PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. OSCAR P. SIAT, AGUSTIN VIGONTE AND EDGARDO MAGBANUA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition
for review on certiorari seeking
to set aside the Order dated May 17, 1976 of the then City Court of Puerto Princesa City, dismissing the information in Criminal Case
No. 6398 for violation of P.D. No. 772 (penalizing squatting and similar acts),
as well as the Order dated May 31, 1976, denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsi­deration.

Private respondents were charged in the court a quo, then presided over by respondent Judge with violation of
P.D. No. 772 which penalizes squatting in an information which reads:

“That on or about the 2nd week of October,
1975 and for sometime subsequent thereto, at Bo. Bagongbayan,
Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another and taking advantage of
the absence and/or tolerance of the landowner, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously occupy and build a
house on the land owned by Felix Yara for residential
and/or commercial purpose and refuses (sic) to vacate said land despite
repeated demands to vacate made by Felix Yara, which
act is a violation of Presidential Decree No. 772.” (Annex
‘A’ to the Petition for Review, p. 11, Rollo).

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 6398 of the court a
quo.

Upon a motion to quash filed by private respondents, alleging
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, respondent Judge dismissed
the case in an Order dated May 17,
1976.  In dismissing the
information, respondent Judge opined:

“From the purpose clause of Presidential Decree No. 772 it is
very evident that what is penalized are acts of squatting only in urban
communities and not just any community. 
In the absence therefore of a recital in the information that Barrio Bagongbayan, Puerto
Princesa City
where the squatting was allegedly committed is an urban community, the court is
of the opinion and so holds that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense.” (Annex ‘F’ to Petition for Review, p. 25, Rollo).

The prosecution moved for reconsideration of the said Order, but
was denied in the Order dated May 31,
1976.

Hence, this petition.

The petition is premised on the sole assignment of error, to wit:

“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 772 PENALIZES
SQUATTING IN BOTH URBAN AND RURAL COMMU­NITIES.”

Section 1 P.D. 772 provides, as follows:

“SECTION 1.  Any person who, with the use of force,
intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the
landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter
against his will for residential, commercial or any other purposes, shall be
punished by an imprisonment ranging from six months to one year or a fine of not less
than that one thousand nor more than five thousand pesos at the discretion of
the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.” (2nd
paragraph is omitted).

The question as to which community or communities P.D. 772
applies has long been resolved by this Court in People vs. Echaves,
95 SCRA 663 (1980) where it was held:

“We hold that the lower court correctly ruled that the decree
does not apply to pasture lands because its preamble shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in urban communities or more
particularly to illegal constructions in squatter areas made by well-to-do
individuals.  The squatting complained of
involves pasture lands in rural areas.”

The aforesaid ruling was restated in Bernardo vs. People, 123
SCRA 365 (1983) as follows:

“The intent of the decree (referring to P.D. No. 772) is
unmistakable.  It is intended to apply
only to urban communities, particularly to illegal constructions.”

The unmistakable intent of P.D. No. 772 may be gleaned from its
preamble, thus:

“WHEREAS, it came to my knowledge that despite the issuance of
Letter of Instruction No. 19 dated October 2, 1972, directing the Secretaries
of National Defense, Public Works and
Communications, Social Welfare and the Director of Public Works, the PHHC
General Manager, the Presidential Assistant on Housing and Rehabilitation
Agency, Governors, City and Municipal Mayors, and City and District Engineers,
to remove all illegal constructions including buildings on and along esteros and river
banks, those along railroad tracks and those built without permits on public
and private property, ‘squatting
is still a major problem in urban
communities all over the country;

“WHEREAS, many persons or entities found to have been
unlawfully occupying public and private lands belong to the affluent class;

“WHEREAS, there is a need to further
intensify the government’s drive against this illegal and nefarious
practice.” (Underscoring supplied).

Considering that PD 772
applies only to urban communi­ties and the information filed in the case at bar
does not allege that barrio Bagongbayan, Puerto Princesa City where the squatting was allegedly committed
is an urban community, the respondent Judge did not commit any reversible error
in holding that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is Dismissed
and the orders of the court a quo dated May 17 and 31, 1976 are Affirmed.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr.,
Feliciano, and Cortes, JJ., concur.