ROBIDANTE L. KABILING, PRUDENCIO C. CARBON, POLICARPIO S. SEGUI, RAFAEL C. CARBON, ANTONIO C. BOLASOC, LOLITA C. CASTRO, SOTERO S. FERRER, PERFECTO C. MAMAAT, VICENTE M. MORTERA…

This is a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of July 22, 1985 dismissing the amended
petition for lack of merit.  In the original petition, dated July
14, 1981, petitioners assailed the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1808 on the grounds that 1) it deprives
them of their property without due process of law and without just compensation
and of their right to equal protection of the law; and 2) it violates the
constitutional prohibition against impairment of the obligation of
contracts.  Petitioners further alleged
that their properties are not proper subject of expropriation by the
government.

Required to comment on
the petition, the respondent National Housing Authority (NHA for brevity) filed
its comment on September 4, 1981 and the respondent
Republic of the Philippines
on September 17, 1981.  In its resolution dated September 24, 1981, the Court Resolved to
consider the comment of the respondent Republic of the Philippines
as Answer to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.  The memorandum of the
respondent Republic of the Philippines
was submitted on October 28, 1981,
and that of the petitioners on January
6, 1983.  Meanwhile, on February 24, 1982, petitioners filed
an urgent petition to resolve their prayer for a temporary restraining order,
which the Court denied on April 28,
1982.  A motion for reconsideration of said denial was filed by petitioners and respondents were required
to comment thereon.

On May 21, 1986, petitioners filed an Amended Petition, accompanied
by a motion to admit said amended
petition.  In the Amended Petition, the petitioners (only four
of whom are original
petitioners, the rest being newly impleaded) invoke as
an additional ground the alleged non-publication of P.D. No. 1808.  On May
29, 1981, the Court admitted the Amended Petition and required
respondents to comment thereon.  The
Court further required the Republic of the Philippines
to move in the premises within ten (10) days from notice, considering the
supervening events that had transpired since the filing of the respective
memoranda of the petitioners and the respondent Republic of the Philippines.  Respondent NHA submitted its comment on June
11, 1986, stating that contrary to petitioners’ allegation in the Amended
Petition, P.D. No. 1808 was published in the Official Gazette of October 4,
1982 (Volume 78, No. 40, pp. 5481-4 to 5486-8) and reiterating its arguments
discussed in its comment dated September 4, 1981 on the original petition and
its later comment/opposition dated March 19, 1982.  On July 2, 1986, the NHA filed a
manifestation by way of report on the current status of the subject property,
stating inter alia 1)
that all available workable areas in the subject property, totalling
approximately 3.1 hectares and consisting of 378 lots averaging 50 square
meters each, have been substantially developed, except for some minor repair
work still to be undertaken; 2) that the NHA has already invested P3 million
representing the cost of implementing the development plans in the workable
areas of the project site; 3) that in accordance with the provisions of P.D.
No. 1808, the NHA has already deposited with the Philippine National Bank the
amount equivalent to the cost of all subdivision lots in the project site; 4)
that 76 landowners have already withdrawn
the corresponding compensation
for their respective lots, totalling P1,919,402.44, while 72 landowners including the petitioners
Robidante L. Kabiling, et
al. have not yet claimed the compensation for their respective lots totalling P1,581,676.52; and 5) that all titles to the homelots, except the lost title of Cresencio
Deboma, which is
undergoing reconstitution, have already been transferred to respondent
NHA pursuant to the provision of P.D. No. 1808.

On July 11,
1986, the new
Solicitor General filed on behalf of the respondent Republic of the Philippines a comment and manifestation on the Amended
Petition, stating that he was maintaining the position taken by his predecessor
in office and reiterating the prayer
that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit.

In its resolution of July 22,
1986, the Court
Resolved to dismiss the Amended Petition for lack of merit.  A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on August 30, 1986, reiterating the grounds discussed in their
memorandum and praying that the resolution dismissing the Amended Petition be reconsidered and set aside.  Petitioners pray that the case be decided
with “a visible disposition of its merits.”

