PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No.

772 August 20, 1975 PENALIZING SQUATTING AND OTHER SIMILAR ACTS WHEREAS, it came to my knowledge that despite the issuance of Letter of Instructions No. 19 dated October 2, 1972, directing the Secretaries of National Defense, Public Works and Communications, Social Welfare and the Director of Public Works, the PHHC General Manager, the Presidential Assistant on Housing and Rehabilitation Agency, Governors, City and Municipal Mayors, and City and District Engineers, "to remove all illegal constructions including buildings on and along esteros and river banks, those along railroad tracks and those built without permits on public and private property, "squatting is still a major problem in urban communities all over the country; WHEREAS, many persons or entities found to have been unlawfully occupying public and private lands belong to the affluent class; WHEREAS, there is a need to further intensity the government's drive against this illegal and nefarious practice; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order: Section 1. Any person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for residential commercial or any other purposes, shall be punished by an imprisonment ranging from six months to one year or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand pesos at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. If the offender is a corporation or association, the maximum penalty of five years and the fine of five thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the president, director, manager or managing partners thereof. Section 2. This decree shall take effect immediately. Done in the City of Manila, this 20th day of August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-five.

(3) Development of urban areas conducive to commercial and industrial activities which can generate more economic opportunities for the people; (4) Reduction in urban dysfunctions, particularly those that adversely affect public health, safety and ecology; and (5) Access to land and housing by the underprivileged and homeless citizens; (c) Adopt workable policies to regulate and direct urban growth and expansion towards a dispersed urban net and more balanced urban-rural interdependence; (d) Provide for an equitable land tenure system that shall guarantee security of tenure to Program beneficiaries but shall respect the rights of small property owners and ensure the payment of just compensation; (e) Encourage more effective people's participation in the urban development process; and (f) Improve the capability of local government units in undertaking urban development and housing programs and projects. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act: (a) "Affordable cost" refers to the most reasonable price of land and shelter based on the needs and financial capability of Program beneficiaries and appropriate financing schemes; (b) "Areas for priority development" refers to those areas declared as such under existing statutes and pertinent executive issuances. (c) "Blighted lands" refers to the areas where the structures are dilapidated, obsolete and unsanitary, tending to depreciate the value of the land and prevent normal development and use of the area. (d) "Consultation" refers to the constitutionally mandated process whereby the public, on their own or through people's organizations, is provided an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making process on matters involving the protection and promotion of its legitimate collective interest, which shall include appropriate documentation and feedback mechanisms; (e) "Idle lands" refers to non-agricultural lands urban and urbanized areas on which no improvements, as herein defined, have been made by the owner, as certified by the city, municipal or provincial assessor; (f) "Improvements" refers to all types of buildings and residential units, walls, fences, structures or constructions of all kinds of a fixed character or which are adhered to the soil but shall not include trees, plants and growing fruits, and other fixtures that are mere superimpositions on the land, and the value of improvements shall not be less than fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value of the property; (g) "Joint venture" refers to the commitment or agreement by two (2) or more persons to carry out a specific or single business enterprise for their mutual benefit, for which purpose they combine their funds, land resources, facilities and services; (h) "Land assembly or consolidation" refers to the acquisition of lots of varying ownership through purchase or expropriation of the purpose of planned and rational development and socialized housing programs without individual property boundary restrictions; (i) "Land banking" refers to the acquisition of land at values based on existing use in advance of actual need to promote planned development and socialized housing programs; (j) "Land swapping" refers to the process of land acquisition by exchanging land for another piece of land of equal value, or for shares of stock in a government or quasi-government corporation whose book value is of equal value to the land being exchanged, for the purpose of planned and rational development and provision for socialized housing where land values are determined based on land classification, market value and assessed value taken from existing tax declarations: Provided, That more valuable lands owned by private persons may be exchanged with less valuable lands to carry out the objectives of this Act; (k) "Land use plan" refers to the rational approach of allocating available resources as equitably as possible among competing user groups and for different functions consistent with the development plan of the area and the Program under this Act;

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUING URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING PROGRAM, ESTABLISH THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

ARTICLE TITLE, POLICY, PROGRAM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS

Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 Sec. 2. Declaration of State Policy and Program Objectives. It shall be the policy of the State to undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a comprehensive and continuing Urban Development and Housing Program, hereinafter referred to as the Program, which shall: (a) Uplift the conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban areas and in resettlement areas by making available to them decent housing at affordable cost, basic services, and employment opportunities; (b) Provide for the rational use and development of urban land in order to bring about the following: (1) Equitable utilization of residential lands in urban and urbanizable areas with particular attention to the needs and requirements of the underprivileged and homeless citizens and not merely on the basis of market forces (2) Optimization of the use and productivity of land and urban resources;

