FRANCISCO VERGARA AND SEVERINO CAMARAO, PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 86, QUEZON CITY, NATIONAL HOUSING AUT…

Vergara versus Intermediate Appellate Court

The Case

This is a petition for review by certiorari brought by Francisco Vergara and Severino Camarao against the Intermediate Appellate Court, the presiding judge of a regional trial court, the National Housing Authority, and private respondent William Ong Genato. The petitioners are occupants of a parcel of land in Quezon City who lost a case for annulment of sale, and who now resist eviction by invoking a later presidential decree that prohibits the eviction of occupants of land proclaimed as areas for priority development or urban land reform zones. The case matters because it fixes the boundary of that protection: the decree shelters qualified tenants and qualified occupants, not every person who happens to be physically present on the land, and it does not stay the execution of a final and executory judgment of eviction.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint in the trial court for annulment of the sale of the property to Santiago de los Reyes, of the subsequent transfers, and of the final conveyance to private respondent William Ong Genato. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and their appeals to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court were denied. The case was remanded to the trial court for execution, and the petitioners were ordered to vacate the property and surrender possession to the private respondent. The petitioners then went to the Court of Appeals questioning the orders of execution, but that petition was denied because the judgment on which the writ rested had long become final and executory. Invoking a memorandum of the Ministry of Human Settlements, they filed another petition for certiorari, which was likewise dismissed on the ground that the memorandum was not a supervening event that could justify staying execution. After Presidential Decree 2016 was promulgated, they filed yet another petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which denied it, holding that the decree did not alter the legal situation that the final judgment must be executed. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review by certiorari.

Facts

The petitioners occupied Lot 7, Block 100, located along Malaya Avenue in Quezon City. On May 12, 1979, they filed a complaint seeking the annulment of the sale of that property to Santiago de los Reyes, of the subsequent transfers, and of the final conveyance to private respondent William Ong Genato. Because the petitioners failed to prosecute, the case was dismissed, and their appeals to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court were denied.

The case was remanded to the trial court for execution. By virtue of a writ of execution, the petitioners were ordered to vacate the premises and to surrender the property to the private respondent. They resisted twice before the Court of Appeals, first by questioning the orders of execution, and second by invoking a memorandum of the Ministry of Human Settlements and the inclusion of the property in the Zonal Improvement Program. Both petitions were dismissed.

Then, on January 23, 1986, Presidential Decree 2016 was promulgated, prohibiting the eviction of occupants from land identified and proclaimed as areas for priority development or as urban land reform zones. Invoking this decree, the petitioners filed another petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing that they could no longer be evicted. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, and the petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a private land identified as a project for development under the Zonal Improvement Program for Metro Manila and the Slum Improvement Program for regional cities is covered by Presidential Decree 2016.
• Whether or not an occupant of a private land identified as a project for development under the Zonal Improvement Program may be ejected from the land pending acquisition of the same from the owner by the National Housing Authority.
• Whether or not the execution of a final decision ejecting the occupant family from a lot identified and declared as a project for development under the Zonal Improvement Program may be suspended pursuant to Presidential Decree 2016 pending acquisition of the lot from the owner.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Presidential Decree 2016 provides:

No tenant or occupant family, residing for ten years or more reckoned from the date of issuance of Presidential Decree No. 1517 otherwise known as the Urban Land Reform Law, in land proclaimed as Areas for Priority Development or Urban Land Reform Zones or is a project for development under the ZIP in Metro Manila and the SIR Program in the regional cities shall be evicted from the land or otherwise dispossessed.

This is the very provision the petitioners invoke, and the Court must decide whether they fall within its shelter.

Section 6 of the Urban Land Reform Law, Presidential Decree 1517, as quoted in the whereas clauses of Presidential Decree 2016, provides:

Qualified families within Urban Land Reform Zone shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same.

This is the right that Presidential Decree 2016 was enacted to implement, and its beneficiaries define who may claim the protection.

The Urban Land Reform Law defines the term tenant in this wise:

The rightful occupant of land and its structure, but does not include those whose presence on the land is merely tolerated and without the benefit of a contract, those who enter the land by force or deceit, or those whose possession is under litigation.

This definition controls the pivotal question, because the law treats the tenant and the qualified occupant in the same context.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Presidential Decree 2016 does not enlarge the coverage of the Urban Land Reform Law. The decree was promulgated to protect the beneficiaries of that law from landowners who were able to go around Section 6, but nowhere in the decree can there be found additional qualified beneficiaries or a re-definition of who are to be considered tenants. The reference in the decree to a slum or depressed community means additional places or properties covered, not additional beneficiaries; beneficiaries are the tenants or families qualified to avail of the benefits, not the properties themselves.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that the petitioners are not tenants or qualified occupants. They are in actual possession, and so they are occupants in the ordinary sense, but the question is whether they are qualified occupants, and the legal right to possess the property is essentially the controversy. Their continued presence can at most be considered merely tolerated, for they have no legal right to stay in view of the final and executory judgment of eviction. The Court also noted that under the Rules of Court, a dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, so the finality of the judgment is undisputed, and the promulgation of the decree does not alter the legal situation that the final judgment must be executed.

Doctrine

Presidential Decree 2016 implements the Urban Land Reform Law and does not enlarge its scope; it adds no new class of beneficiaries and does not redefine who are tenants. The term tenant in the Urban Land Reform Law means the rightful occupant of land and its structure, and the law uses tenant and qualified occupant in the same context. A person whose presence on the land is merely tolerated, who entered by force or deceit, or whose possession is under litigation is not a qualified occupant and cannot claim the protection against eviction. The protection of the decree does not suspend the execution of a final and executory judgment of eviction against one who is not a qualified beneficiary.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition and leaving the writ of execution in favor of private respondent William Ong Genato undisturbed, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: Presidential Decree 2016 protects qualified tenants and qualified occupants, not mere tolerated possessors, and it never stays a final and executory judgment of eviction. Examiners use this case to test the definition of tenant and qualified occupant under the Urban Land Reform Law and the rule that a supervening decree cannot reopen a judgment that has become final.