Lagmay v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Adela Tuason owned a 300-square meter lot in Pasay City. For over twenty years, she leased portions of this lot to Julio Lagmay (67 sq.m.), Ilustre Basconvillo (50 sq.m.), and Blas Pinggan (47 sq.m.). These lessees constructed residential houses on their respective leased areas. In September 1980, Tuason, needing funds for medical expenses, notified the lessees of her intention to sell the property and offered them the first preference to purchase their leased portions within three months. Procedural History: The lessees failed to respond to the offer to sell. Consequently, Tuason ceased collecting rent in May 1983. In April 1985, Tuason's sisters reminded the lessees of the intention to sell and requested them to vacate. Instead of vacating, the lessees, on June 7, 1985, asserted their preemptive right to purchase under Presidential Decree No. 1517. They later offered to buy the land at P800.00 per square meter, but received no reply. On August 5, 1985, the lessees filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City to enforce their preemptive right. The RTC dismissed the complaint on August 27, 1986, ruling that the lessees had not complied with the preconditions for exercising their right under P.D. No. 1517. The lessees appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the appeal on May 10, 1988, holding that the leased lots were not within a proclaimed urban land reform area and that the lessees had waived their right by failing to reply to the offer. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration on September 2, 1988. The Petition: The lessees filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising three issues: (a) the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1967 for being discriminatory; (b) whether Section 6 of P.D. No. 1517 is self-executing for qualified tenants intending to buy on cash basis; and (c) whether Section 8 of P.D. No. 1517 applies only to tenants purchasing on an installment basis. The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition and considered the case submitted for decision.
Issue(s)
Whether Proclamation No. 1967 is unconstitutional for being discriminatory and not uniform in application. Whether Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517 is self-executing for all qualified tenants intending to buy their leased areas on a cash basis. Whether Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1517 applies only to qualified tenants intending to purchase leased lands on an installment basis.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1967: The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1967. It reiterated the principle that the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented in a case and must be properly raised and presented. The Court noted that while it may deem it best for public policy to resolve such an issue, there were other grounds by which the case could be resolved on a non-constitutional determination. In this instance, the resolution of whether Section 6 of P.D. No. 1517 was self-executing was sufficient to decide the case, rendering the constitutional issue unnecessary for its determination. On the self-executing nature of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1517: The Court held that Section 6 of P.D. No. 1517 is not self-executing. The provision explicitly states that the terms and conditions of the sale in the exercise of the lessee's right of first refusal shall be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee. This necessitates further executive acts and the organization of the committees provided for by the decree for its implementation. Therefore, the lower court correctly ruled that certain prerequisites must be complied with by anyone wishing to avail themselves of the decree's benefits. The Court emphasized that Section 6 should not be read in isolation but in conjunction with other provisions of the decree, as the intention of the lawmaker is gleaned from the entire law. The presidential proclamations, such as Proclamation No. 1893 and its amendment Proclamation No. 1967, which declared specific areas as urban land reform zones, further illustrate that P.D. No. 1517 requires further executive action for its implementation. On the applicability of Section 8 of P.D. No. 1517 and waiver of rights: While the Court did not directly rule on whether Section 8 applies only to installment purchases, it found that the lessees had the opportunity to purchase their leased lots when Adela Tuason offered to sell them through her letter of September 13, 1980. The Court found that the lessees lost this chance by their own failure to exercise the option within the three-month period stipulated in the letter. This failure to act within the given timeframe constituted a waiver of their preemptive right. The Court also noted that the lessees' leased lots were not included in the specific areas proclaimed as urban land reform zones under Proclamation No. 1967, which amended Proclamation No. 1893. This fact, coupled with the failure to exercise the option, further supported the dismissal of their claim.
Main Doctrine
The right of first refusal under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517 is not self-executing and requires the determination of terms and conditions by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee, and the lessees may waive this right by failure to exercise the option within the stipulated period.