(l) "On-site development" refers to the process of upgrading and rehabilitation of blighted slum urban areas with a view of minimizing displacement of dwellers in said areas, and with provisions for basic services as provided for in Section 21 hereof; (m) "Professional squatters" refers to individuals or groups who occupy lands without the express consent of the landowner and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing. The term shall also apply to persons who have previously been awarded homelots or housing units by the Government but who sold, leased or transferred the same to settle illegally in the same place or in another urban area, and non-bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. The term shall not apply to individuals or groups who simply rent land and housing from professional squatters or squatting syndicates; (n) "Resettlement areas" refers to areas identified by the appropriate national agency or by the local government unit with respect to areas within its jurisdiction, which shall be used for the relocation of the underprivileged and homeless citizens; (o) "Security of tenure" refers to the degree of protection afforded to qualified Program beneficiaries against infringement or unjust, reasonable and arbitrary eviction or disposition, by virtue of the right of ownership, lease agreement, usufruct and other contractual arrangements; (p) "Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program or SIR" refers to the program of the National Housing Authority of upgrading and improving blighted squatter areas outside of Metro Manila pursuant to existing statutes and pertinent executive issuances; (q) "Small property owners" refers to those whose only real property consists of residential lands not exceeding three hundred square meters (300 sq.m.) in highly urbanized cities and eight hundred square meters (800 sq.m.) in other urban areas; (r) "Socialized housing" refers to housing programs and projects covering houses and lots or homelots only undertaken by the Government or the private sector for the underprivileged and homeless citizens which shall include sites and services development, long-term financing, liberalized terms on interest payments, and such other benefits in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (s) "Squatting syndicates" refers to groups of persons engaged in the business of squatter housing for profit or gain; (t) "Underprivileged and homeless citizens" refers to the beneficiaries of this Act and to individuals or families residing in urban and urbanizable areas whose income or combined household income falls within the poverty threshold as defined by the National Economic and Development Authority and who do not own housing facilities. This shall include those who live in makeshift dwelling units and do not enjoy security of tenure; (u) "Unregistered or abandoned lands" refers to lands in urban and urbanizable areas which are not registered with the Register of Deeds, or with the city or municipal assessor's office concerned, or which are uninhabited by the owner and have not been developed or devoted for any useful purpose, or appears unutilized for a period of three (3) consecutive years immediately prior to the issuance and receipt of publication of notice of acquisition by the Government as provided under this Act. It does not include land which has been abandoned by reason of force majeure or any other fortuitous event: Provided, That prior to such event, such land was previously used for some useful or economic purpose; (v) "Urban areas" refers to all cities regardless of their population density and to municipalities with a population density of at least five hundred (500) persons per square kilometers; (w) "Urbanizable areas" refers to sites and lands which, considering present characteristics and prevailing conditions, display marked and great potential of becoming urban areas within the period of five (5) years; and (x) "Zonal Improvement Program or ZIP" refers to the program of the National Housing Authority of upgrading and improving blighted squatters areas within the cities and municipalities of Metro Manila pursuant to existing statutes and pertinent executive issuances. ARTICLE II COVERAGE AND EXEMPTIONS

