G.R. No.
L-26053 February 21, 1967
FACTS
Plaintiff City of Manila is owner of parcels of
land, forming one compact area in Malate, Manila, and covered by Torrens
Titles. Shortly after liberation from 1945 to 1947, defendants entered upon
these premises without plaintiff's knowledge and consent. They built houses of
second-class materials, again without plaintiff's knowledge and consent, and
without the necessary building permits from the city. There they lived thru the
years to the present.
Few years thereafter, defendants were given written
permits — each labeled "lease contract" — to occupy specific areas in
the property upon conditions therein set forth. For their occupancy, defendants
were charged nominal rentals.
Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School is close,
though not contiguous, to the property. Came the need for this school's
expansion, plaintiff's City Engineer, pursuant to the Mayor's directive to
clear squatters' houses on city property, gave each of defendants to vacate and
remove his construction or improvement on the premises. This was followed by
the City Treasurer's demand on each defendant for the payment of the amount due
by reason of the occupancy and to vacate.
The judgment below directed defendants to vacate
the premises. Defendants appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court properly found that the
city needs the premises for school purposes.
RULING
Ordinance 4566 itself confirms the certification that
an appropriation of P100,000.00 was set aside for the "construction of
additional building" of the Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School. The
defendants were wrong in insisting that they have acquired the legal status of
tenants. They
entered the land, built houses of second-class materials thereon without the
knowledge and consent of the city. Their homes were erected without city
pemits, thus, illegal. In a language familiar to all, defendants are squatters.
These permits, erroneously labeled
"lease" contracts, were issued when the effects of the war had
simmered down and when these defendants could have very well adjusted
themselves. Two decades have now elapsed since the unlawful entry. Defendants
could have, if they wanted to, located permanent premises for their abode. And
yet, usurpers that they are, they preferred to remain on city property.
Defendants' entry as aforesaid was illegal. Their constructions are as illegal,
without permits.
The houses and constructions planted by defendants
on the premises clearly hinder and impair the use of that property for school
purposes. The courts may well take judicial notice of the fact that housing
school children in the elementary grades has been and still is a perennial problem
in the city. The selfish interests of defendants must have to yield to the
general good. The public purpose of constructing the school building annex is
paramount.
Comments
Post a Comment