Character

E HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF EL DEPOSITO, BARRIO CORAZON DE JESUS, SAN
JUAN, RIZAL, represented by its President NAPOLEON VILORIA, PANTALEON PENARANDA,

JULIAN PENARANDA, PILAR DEL PILAR, MIGUEL POMPERADA, ESTER PORRAS, TEODULO
ROBLANDO, PABLO RELATO, ABRAHAM REMPULA, HUGO ROBETO, ASUNCION REYES,
ERNESTO SALAZAR, FEDERICO SALAZAR, JUANITO SALLEGUE, SAMONTE NESTOR, BEN
SANTOS, ELEUTERIA SANTOS, DOMINGO SARMOY, CORA SASTRE, TRANSFIGURACION
SOMBE, PEDRO SUBONG, IGMEDIO TAMBONG, SALVADOR TERUEL, ALFREDO TORRES,
CELSO TORRES, ROQUE TUMAMPIL, TITA TUTANES, CATALINA UNANA, DIONISIA VIGIL,
ASUNCION VILLANUEVA, DELMO VILLANUEVA, JOSE VILORIA, JR., BENIGNO VIRAY,
DOMINADOR WINDECA, SALVADOR YULO, JOSUE DAGON, FELIPE TORRENTE, LEON
LUCAS, JACINTO PASCUAL, and THREE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE OTHER MEMBERS, THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF EL DEPOSITO, BARRIO HALO HALO, SAN JUAN, RIZAL,
represented by its President AQUILINO BELO, JUAN GARCIA, GREGORIO GARCIA, PABLO
REANO, DOMINADOR TIBAR, GERONIMO LAZARRAGA, and ONE HUNDRED THIRTY OTHER
MEMBERS, petitioners,
vs.
HON. GUARDSON LOOD, Judge of The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, Pasig,
Rizal, THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, RIZAL, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SAN JUAN,
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN JUAN, RIZAL, ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF RIZAL, ACTING
THRU NICOLAS ALDANA, ENGINEER II, Pasig, Rizal, respondents.
H. A. Jambora for petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
PER CURIAM:p
Petitioners filed on April 15, 1970 this action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction
to set aside respondent court's questioned orders dated February 9, 1970 and March 30, 1970
denying petitioners' motions for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the demolition and
removal of their houses and structures on a parcel of public land in barrios Corazon de Jesus and
Halo Halo in San Juan, Rizal, (more popularly known as "El Deposito" from the Spanish times),
pending final outcome of Civil Case No. 11078 filed by them before respondent court.
Petitioners' action below was one for declaratory relief to declare as null and void as ex post facto
legislation, municipal ordinance No. 89, as amended, of respondent Municipality of San Juan,
prohibiting squatting on public property and providing a penalty therefor, under which ordinance,
petitioners claimed, respondents were summarily demolishing and removing their houses and
improvements.
On April 20, 1970, upon issuance of summons requiring respondents to answer the petition, the
Court issued a temporary restraining order restraining respondents, until further orders, "from
proceeding with the summary destruction, removal and demolition of all other houses found in the
premises of the land in barrio Corazon de Jesus and barrio Halo Halo, San Juan, Rizal, by reason of
Ordinance No. 89-Amd. as amended, passed by the Municipal Council of San Juan, Rizal, on April
26, 1968 ... ."
Respondents filed their answer in due course and the case was thereafter submitted for decision
with the filing by the parties of their respective memoranda in lieu of oral argument.
As restated by petitioners themselves in their memorandum, the main issue at bar is whether
respondent judge "exceeded his authority and jurisdiction and gravely abused his discretion" in
1
issuing the questioned orders of February 9, and March 30, 1970, denying the preliminary injunction
sought to stay demolition and removal of petitioners' houses and structures. Petitioners raise as
issues also the issue of validity and constitutionality of municipal ordinance No. 89-Amended as
questioned by them in their action below, and whether respondent Engineer may remove or
demolish their houses without a special court demolition order under said challenged ordinance; and
furthermore, "whether the filing of the petition for compulsory registration in LRC Cad. Case No. N-6,
LRC Cad. Rec. No. N-511 which placed in issue the status of the land as demanded for reasons of
public interest where the houses and other improvements of the petitioners as claimants in the
cadastral proceeding are found, precludes the enforcement of municipal ordinance No. 89-Amd." 2
Subsequent events have cleared up the matter of this last issue as to the alleged pendency of a
petition in petitioner's favor for compulsory registration of the land in question, as shown by
proceedings held in the Rizal court of first instance and this Court as hereinafter recounted.
A motion to reopen the cadastral proceedings was filed under date of August 2, 1971 by petitioners
3
as claimants, citing the passage on June 19, 1971 of Republic Act No. 6236 which extended the
time limit (not to extend beyond December 31, 1976) for filing of applications for free patents and for
judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles to public agricultural lands.
The court of first instance of Rizal, Branch I, presided by Judge Emilio V. Salas had denied such
reopening of the proceedings as per its order dated August 20, 1971, "it appearing that the instant
case was dismissed without prejudice in our order dated April 6, 1970, which order was affirmed by
the Supreme Court in its resolution in G.R. No.
L-32156, dated August 10, 1970, which became final and executory since September 1, 1970." 4
Petitioners-claimants' motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding, withdrawal of the opposition of

respondent municipality of San Juan, Rizal, was denied in the Rizal court of first instance's order
dated November 16, 1971.
A special civil action for certiorari and mandamus was then filed on December 13, 1971 by
petitioners-claimants and docketed as Case L-34438 of this Court. 5 Said action was dismissed for
lack of merit per the Court's resolution therein of December 16, 1971. Reconsideration was denied
for lack of merit per the Court's resolution of May 23, 1972, after the Court had received the
comment of the therein respondent Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, (as successor-
in-interest of Nawasa) asserting its ownership of the property since its survey in 1910 as conducted
for the Metropolitan Water District (predecessor-in-interest of Nawasa) and approved by the Director
of Lands. In its comment, said therein respondent MWSS further averred that within the property
which had been declared for taxation purposes in the name of the old Metropolitan Water District
(with a total area of 132,597 square meters, of which 14,138 square meters are used for public
roads) are "aqueducts and an underground reservoir", and that its predecessor-in-interest (Nawasa)
6
had sold a portion (16,409 sq. meters) of the property to the Municipality of San Juan (on which are
constructed the municipality's elementary school, home economics building and gymnasium), leased
a portion thereof (4,102 sq. meters) for the municipality's public high school, and "leased some lots
to those who have squatted on the said property." 50,000 square meters or five hectares of the
property were likewise leased by the Nawasa to the Pinaglabanan Commemorative Commission
(created by Executive Order No. 263 of the President of the Philippines dated August 15, 1957) for7
a 99-year period from August 21, 1963 for the site of the national shrine to commemorate the "Battle
of Pinaglabanan" on August 28 and 29, 1896 between the Katipunan revolutionaries and the
Spanish garrison defending the gunpowder dump (called the "polvorin") in San Juan, Rizal. Final
entry of the dismissal order of December 16, 1971 was made as of June 12, 1972. Hence, it is quite
clear that as of now, there exist no proceedings, cadastral or otherwise, questioning the public
character of the land and asserting petitioners' alleged claims of ownership thereto.

Character

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Character

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF EL DEPOSITO, BARRIO CORAZON DE JESUS, SAN

JUAN, RIZAL, represented by its President NAPOLEON VILORIA, PANTALEON PENARANDA,

H. A. Jambora for petitioners.

Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

Petitioners-claimants' motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding, withdrawal of the opposition of

You might also like