Sec. 4. Coverage. The Program shall cover all lands in urban and urbanizable areas, including existing areas for priority development sites, and in other areas that may be identified by the local government units as suitable for socialized housing. Sec. 5. Exemptions. The following lands shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: (a) Those included in the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law; (b) Those actually used for national defense and security of the State; (c) Those used, reserved or otherwise set aside for government offices, facilities and other installations, whether owned by the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or-controlled corporations, or by the local government units: Provided, however, That the lands herein mentioned, or portions thereof, which have not been used for the purpose for which they have been reserved or set aside for the past ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act, shall be covered by this Act; (d) Those used or set aside for parks, reserves for flora and fauna, forests and watersheds, and other areas necessary to maintain ecological balance or environmental protection, as determined and certified to by the proper government agency; and (e) Those actually and primarily used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, cultural and historical sites, hospitals and health centers, and cemeteries or memorial parks. The exemptions herein provided shall not apply when the use or purpose of the abovementioned lands has ceased to exist. ARTICLE III NATIONAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING FRAMEWORK Sec. 6. Framework for Rational Development. There shall be a National Urban Development and Housing Framework to be formulated by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board under the direction of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council in coordination with all local government units and other concerned public and private sectors within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act. The framework shall refer to the comprehensive plan for urban and urbanizable areas aimed at achieving the objectives of the Program. In the formulation of the Framework, a review and rationalization of testing town and land use plans, housing programs, and all other objectives and activities of government agencies and the private sectors which may substantially affect urban land use patterns, transportation and public utilities, infrastructure, environment and population movement shall be undertaken with the concurrence of the local government units concerned. ARTICLE IV LAND USE, INVENTORY, ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION Sec. 7. Inventory of Lands. Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, all city and municipal governments shall conduct an inventory of all kinds and improvements thereon within their respective localities. The inventory shall include the following: (a) Residential lands; (b) Government-owned lands, whether owned by the National Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or-controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands; and (d) Other lands. In conducting the inventory, the local government units concerned, in coordination with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and with the assistance of the appropriate government agencies, shall indicate the type of land use and the degree of land utilization, and other data or information necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. For planning purposes, the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council shall be furnished by each local government unit a copy of its inventory which shall be updated every three (3) years. Sec. 8. Identification of Sites for Socialized Housing. After the inventory the local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, the National Mapping Resource Information Authority, and the Land Management Bureau, shall identify lands for socialized housing and resettlement areas for the immediate and future needs of the underprivileged and homeless in the urban areas, taking into consideration and degree of availability of basic services and facilities, their accessibility and proximity of jobs sites and other economic opportunities, and the actual number of registered beneficiaries. Government-owned lands under paragraph (b) of the preceding section which have not been used for the purpose for which they have been reserved or set aside for the past ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act and identified as suitable for socialized housing, shall immediately be transferred to the National Housing Authority subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines or by the local government unit concerned, as the case may be, for proper disposition in accordance with this Act. Sec. 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: (a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; (b) Alienable lands of the public domain; (c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands; (d) Those within the declared Areas for Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired; (e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and (f) Privately-owned lands. Where open-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site development of government lands. Sec. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint-venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other models of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided, further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act: Provided, finally, That abandoned property, as herein defined, shall be reverted and escheated to the State in a proceeding analogous to the procedure laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court.

For the purpose of socialized housing, government-owned and foreclosed properties shall be acquired by the local government units, or by the National Housing Authority primary through negotiated purchase: Provided, That qualified beneficiaries who are actual occupants of the land shall be given the right of first refusal. Sec. 11. Expropriation of Idle Lands. All idle lands in urban and urbanizable areas, as defined and identified in accordance with this Act, shall be expropriated and shall form part of the public domain. These lands shall be disposed of or utilized by the Government for such purposes that conform with their land use plans. Expropriation proceedings shall be instituted if, after the lapse of one (1) year following receipt of notice of acquisition, the owner fails to introduce improvements as defined in Section 3(f) hereof, except in the case of force majeure and other fortuitous events. Exempted from this provision, however, are residential lands owned by small property owners or those the ownership of which is subject of a pending litigation. Sec. 12. Disposition of Lands for Socialized Housing. The National Housing Authority, with respect to lands belonging to the National Government, and the local government units with respect to other lands within their respective localities, shall coordinate with each other to formulate and make available various alternative schemes for the disposition of lands to the beneficiaries of the Program. These schemes shall not be limited to those involving transfer of ownership in fee simple but shall include lease, with option to purchase, usufruct or such other variations as the local government units or the National Housing Authority may deem most expedient in carrying out the purposes of this Act. Consistent with this provision, a scheme for public rental housing may be adopted. Sec. 13. Valuation of Lands for Socialized Housing. Equitable land valuation guidelines for socialized housing shall be set by the Department of Finance on the basis of the market value reflected in the Zonal valuation, or in its absence, on the latest real property tax declaration. For site already occupied by qualified Program beneficiaries, the Department of Finance shall factor into the valuation the blighted status of the lands as certified by the local government unit or the National Housing Authority. Sec. 14. Limitations on the Disposition of Lands for Socialized Housing. No land for socialized housing, including improvements or rights thereon, shall be sold, alienated, conveyed, encumbered or leased by any beneficiaries as determined by the government agency concerned. Should the beneficiary unlawfully sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of his lot or any right thereon, the transaction shall be null and void. He shall also lose his right to the land, forfeit the total amortization paid thereon, and shall be barred from the benefits under this Act for a period of ten (10) years from the date of violation. In the event the beneficiary dies before full ownership of the land is vested on him, transfer to his heirs shall take place only upon their assumption of his outstanding obligations. In case of failure by the heirs to assume such obligations, the land shall revert to the Government for disposition in accordance with this Act. ARTICLE V SOCIALIZED HOUSING Sec. 15. Policy. Socialized housing, as defined in Section 3 hereof, shall be the primary strategy in providing shelter for the underprivileged and homeless. However, if the tenurial arrangement in a particular

