CASE DIGEST
Facts:
On
January 17, 1969, petitioners filed a complaint for the exercise of
preferential rights with the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV.
The said complaint alleged that petitioner association has for its members
Nicolas Aglabay, et al., which members are heads of 110 tenant families, and
who have been, for more than ten years prior to 1959, occupants of a parcel of
land (with their 110 houses built thereon), formerly owned by the respondent,
Juliana Diez Vda. de Gabriel, to whom petitioners have been paying rents for
the lease thereof, but who, on May 14, 1968, without notice to petitioners,
sold the same to respondent Carlos Dimayuga, who, in turn, mortgaged the same
to her for the balance of the purchase price; that according to Republic Act
1162, as amended by Republic Act 2342, a parcel of land in Manila and suburbs,
with at least fifty (50) houses of tenants erected thereon and actually leased
to said tenants for at least ten (10) years prior to June 20, 1959, may not be
sold by the landowner to any person other than such tenants, unless the latter
renounced their rights in a public instrument; that without said
tenants-appellants having renounced their preferential rights in public
instrument, respondent Vda. de Gabriel sold the land to respondent Dimayuga;
that petitioners-tenants are willing to purchase said land at the same price
and on the same terms and conditions observed in the contract of sale with
respondent Dimayuga; and that since aforesaid contract of sale is expressly
prohibited by law, the same is null and void, while it is mandatory for
respondent Vda. de Gabriel to execute such sale to petitioners, Petitioners
therefore prayed that said contract of sale be declared void, and that
respondent Vda. de Gabriel be ordered to execute a deed of sale in favor of
petitioners at the same price and conditions followed in the contract with
respondent Dimayuga, plus attorney's fees and damages.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners have
the pre-emptive or preferential rights to buy the land in question.
Ruling:
This
preferential right of petitioners and the power of eminent domain have been
further mandated, strengthened and expanded by recent developments in law and
jurisprudence. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation (Sec. 2 Art. IV). The state shall promote social justice to ensure
the dignity, welfare, and security of the people. Toward this end, the state
shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of
private property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits (Sec. 6
Art. 11).
P.D. No. 1517 was
enacted and Proclamation No. 1967 as an Implementing law, undoubtedly adopts
and crystallizes the greater number of people when it speaks of tenants and
residents in declared urban land reform zones or areas without any mention of
the land area covered by such zones. The focus is on people who would stand to
benefit and not on the size of the land involved. The 110 tenant-families have
been vested with the right of first refusal to purchase the land in question
within a reasonable time and reasonable prices, subject to Ministry of Human Settlements
rules and regulations. The Oct. 30, 1969 order is set aside and the Ministry of
Human Settlements is hereby directed to facilitate administer the
implementation of the rights of petitioners.
No comments:
Post a Comment