "the test of constitutionality," and that, additionally, they were tainted by another infirmity as regards "the determination of just compensation." Belen v. Court of Appeals
This Court further observed that contrary to Rule 67 and established precedents, the decrees provided for the determination of just compensation at a time earlier than that "of the actual taking of the government or at the time of the judgment by the court, whichever came first."
Apart from this, the fixing of the value of the property was left by the decrees to the City Assessor.
PD 1670 being void ab initio, all acts done in reliance thereon and in accordance therewith must also be deemed void ab initio, including particularly the taking of possession of the property by the National Housing Authority and its attempts to convert the same into a housing project and the selection of the beneficiaries thereof. Belen v. Court of Appeals
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 76182, 195 SCRA 59 - March 11, 1991
FACTS:
A small portion of land (Lot No. 10, Block 18 at Sunog Apog, Tondo, Manila) measuring a hundred (100) square meters, more or less, belonging to the Manotoc Services, Inc., was leased to Pedro M. Belen, which the latter has built a house.
Respondents Alfredo Juliano and his family occupied a portion of the said land and later on bought a house standing thereon, not belonging to Belen and moved in without the latter's knowledge.
On learning of this, Belen had a talk with Juliano, and they came to an agreement that Juliano could continue staying on the land temporarily and would pay one-half of the rental to Manotok Realty, Inc. Belen v. Court of Appeals
Later a fire razed both Belen's and Juliano's houses to the ground. Belen told Juliano not to build anything on the land any more. However, on Juliano's pleas, Belen acceded to Juliano's continued stay on the land on the explicit condition that his occupancy should not be longer than two and a half (2 1/2) years.
Juliano failed to leave after the stipulated term. Belen v. Court of Appeals
Read: Manosca v. Court of Appeals
- Metropolitan Trial Court: Ordered defendant to vacate the land.
- Regional Trial Court: Reversed the judgment of MTC by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1670.
- Court of Appeals: Resolved against Belen.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Manotok Realty, Inc divested its title to the National Housing Authority and was there an appropriate action of eminent domain. Belen v. Court of Appeals
HELD:
The petition was hereby granted and the challenged judgment of the Court of Appeals, reversed.
Presidential Decree No. 1670 was struck down as "unconstitutional and therefore, null and void."
Also refer to:
- G.R. No. 55166 (Manotok, et al. v. National Housing Authority, et al.)
- G.R. No. 55167 (Tiongson, et al. v. National Housing Authority, et al)
The decrees do not by themselves, provide for any form of hearing or procedure by which the petitioners can question the propriety of the expropriation of their properties or the reasonableness of the just compensation. Belen v. Court of Appeals
Having failed to provide for a hearing, the Government should have filed an expropriation case under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court but it did not do so.
Obviously, it did not deem it necessary because the enactment of the questioned decrees which rendered, by their very passage, any questions with regard to the expropriation of the properties, moot and academic.
Read: People vs. Copro
In effect, the properties under the decrees were "automatically expropriated."
This becomes more evident when the NHA wrote the Register of Deeds and requested her to cancel the certificate of titles of the petitioners, furnishing said Register of Deeds only with copies of the decrees to support its request. Belen v. Court of Appeals
This is hardly the due process of law which the state is expected to observe when it exercises the power of eminent domain.
The Court found that both the decrees, being "violative of the petitioners' (owners') right to due process of law," failed "the test of constitutionality," and that, additionally, they were tainted by another infirmity as regards "the determination of just compensation." Belen v. Court of Appeals
This Court further observed that contrary to Rule 67 and established precedents, the decrees provided for the determination of just compensation at a time earlier than that "of the actual taking of the government or at the time of the judgment by the court, whichever came first."
Apart from this, the fixing of the value of the property was left by the decrees to the City Assessor.
PD 1670 being void ab initio, all acts done in reliance thereon and in accordance therewith must also be deemed void ab initio, including particularly the taking of possession of the property by the National Housing Authority and its attempts to convert the same into a housing project and the selection of the beneficiaries thereof. Belen v. Court of Appeals
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment