G.R. No. 64112. May 21, 1984
THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE OTILIO ABAYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL REGION, BRANCH CLIV (154) AND UNION CHEMICALS, INC., RESP…
FERNANDO, C.J.:
National Housing Authority against an order of respondent Judge Otilio
Abaya of the National Capital Region with the Union Chemicals, Inc. as
private respondent. The order complained of excluded from an
expropriation proceeding certain areas to “be devoted exclusively to
the fulfillment by Union Chemicals of its contractual obligation to its
employees in accordance with the approval by the Human Settlement
Regulatory Commission, Ministry of Human Settlement.”[1]
Petitioner posed the issue thus: “May a landowner whose properties
are the subject of expropriation proceedings seek the exclusion of the
same from the said proceedings and evade condemnation of his properties
by merely representing that said properties are also to be devoted by him to a public purpose? In the case at bar, such a defense was raised. And this was done one year after
expropriation proceedings were commenced by the petitioner.
Nonetheless, the trial court gave its imprimatur to private respondent’s
defense and excluded its properties from coverage of the expropriation
proceedings clearly, in grave abuse of discretion.”[2]
This Court required respondents to comment. Such Comment was submitted
by private respondent. At the outset, it referred to what was referred
to as inaccuracies in the statement of facts in the petition and added:
“The records show that the particular issue of whether a property
already devoted to a public purpose can still be expropriated for the
same public purpose is not an ‘afterthought’ and that it was not ‘raised
one year after expropriation proceedings were commenced.'”[3]
It then argued that respondent Judge acted well within his
jurisdiction and with sound exercise of discretion in excluding the
subject properties from the expropriation proceedings and that certiorari is not the proper remedy.
The Comment was considered as the Answer; the petition was given due
course; and the parties required to submit their memoranda. Thereafter,
upon their being filed, the petition was ready for deliberation and
subsequently for decision.
On May 22, 1984, petitioner and private respondent submitted a
Compromise Agreement dated May 10, 1984. They stipulated and agreed on
the following: “1. On October 30, 1980, Petitioner instituted Civil Case
No. 39068, entitled ‘National Housing Authority vs. Celso de los
Angeles, et al.’, with the then Court of First Instance of Pasig for the
expropriation of parcels of land located in Pasig, Metro Manila and
Cainta, Rizal, to be developed into a Sites and Services Project; 2.
Petitioner has already acquired a large portion of the project area,
part of which is contiguous area now covered by Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. 36336, 37191, 41056, 36337 and 37536; 3. Respondent UCI owns
property interspaced in the area already owned by NHA, and covered by
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 25431, 25432, 25433, 25434, 25435,
25436, 25437, 7873 and 11897, and which property petitioner seeks to
expropriate in Civil Case No. 39068; 4. On petition of respondent UCI,
respondent court issued an Order dated December 17, 1982 excluding some
of respondent’s properties from the aforementioned project, and which
Order is now the subject of the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus;
5. To expedite the early resolution of this case, respondent UCI,
pursuant to UCI Board Resolution No. [Unnumbered], copy attached as
Annex ‘A’ hereof, offered to exchange its aforementioned fragmented
properties with a property of equal area already acquired by the
petitioner, and petitioner accepted the said offer to hasten the
completion of the development of its aforementioned Sites and Services
Project; 6. Under NHA Board Resolution No. 866 dated March 15, 1984,
copy attached as Annex ‘B’ hereof, the General Manager of the petitioner
has been authorized to enter into an agreement with respondent UCI, for
exchange of some of NHA acquired property in the project area with
respondent’s property of UCI within same project site to enable the
petitioner to consolidate its project into one contiguous area; 7.
Accordingly, respondent UCI hereby assigns, cedes, and conveys unto the
petitioner, free from liens and encumbrances, a total net area of 87,699
square meters of its real property covered by Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. 25431, 25432, 25433, 25434, 25435, 25436, 25437, 7873 and
11897, deducting therefrom 1,827 square meters of land being used by the
National Power Corporation for power transmission line; and by way of
exchange for the said property of respondent UCI, petitioner hereby
assigns, cedes, and conveys unto respondent UCI free from liens and
encumbrances, its property also with the same total net area of 87,699
square meters covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 36336,
37191, 41056, 36337 and 37536, after deducting therefrom 5,740 square
meters and another area of 5,565 square meters being used by the
National Power Corporation for power transmission line; 8. The
petitioner shall provide respondent UCI an 8-meter access and
right-of-way free of charge in consideration of the exchange of the said
properties of respondent UCI with the property of the petitioner; 9.
The parties shall retain titles to their respective areas being used by
the National Power Corporation for power transmission line, and they
shall pursue their respective claims against the National Power
Corporation for payment of the right-of-way for its power transmission
line; 10. The location plan reflecting and embodying the detailed
agreement mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraphs, as well as
the relative positions of the affected land area, is attached as Annex
‘C’ and made integral part hereof; 11. The cost of survey for the
segregation of the areas subject of the exchange, shall be charged to
and shouldered by respondent UCI. All other necessary and incidental
expenses, such as registration and other legal fees, shall be equally
shouldered by the parties; 12. The parties agree to waive all claims
they have against each other in Civil Case No. 39068, and they further
agree that this Compromise Agreement is a final settlement of the said
claims; 13. The parties agree to faithfully comply with the foregoing
terms and conditions and after same have been approved by this
Honorable Court, the Compromise Agreement shall partake of the nature
of court judgment that any violations thereof by any party shall entitle
the aggrieved party to a writ of execution of this Compromise
Agreement. [Wherefore], it is respectfully prayed that this Compromise
Agreement be approved and judgment be rendered thereon enjoining the
parties to faithfully comply with the terms and conditions thereof.”[4]
The Court approves such Compromise Agreement and enjoins the parties to comply faithfully with its terms and conditions.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. No costs.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
De Castro, J., no part.
[1] Annex B of Petition, 2.
[2] Petition, 1.
[3] Comment of Private Respondent, 2.
[4] Compromise Agreement dated May 10, 1984, 1-4.