ROSARIO G. JIMENEZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SEVENTEENTH DIVISION, NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), MONICO V. JACOB, GEN. MANAGER, AMADO BAGING, ELMER …

This petition seeks a review of the Court of Appeals decision
rendered on February 24, 1992 denying the petition for certiorari in
C.A.-G.R. SP No. 24869 and affirming the NHA decision denying nullification of
the lot award in favor of private respondents.

In July 1962, Rosario Jimenez acquired possession of Lot No. 5,
Block 29, Phase I (Lot 30-A-1) Tramo/Singalong Project of the National Housing
Authority (NHA), pursuant to a contract of lease with the Philippine National
Railways (PNR). Jimenez erected a
two-storey residential building on this lot which was declared in her name for
purposes of taxation. Consequently, she
declared the improvement which she introduced on the lot for tax purposes and
religiously paid the real estate taxes thereon.

On November 3, 1965, Jimenez was issued a “Certificate of
Priority” by the Board of Liquidators under the Office of the President of
the Philippines, entitling her to priority in the acquisition of said parcel of
land, “subject to such rules and regulations as may hereafter be
promulgated.”

In 1983, seizing a business opportunity, petitioner and her late
husband decided to rent a house in Sta. Ana, Manila and reside there. They then leased different portions of the
house that had been constructed on the parcel of land in question to the
respondents on different dates.

In 1988, the NHA conducted a census survey of the Singalong
project and found that petitioner was an absentee structure owner, hence, not
qualified for a lot award in the project. The parcel of land in question was awarded instead to the private
respondents who thereafter refused and failed to pay the rentals due on the
house leased to them by the petitioner.

Petitioner sued private respondents in three (3) separate cases
of ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No.
130164 – CV MTC – Branch 8, Manila entitled “Rosario Jimenez v. Nilda
Baging;” Civil Case No. 12970-CV MTC
Branch 28, Manila, entitled “Rosario Jimenez v. Elmer Ornido, et al.”
and Civil Case No. 1299071-CV, MTC-Manila,
entitled “Rosario Jimenez v. Lourdes Junsay.”

Meanwhile, petitioner sought a review and nullification of the
award made by the NHA in NHA Case No. 175
entitled “Rosario Jimenez v. Mariano Ranner III, Rosalinda
Certates, Henry L. Salinao, Aurora Franco, Lourdes Junsay, Elmer Omido and
Nilda Baging.” In a letter dated April 4, 1990 signed by the NHA General
Manager, the petition was denied and the award affirmed. Petitioner formally informed the NHA of the
decisions rendered in the ejectment suits in her favor through a letter dated
June 11, 1990 delivered to the NHA General Manager.

Jimenez then filed C.A.-G.R. SP No. 22894 in the Court of
Appeals, praying that a writ be issued annulling the award of the contested lot
to Baging, Ornido and Junsay. The CA
dismissed the petition on a technical ground – failure to inform public
respondents of the supervening decisions rendered in the ejectment suits. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but
the motion was denied. In its
resolution of denial, the Court of Appeals emphasized that petitioner’s remedy
was to file a motion for reconsideration of the General Manager’s decision of
April 4, 1990 based on the supervening decisions of the MTC. Heeding these declarations, petitioner filed
a motion for reconsideration with the NHA on February 21, 1991. The NHA however denied petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration in a letter dated April 16, 1991 with the observation that
petitioner’s Certificate of Priority to buy the contested lot given in her
favor in 1965 did not bind the present administration, considering that from
the time she was granted such certification, she left the area many years ago
and rented out her house to others. In
so doing, she ran the risk of losing her rights to be accorded preference in
purchasing the lot, since her being an absentee structure owner disqualified
her for a lot award in the project area in accordance with the existing NHA
policies, rules and regulations.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
in the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 24869 to annul the award of the
contested lot to private respondents. On February 24, 1992, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision^[1]
denying the petition with costs against the petitioner. It held that while petitioner claimed that
she actually furnished the respondent NHA the MTC-Manila decisions in the
ejectment cases, she did so only on June 11, 1990 after the NHA letter-decision
had already been penned on April 4, 1990 or two months earlier. Instead of moving for a reconsideration of
that decision, petitioner went directly to the Court of Appeals, charging the
NHA General Manager with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying her from
the award of the contested homelot.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of
Appeals decision but it was likewise denied.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner questions the
denial of her right to acquire the property for being an “absentee
structure owner,” alleging that she had already perfected her right to
acquire the property when PD 1517
was promulgated in 1978. She assails the failure
of the NHA to apply the provisions of Section 6 of PD 1517^[2] under which the Court of Appeals rendered
its decision. She asserts that she
enjoys the right of first refusal to purchase the lot at a reasonable price
within a reasonable time and that whether she failed or not to bring to the
attention of NHA the matter of the court decisions in the ejectment cases is
really of no moment because private respondents occupied the lot as sub-lessees
by virtue of a contract of lease with her, not in the concept of dominion or
ownership. More importantly, their
continued possession of the house and lot has been declared unlawful by the
ejectment courts.

