G.R. No. L-8698. December 14, 1956

On January 30, 1947, the Republic of the Philippines instituted expropriation proceedings before the  court of first Instance of Manila to  expropriate four parcels of land situated in Tondo,  Manila,  known as “Terrenos  de  la calle Sande”, containing an area of 9,601,70 square meters, and belonging  to the  Philippine Realty  Company  (Civil Case No. 1646).  The Republic, through the Director of Lands, paid to said company  the amount of P124,579.73 as the purchase  price of the land.   The  expropriation  was  undertaken at the instance  of  about fifty persons, with their families, who had occupied for sometime portions  of the land.  One of these occupants is Lucio Javillonar.

It appears that these occupants had  been tenants of portions of the land for nearly thirty-five years and had built thereon houses of strong materials and had hoped that they would eventually own the portions occupied by them.  The land had been subdivided by its former owner, the Philippine Realty Company, several years prior to its  expropriation and the subdivision plan was  approved by the Director of  Lands, However, the lots as subdivided and leased by their prior owner are actually  much  less in area than the 180 square meters minimum requirement imposed by the National Urban Planning Commission.  The lot on which Javillonar had built his house  has an area of  only  118.22 square meters.  So  when on January  8, 1954 the Director of Lands submitted to said Commission the subdivision plan as prepared by the former owner taking into account the area occupied by each tenant, the same was disapproved on the ground that it does not conform with  said minimum requirement.  To compel said Commission to exempt from said minimum requirement the lot on which he built his house,  Javillonar filed the present petition for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Respondent, answering the petition, tried to justify its refusal to approve the subdivision plan submitted to it by the Director of  Lands by contending that the  same  does not conform with the rules and  regulations issued by it in  pursuance of the  provisions of Executive Order No. 367 (section 3),  Executive  Order No. 98 (section  2, b-2 and section 3),  and Republic Act No.  333 [section  8, subsection 4(b), (c) and (e)].  Respondent contends that said subdivision regulations are just and reasonable, their object being to promote the general  welfare of the community.  Consequently, it prays that the petition be dismissed.

After trial, the court rendered judgment granting the relief prayed for.  More specifically, it ordered respondent to exempt petitioner from the 180 square meters requirement and to  respect the  subdivision plan prepared  and submitted by the Philippine Realty Company in so far as the right of each bona fide tenant to occupy the lot as signed to him in the subdivision is concerned. From  this decision, respondent took the  present appeal.

There is no question that under Executive Order No, 98 issued by the President of the Philippines on March 11, 1946, the National Urban Planning  Commission  is  empowered to  prepare subdivision regulations governing the subdivision  of lands in any urban area,  or part thereof, in the Philippines, and that  pursuant to that power, it approved the  “Subdivision Regulations”,  marked Exhibit 1, which provides, among other things, that “Lots for residential use shall be at least twelve meters wide at the front building .line and shall contain not less than  180 square meters of land” [Section  13(b)].  It is also  not disputed that these regulations were approved by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila as required by Executive Order No. 98 in order that they may have the force of law.  It  is likewise  admitted that  the  lot in  question, presently occupied by petitioner Javillonar, as well as the lots occupied by the other  49  occupants who are  similarly situated, belong to an urban area which comes under the jurisdiction  of the National Urban Planning  Commission. The question now to be determined is: Is it fair and reasonable to apply said regulations  to the tenants who  are presently occupying the land expropriated by the government  for their own benefit Considering the  area  of  the portions occupied and the houses they had built thereon long before its expropriation?  We should not lose sight of the fact that these  tenants, including the petitioner, had occupied their lots for many years and had been bona fide tenants of their former owner and it is at  their instance that the land was expropriated by  the  government.

