This case involves a dispute over the purchase of commercial lots between Ernesto Roxas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). [1] Roxas applied to purchase 176 square meters of land from NHA's Dagat-dagatan Development Project at P1,500 per square meter. [2] Due to a survey, the area increased to 320 square meters, but NHA wanted to charge P3,500 per square meter for the additional land. [3] Roxas argued he should pay P1,500 per square meter based on the original terms. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Roxas, finding he had the right to purchase the entire 320 square meters at P1,
This case involves a dispute over the purchase of commercial lots between Ernesto Roxas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). [1] Roxas applied to purchase 176 square meters of land from NHA's Dagat-dagatan Development Project at P1,500 per square meter. [2] Due to a survey, the area increased to 320 square meters, but NHA wanted to charge P3,500 per square meter for the additional land. [3] Roxas argued he should pay P1,500 per square meter based on the original terms. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Roxas, finding he had the right to purchase the entire 320 square meters at P1,
This case involves a dispute over the purchase of commercial lots between Ernesto Roxas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). [1] Roxas applied to purchase 176 square meters of land from NHA's Dagat-dagatan Development Project at P1,500 per square meter. [2] Due to a survey, the area increased to 320 square meters, but NHA wanted to charge P3,500 per square meter for the additional land. [3] Roxas argued he should pay P1,500 per square meter based on the original terms. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Roxas, finding he had the right to purchase the entire 320 square meters at P1,
This case involves a dispute over the purchase of commercial lots between Ernesto Roxas and the National Housing Authority (NHA). [1] Roxas applied to purchase 176 square meters of land from NHA's Dagat-dagatan Development Project at P1,500 per square meter. [2] Due to a survey, the area increased to 320 square meters, but NHA wanted to charge P3,500 per square meter for the additional land. [3] Roxas argued he should pay P1,500 per square meter based on the original terms. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Roxas, finding he had the right to purchase the entire 320 square meters at P1,
On December 4, 1985, Ernesto Roxas applied for commercial lots in the
Dagat-dagatan Development Project (project) with a total area of 176 square meters. The National Housing Authority (NHA) issued the notice of award in favor of Roxas at P1,500.00/square meter. Due to a final subdivision project survey, the area of the subject lots increased to 320 square meters. NHA informed Roxas about the increased area and approved the awarding of the additional 144 square meters at P3,500/square meter. Roxas expressed his interest in purchasing the added area; however, he appealed for the reduction of the price to P1,500/square meter. He pointed out that the renumbered lots, which caused the additional 144 square meters, were unilaterally imposed by NHA upon him and that although he desired to purchase the increased area, the purchase must be in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the order of payment and notice of award issued to him. NHA rejected his appeal.
Roxas went to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel NHA to comply with the terms and conditions of the order of payment and the notice of award. The RTC ruled in favor of Roxas, declaring him the legal awardee of the subject lots with a total area of 320 sq. meters. The RTC ordered NHA to execute the corresponding Contract to Sell at the cost of P1,500 per sq. meter. The RTC also ordered NHA to pay Roxas P30,000 by way of reasonable Attorney’s Fees. NHA appealed; however, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed RTC’s judgment and later rejected NHA’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not NHA is immune from the suit of Roxas;
2. Whether or not Roxas has the right to acquire the subject lots at Pl,500.00/square meter; and 3. Whether or not Roxas should be awarded the Attorney’s Fees.
RULING: NO/YES (CATEGORICAL ANSWER),
1. YES. NHA could sue and be sued. Although NHA is a government-owned or
-controlled corporation (GOCC), it is not covered by the State’s immunity from suit as mentioned in Section 6(i) of Presidential Decree No. 757.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 757
CREATING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY AND DISSOLVING THE EXISTING HOUSING AGENCIES, DEFINING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Section 6. Powers and functions of the Authority. The Authority shall have the following powers and functions to be exercised by the Board in accordance with the established national human settlements plan prepared by the Human Settlements Commission: (i) Sue and be sued Express Consent
2. YES. As stated in Section 12 of the aforementioned Presidential Decree No. 757,
NHA possesses the legal competence and authority to directly grant Roxas the right to acquire the subject lots (inclusive of the additional area) at P1,500/square meter. NHA does not need to go through the Commission on Audit (COA) for the review and approval of the contract to sell.
Section 12. Completed Projects: Management of Disposition. The Authority shall
determine, establish and maintain the most feasible and effective program for the management or disposition of specific housing or resettlement projects undertaken by the Authority. Unless otherwise decided by the Board, completed housing or resettlement projects shall be managed and administered by the Authority.
3. The main relief in the RTC judgment, which granted Roxas the right to acquire the subject lots at P1,500/square meter must be distinguished from the secondary relief for attorney’s fees of P30,000. The former falls under the ordinary course of the management or disposition of the Dagat-dagatan Development Project undertaken by the NHA, while the latter does not fall in the usual course of activities of the NHA under its charter. Pursuant to Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, Roxas should first bring up the awarding of the attorney’s fees to COA prior to its enforcement against the NHA.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1445
THE STATE AUDIT CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Section 26. General jurisdiction. The authority and powers of the Commission shall extend to and comprehend all matters relating to auditing procedures, systems and controls, the keeping of the general accounts of the Government, the preservation of vouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten years, the examination and inspection of the books, records, and papers relating to those accounts; and the audit and settlement of the accounts of all persons respecting funds or property received or held by them in an accountable capacity, as well as the examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. The said jurisdiction extends to all government-owned or controlled corporations, including their subsidiaries, and other self-governing boards, commissions, or agencies of the Government, and as herein prescribed, including non-governmental entities subsidized by the government, those funded by donation through the government, those required to pay levies or government share, and those for which the government has put up a counterpart fund or those partly funded by the government.