The only issue in the
eviction cases before the MTC courts is the right of possession to the
structure rented out by petitioner to private respondents. That issue is entirely different from the
issue in the case at bench as to who has the better right to the award of the
contested lot. The proper authority to
resolve the issue is public respondent which has the authority to dispose of
lands of the public domain under its administration.^[3]

The NHA Tramo/Singalong ZIP Project was undertaken to carry out a
constitutional mandate of the government to provide affordable housing to the
marginal group of our people, and in awarding of project homelots, priority is
given to those who need affordable housing most. Clearly, entitlement to priority in the acquisition of these
homelots is subject to NHA policies, rules and regulations, pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1517, otherwise known as the Urban Land Reform Law
which was promulgated on June 11, 1978.

The records disclose, and it is not disputed, that what was issued to petitioner was
merely a Certificate of Priority by the Board of Liquidators, not a perfected
award or contract of sale over the contested lot in her favor. Where a grantee of a Certificate of Priority
is found not qualified to acquire the same or fails to comply with NHA rules,
regulations and policies, public respondent is justified in not bestowing the
award of the lot in her favor. By
insisting on the strict application of Section 6 of PD 1517, petitioner is
deprived of her Certificate by her earlier omission or non-compliance
thereof. She herself is to blame for
the change in her situation from the time she was awarded said certificate to
the present.

Under NHA policies, an absentee censused household is
automatically disqualified from lot allocation. Such disqualified party has three (3) options for disposition of
his/her structures or dwelling units:

1.  sell these to all interested censused
household occupants;

2.  after censused occupants have waived their
rights of pre-emption, sell the structure or dwelling unit to any censused
household; or

3.  voluntarily dismantle the same if such is not
occupied or rented out by a duly censused household (Circular No. 13 V [3] and
VI [2]).

On the other hand, respondents did not come to court with clean
hands and cannot, therefore, be allowed to stake a claim upon their own wrong
doing.

In light of extant
evidence that the lease over the house constructed on the contested lot was
executed in 1983 and it was in 1988 when a census survey of the Tramo/Singalong
project was conducted, resulting in the grant of the lot award in favor of such
lessees (herein private respondents), they quite obviously also lack the
qualifications to merit such award, having legally occupied the premises as
mere “apartment dwellers” for only five (5) years. Moreover, as found by the courts below, they
were remiss in paying monthly rentals since 1990. Having defaulted in the payment of their lease rentals, clearly,
their right to occupy the subject premises ceased. Thus, when petitioner asked them to vacate, they were already deforciant or
illegal occupants of the leased apartment.^[4]

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby ENTERED declaring
both petitioner and private respondents legally DISQUALIFIED from being awarded
the lot in question.

Let Lot No. 5, Block 29, Phase 1 (Lot 30-A-1) of the
Tramo/Singalong Project REVERT to public respondent National Housing Authority
for proper disposition to legally qualified applicants.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision penned by Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez, concurred in by Justices
Antonio A. Martinez and Fermin A. Martin, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 38-47.

^[2]
“Section 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. – Within the
Urban Zones legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or
more who have built their homes on the land and residents who have legally
occupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years shall not
be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to
purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under
terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and hand
Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree.”

^[3]
Cerdon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47422, April 6, 1990, 184 SCRA 198.

^[4]
Joya v. CA, G.R. No. 89734, February 27, I991, 194 SCRA 565.