Sumulong v. Guerrero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for expropriation of approximately 25 hectares of land in Antipolo, Rizal, including the lots of petitioners Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing. The NHA valued the land at P1.00 per square meter, based on the provincial assessor's valuation, and deposited P158,980.00 as the total market value. Procedural History: On January 17, 1978, the respondent Judge issued an Order for a writ of possession, stating that the deposit had been made. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration, arguing they were deprived of property without due process, was denied. The Petition: Petitioners challenged the respondent Judge's orders, arguing that he acted without or in excess of jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion by issuing the writ of possession without notice and hearing, and by denying their motion for reconsideration. They also assailed the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended, for violating due process, arguing it allowed taking of property regardless of size, that 'socialized housing' was not a public purpose, that it allowed immediate taking without a day in court, that it permitted unjust valuations, and that it deprived courts of their discretion to determine just compensation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Whether Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended, is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process clause. Whether 'socialized housing' for the purpose of condemnation proceedings constitutes 'public use'. Whether the size of the property to be expropriated is a valid ground to question the expropriation. Whether the provisions on just compensation in Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended, are constitutional. Whether the issuance of a writ of possession without notice and hearing violates procedural due process.
Ruling
The Court annulled the orders of the lower court dated January 17, 1978, and June 28, 1978, for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the compensation petitioners are entitled to be paid.
Ratio Decidendi
No specific ratio decidendi provided for this issue in the text. No specific ratio decidendi provided for this issue in the text. On the issue of 'public use' for 'socialized housing': The Court held that 'socialized housing,' as defined and expanded in Presidential Decree No. 1224 and subsequent decrees, constitutes 'public use' for the purpose of expropriation. The concept of public use has evolved to encompass projects that beneficially employ property for the general welfare, including urban renewal and low-cost housing, which are recognized public purposes under the Constitution. The Court emphasized that housing is a basic human need and its shortage is a matter of state concern affecting public health, safety, and the general welfare, thus justifying the exercise of eminent domain. The specific use of the lands for the expansion of the Bagong Nayon Housing Project to provide housing for low-salaried government employees was found to meet this requirement. On the issue of the size of the property: The Court reiterated that expropriation is not confined to landed estates and that the propriety of exercising eminent domain cannot be determined solely on a quantitative or area basis. The State, through the NHA, is vested with broad discretion to designate properties for socialized housing, and absent a clear showing of fraud, bad faith, or gross abuse of discretion, the Court will uphold the NHA's choice and the size of the site. The rights of small property owners are to be respected, but their interests must yield to the demands of the common good and the constitutional mandate to promote social justice and equitable diffusion of wealth. On the issue of 'just compensation' and the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1224: The Court declared that the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1224, as amended, on just compensation are unconstitutional, citing its ruling in Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay. The Court reiterated that just compensation means the value of the property at the time of taking, a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained, considering all relevant facts. It found the decrees' reliance on arbitrarily fixed valuations by assessors to be unfair and an encroachment on the courts' prerogative to determine just compensation, abandoning its previous ruling in National Housing Authority v. Reyes. On the issue of 'due process' and the issuance of a writ of possession: The Court held that the issuance of a writ of possession without notice and hearing, as ordered by the respondent Judge, violates procedural due process. It reiterated the ruling in Ignacio v. Guerrero that before a writ of possession is issued in expropriation proceedings, there must be a valid complaint, a provisional determination of just compensation based on judicial discretion, and compliance with the deposit requirement. Denying the owner the opportunity to prove the unfairness of valuations and allowing arbitrary valuations to prevail over judicial determination is considered repulsive to justice and fairness.
Main Doctrine
While socialized housing constitutes a valid public use for expropriation, provisions in Presidential Decrees that allow taking of property upon payment of valuations arbitrarily fixed by assessors and that deny courts discretion in determining just compensation are unconstitutional. Furthermore, issuing a writ of possession without notice and hearing violates due process.