They were tenants of the land much prior to the  adoption of the Subdivision Regulations by the National Urban Planning Commission and their  approval by  the Municipal Board of the City of Manila.  To require them now to follow the minimum requirement as to.area as required by the regulations would be to thwart and set at naught the very purpose for which the expropriation was made, for it will be practically impossible for them, considering their  limited means  and their previous  investments, to comply with said requirement.  And knowing this difficulty and the sad  plight into which the tenants would be placed if the minimum requirement is applied to  them, the Director of  Lands has  taken their  side  arid joined them in  their plea  to secure the approval  of the subdivision  plan prepared by the previous owner of the  property.   This  apprehension of said  official is well  reflected in the indorsement he sent to  the National Urban  Planning Commission  wherein he pleaded that it reconsider its stand  and give its approval to the  subdivision plan laid down  by the former onwer of  the land.  Thus,  in said indorsement, the  Director of Lands  made the  following interesting observation: 

“It is important to observe that the purpose of Commonwealth Act No. 539 and other  similar acts in implementing the principles of social justice embodied in  the constitution  (section 5,  Article II Phil, const.) is to sell  to a  person the land  on which  his house stands, for by such  sale, the standing feud or  differences between the tenants and their landlord which may develop into more serious proportion, could be  peacefully terminated.  If the 180 square meters requirement for every lot is followed in  this case, many persons will  be deprived of a place to  live on and thus the primary purpose of the government in acquiring estates for residential purposes  in  order to afford an opportunity for  landless persons  to purchase and own the very parcels of land where their houses are erected, will be frustrated.  Likewise,  the  law  (C. Act  No. 539) enacted by the law-making body of  the country to help the landless and  allay their fear  of being  driven away  from the land they occupy, will be  rendered nugatory.”

While  we  agree with the Solicitor General that the regulations were adopted  “with the end in view of promoting the safety and security of the people  against fire  or other conditions by securing  an easy and  unimpeded approach to all  buildings of the fire engines and other five fighting  appliances, of  ambulances,  refuse  wagons and other appliances used by the sanitary department  of the government, by  fire and health inspectors generally and by other persons and employees of the Bureau of Health”, we believe however that their application and enforcement should be done in such a way as not to work  hardship and cause injustice to the  persons living in the areas affected. Their application should not  be done with undue rigidity but with due regard to the equities of the persons affected. The same purpose can be accomplished with the same force and effect even  if the persons affected be given a  lesser area provided only that their interest is not jeopardized. In other words,  the application of said regulations should be done with  fairness, considering their interest and their present situation.

But there is  one  legal aspect which justifies the stand taken by the tenants and speaks well of the attitude adopted by the Director of Lands and that  is the  enactment  of Republic  Act No. 1162 on June  18, 1954,  or  about the time the government expropriated the subdivision in question.  Considering that  said Act refers precisely to lands that are  expropriated by  the government for resale  to bona fide tenants or occupants, the same  must undoubtedly reflect the intent of Congress as  regards the manner said lands should be apportioned to the persons concerned.  And we are just wondering why notwithstanding  this manifest policy of  our  legislative  body  the National Urban Planning Commission chose to disregard it and turned a deaf ear to the plea of petitioner and his other companions in the property.  We refer to section 3 of  the  aforesaid Act  which provides  as follows:

“SEC. 3. The landed estates or haciendas expropriated by virtue of this Act shall be subdivided into small lots none of which shall exceed  one hundred and  fifty square meters in area, to be  sold at cost to the tenants, or occupants, of said lots,  and to other individuals, in the order mentioned: Provided, That if the tenant of any given  lot is not able to purchase said lot, he shall be given a lease from month to month of said lot until such time that he is able to purchase the same: Provided, further, That in the  event of lease, the rentals that may be charged by the  Government shall not exceed twelve per  cent  per annum of the  assessed valuation of the property leased.”

Note that said  section refers to estates  expropriated by the government to be subdivided into  small lots and it is therein provided that each lot shall not exceed 150 square meters in area.  In other words, as  long  as  the lot to be allotted to each tenant does not exceed 150 square  meters in  area,  the  allotment may  be allowed even if it contains a  lesser area depending upon  the  interest and situation of the tenant affected. Undoubtedly, Congress  has foreseen a situation similar to what the petitioner and his companions actually find themselves, and in order to ease up their  situation and facilitate an  equitable division of their  landholding, this  reasonable and practical provision must have been adopted.  No clearer mandate as to how the lands expropriated  should be subdivided can be found.   This  mandate  gives the key to the solution of the present controversy.   It  clearly justifies the stand taken by the Director of Lands who  made a common cause with petitioner and his companions.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador,  Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix JJ., concur.