Sumulong V Guerrero Digest

Sumulong v Hon.
Guerrero and the NHA (GR L-48685; 1987)

Cortes, J.Facts
On December 5, 1977 the National Housing Authority (NIIA) filed a

complaint for expropriationof parcels of land covering approximately twenty
five (25) hectares, (in Antipolo, Rizal)including the lots of petitioners Lorenzo
Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing with an area of6,667 square meters
and 3,333 square meters respectively.
The land sought to be expropriated were valued by the NHA at one peso
(P1.00) per squaremeter adopting the market value fixed by the provincial
assessor in accordance withpresidential decrees prescribing the valuation of
property in expropriation proceedings
Together with the complaint was a motion for immediate possession of the
properties. TheNHA deposited the amount of P158,980.00 with the Philippine
National Bank, representing the"total market value" of the subject twenty
five hectares of land, pursuant to PresidentialDecree No. 1224 which defines
"the policy on the expropriation of private property forsocialized housing
upon payment of just compensation."
Respondent Judge issued a writ of possession
Petitioners challenge the orders of respondent Judge and assailing the

constitutionality ofPres. Decree No. 1224, as amended
o
The order was issued without notice and without hearing

o
Pres. Decree l224, as amended, is unconstitutional for being violative of the

dueprocess clause, specifically
The Decree would allow the taking of property regardless of size and no
matterhow small the area to be expropriated;
Socialized housing" for the purpose of condemnation proceeding,
asdefined in said Decree, is not really for a public purpose;
The Decree violates procedural due process as it allows immediate taking

ofpossession, control and disposition of property without giving the owner
hisday in court;
The Decree would allow the taking of private property upon payment of
unjustand unfair valuations arbitrarily fixed by government assessors;
The Decree would deprive the courts of their judicial discretion to

determinewhat would be the "just compensation" in each and every raise
ofexpropriation.Issue
Is “socialized housing” as defined in PD 1224 not public use since it will benefit only a handful
of people?
NO. It is within the definition of public use
Does PD 1224 allow the taking of private property upon payment of unjust
and unfairvaluations arbitrarily fixed by government assessors, depriving the
courts of their judicialdiscretion to determine what would be "just
compensation"?
YES. Unconstitutional
.
Is PD 1224 violative of procedural due process as it allows immediate taking

of possession,control and disposition of property without giving the owner
his day in court?
YES.Unconstitutional
Judgment
Writ of possession annulled. Case remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings todetermine the compensation the petitioners are entitled to be
paidRatioPublic Use
"Socialized housing" is defined by PD 1224 as, "the construction of dwelling
units for themiddle and lower class members of our society, including the
construction of the supportinginfrastructure and other facilities"
The "public use" requirement for a and exercise of the power of eminent
domain is a flexibleand evolving concept
o
“
There was a time when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached
to such arequirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public
to enjoy, as in the
case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not

anymore.As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of
eminent domain
comes into play…
It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be
beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use”
To the literal import of the term signifying strict use or employment by the
public has beenadded the broader notion of indirect public benefit or
advantage.
urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low-cost housing is

recognized as apublic purpose, not only because of the expanded concept of
public use but also because ofspecific provisions in the (1973) Constitution
o
The state shall by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation
with
the private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing w
hich willmake available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services
to underprivilegedand homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement
areas
. It shall also promoteadequate employment opportunities to such citizens.
In the implementation of suchprogram the State shall respect the rights of
small property owners. (Art. XIII, sec. 9)
Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state

concern since itdirectly and significantly affects public health, safety, the
environment and in sum, the generalwelfare. The public character of housing
measures does not change because units in housingprojects cannot be
occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications.
Abeginning has to be made, for it is not possible to provide housing for are
who need it, all atonce.
Petitioners further contend that Pres. Decree 1224, as amended, would allow
the taking of"any private land" regardless of the size and no matter how
small the area of the land to beexpropriated. (In effect: there are larger
lands owned by only a few landlords, why not taketheirs first?)
o
JM Tuason v Land Tenure Admin: he propriety of exercising the power of

eminentdomain under Article XIII, section 4 of our Constitution cannot be
determined on apurely quantitative or area basis.
o
Departed from the ruling in

Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration
which held thatthe test to be applied for a valid expropriation of private
lands was the area of the landand not the number of people who stood to be
benefited. Since then "there hasevolved a clear pattern of adherence to the
"number of people to be benefited test"Just compensation
PD 1224 unconstitutional as it allows the taking of private property upon

payment of unjustand unfair valuations arbitrarily fixed by government
assessors
Already ruled upon by this Court in the case of

Ignacio vs. Guerrero
which, incidentally, arosefrom the same expropriation complaint that led
to this instant petition
The provisions on just compensation found in Presidential Decree Nos. 1224,
1259 and 1313are the same provisions found in Presidential Decree Nos. 76,
464, 794 and 1533 which weredeclared unconstitutional in
Export Processing Zone All thirty vs. Dulay
Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking.
It meansa
fair and full equivalent
for the loss sustained. ALL the facts as to the condition of theproperty and
its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered
o
Tax values can serve as guides but cannot be absolute substitutes for
justcompensationDue Process
Pres. Decree 1224, as amended, violates procedural due process as it allows

immediate takingof possession, control and disposition of property without
giving the owner his day in court
has also been ruled upon in the

Export Processing Zone Authority case
It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the opportunity to prove

that thevaluation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive
to basic conceptsof justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of minor
bureaucrat or clerk toabsolutely prevail over the judgment of a court
promulgated only after expertcommissioners have actually viewed the
property
Before a writ of possession is issued by the Court in expropriation

proceedings, the followingrequisites must be met:
o
(1) There must be a Complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and

in substance;
o
(2) A provisional determination of just compensation for the properties

sought to beexpropriated must be made by the trial court on the basis of
judicial (not legislative orexecutive) discretion; and
o
(3) The deposit requirement under Section 2, Rule 67 must be complied

with.

Sumulong V Guerrero Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sumulong V Guerrero Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sumulong V Guerrero Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sumulong v Hon.

Guerrero and the NHA (GR L-48685; 1987)

On December 5, 1977 the National Housing Authority (NIIA) filed a

Respondent Judge issued a writ of possession

Petitioners challenge the orders of respondent Judge and assailing the

The order was issued without notice and without hearing

Pres. Decree l224, as amended, is unconstitutional for being violative of the

The Decree violates procedural due process as it allows immediate taking

The Decree would deprive the courts of their judicial discretion to

NO. It is within the definition of public use

Is PD 1224 violative of procedural due process as it allows immediate taking

case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not

urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low-cost housing is

Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state

JM Tuason v Land Tenure Admin: he propriety of exercising the power of

Departed from the ruling in

PD 1224 unconstitutional as it allows the taking of private property upon

Already ruled upon by this Court in the case of

Pres. Decree 1224, as amended, violates procedural due process as it allows

has also been ruled upon in the

It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the opportunity to prove

Before a writ of possession is issued by the Court in expropriation

(1) There must be a Complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and

(2) A provisional determination of just compensation for the properties

(3) The deposit requirement under Section 2, Rule 67 must be complied

You might also like