After deliberation, the
Court Resolved to DENY the motion for
reconsideration, it appearing that no new substantial and compelling
ground has been alleged which warrant reconsideration of the Court’s resolution.

The petitioners’
challenge to the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1808 can not be sustained.  The decree, entitled “DIRECTING THE
CANCELLATION OF AWARDS, CONTRACTS OF SALE, TITLES OF LOTS WITHIN THE
AGNO-LEVERIZA TENANT ASSOCIATION SUBDIVISION AND THE RECONVEYANCE OF THE SAME
TO THE GOVERNMENT UPON PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION AND ORDERING THE
EXPROPRIATION OF VACANT LOTS ADJACENT THERETO WHICH ARE COVERED BY TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE OF TITLES NOS. 70406, 31713, 132081 AND 134314 ALL SITUATED AT
MALATE, MANILA FOR UPGRADING UNDER THE ZONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (ZIP) AND THE
DISPOSAL OF LOTS GENERATED THEREIN TO THEIR PRESENT BONA-FIDE OCCUPANTS AND
OTHER QUALIFIED SQUATTER FAMILIES AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
FOR THE PURPOSE,” is a valid exercise by the State of its police
power.  Explaining the objective of the
decree, P.D. No. 1808 states:

WHEREAS, the government has adopted and implemented the announced
policy that slum improvement and resettlement, otherwise known as upgrading of
sites and services, is an accepted approach to meeting the housing needs and
the primary strategy in dealing with slums and other blighted communities;

WHEREAS, under Proclamation No. 1967, a portion of Lot 62 and Lot
76, both of Block 573 of the Cadastral Survey of Manila which were developed
into the Agno-Leveriza Tenant Association (ALTA)
Subdivision by the City of Manila pursuant to Republic Act No. 4145, was
identified as a depressed area for priority development (APD) under the Zonal
Improvement Program;

WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 4145 did not resolve the land tenure
problem in the area to the extent that non-resident awardees have to eject bonafide
residents in order to acquire physical possession of their awarded lots, and an
extensive displacement of structures of resident families has to be undertaken
to allow each awardee resident family to have
physical possession of the awarded lot;

WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to resolve the land tenure problem
in the Agno-Leveriza area to allow the implementation
of the comprehensive development plans for this depressed community as provided under the Zonal Improvement
Program.”

The stated objective of
the decree, namely, to resolve the land tenure problem in the Agno-Leveriza area to allow the implementation of the comprehensive
development plans for this depressed community, provides the justification for
the exercise of the police power of the State. 
The police power of the State has been described as “the most
essential, insistent and illimitable of
powers.”^[1] It is a power inherent in the State,
plenary, “suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the
conception that man in organizing the
state and imposing upon the government limitations to safeguard constitutional
rights did not intend
thereby to enable individual citizens or group of citizens to obstruct
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measure to ensure communal peace,
safety, good order and welfare.”^[2]

The objection raised by petitioners that P.D. No. 1808 impairs
the obligations of contract is without merit. 
The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract
is limited by and subject to the exercise of the police power of the State in
the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare.^[3]
For the same reason, petitioners can not complain that they are being deprived of their property without due
process of law.

Nor can petitioners claim
that their properties are being expropriated without just compensation,
since Sec. 3 of P.D. No. 1808 provides for just compensation to lot owners who
have fully paid their obligations to the City of Manila under their respective
contracts before the issuance of the decree. 
However, in accordance with our decision in Export Processing Zone
Authority vs. Hon. Ceferino Dulay,
etc., et al., G.R. No. 59603, April 29, 1987, which declared P.D. No. 1533
unconstitutional, those lot owners who have not yet received compensation under
the decree are entitled to a judicial determination of the just compensation for
their lots.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Fernan,
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Smith, Bell & Co. v. National, 40 Phil. 136; Rubi
v. Prov. Bd. of Mindoro,
39 Phil. 660.

^[2]
Edu v. Ericta,
35 SCRA 481.

^[3]
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope
Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54.