socialized housing program is in the nature of leasehold or usufruct, the same shall be transitory and the beneficiaries must be encouraged to become independent from the Program within a given period of time, to be determined by the implementing agency concerned. Sec. 16. Eligibility Criteria for Socialized Housing Program Beneficiaries. To qualify for the socialized housing program, a beneficiary: (a) Must be a Filipino citizen; (b) Must be an underprivileged and homeless citizen, as defined in Section 3 of this Act; (c) Must not own any real property whether in the urban or rural areas; and (d) Must not be a professional squatter or a member of squatting syndicates. Sec. 17. Registration of Socializing Housing Beneficiaries. The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, in coordination with the local government units, shall designed a system for the registration of qualified Program beneficiaries in accordance with the Framework. The local government units, within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, shall identify and register all beneficiaries within their respective localities. Sec. 18. Balanced Housing Development. The Program shall include a system to be specified in the Framework plan whereby developers of proposed subdivision projects shall be required to develop an area for socialized housing equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the total subdivision area or total subdivision project cost, at the option of the developer, within the same city or municipality, whenever feasible, and in accordance with the standards set by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and other existing laws. The balanced housing development as herein required may also be complied with by the developers concerned in any of the following manner: (a) Development of new settlement; (b) Slum upgrading or renewal of areas for priority development either through zonal improvement programs or slum improvement and resettlement programs; (c) Joint-venture projects with either the local government units or any of the housing agencies; or (d) Participation in the community mortgage program. Sec. 19. Incentives for the National Housing Authority. The National Housing Authority, being the primary government agency in charge of providing housing for the underprivileged and homeless, shall be exempted from the payment of all fees and charges of any kinds, whether local or national, such as income and real taxes. All documents or contracts executed by and in favor of the National Housing Authority shall also be exempt from the payment of documentary stamp tax and registration fees, including fees required for the issuance of transfer certificates of titles. Sec. 20. Incentives for Private Sector Participating in Socialized Housing. To encourage greater private sector participation in socialized housing and further reduce the cost of housing units for the benefit of the underprivileged and homeless, the following incentives shall be extended to the private sectors: (a) Reduction and simplification of qualification and accreditation requirements for participating private developers; (b) Creation of one-stop offices in the different regions of the country for the processing, approval and issuance of clearances, permits and licenses: Provided, That clearances, permits and licenses shall be issued within ninety (90) days from the date of submission of all requirements by the participating private developers; (c) Simplification of financing procedures; and (d) Exemption from the payment of the following:

(1) Project-related income taxes; (2) Capital gains tax on raw lands used for the project; (3) Value-added tax for the project contractor concerned; (4) Transfer tax for both raw completed projects; and (5) Donor's tax for lands certified by the local government units to have been donated to socialized housing purposes. Provided, That upon application for exemption, a lien on the title of the land shall be annotated by the Register of Deeds: Provided, further, That the socialized housing development plan has already been approved by the appropriate government agencies concerned: Provided, finally, That all the savings acquired by virtue of this provision shall accrue in favor of the beneficiaries subject to the implementing guidelines to be issued by the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. Appropriate implementing guidelines shall be prepared by the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, for the proper implementation of the tax exemption mentioned in this section within one (1) year after the approval of this Act. Property owners who voluntarily provide resettlement sites to illegal occupants of their lands shall entitled to a tax credit equivalent to the actual non-recoverable expenses incurred in the resettlement, subject to the implementing guidelines jointly issued by the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council and the Department of Finance. Sec. 21. Basic Services. Socialized housing or resettlement areas shall be provided by the local government unit or the National Housing Authority in cooperation with the private developers and concerned agencies with the following basic services and facilities: (a) Potable water; (b) Power and electricity and an adequate power distribution system; (c) Sewerage facilities and an efficient and adequate solid waste disposal system; and (d)Access to primary roads and transportation facilities. The provisions of other basic services and facilities such as health, education, communications, security, recreation, relief and welfare shall be planned and shall be given priority for implementation by the local government unit and concerned agencies in cooperation with the private sector and the beneficiaries themselves. The local government unit, in coordination with the concerned national agencies, shall ensure that these basic services are provided at the most cost-efficient rates, and shall set as mechanism to coordinate operationally the thrusts, objectives and activities of other government agencies concerned with providing basic services to housing projects. Sec. 22. Livelihood Component. To extent feasible, socialized housing and resettlement projects shall be located near areas where employment opportunities are accessible. The government agencies dealing with the development of livelihood programs and grant of livelihood loans shall give priority to the beneficiaries of the Program. Sec. 23. Participation of Beneficiaries. The local government units, in coordination with the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor and concerned government agencies, shall afford Program beneficiaries or their duly designated representatives an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making process over matters involving the protection and promotion of their legitimate collective interest which shall include appropriate documentation and feedback mechanisms. They shall also be encouraged to organize themselves and undertake self-help cooperative housing and other livelihood activities. They shall

assist the Government in preventing the incursions of professional squatters and members of squatting syndicates into their communities. In instances when the affected beneficiaries have failed to organized themselves or form an alliance within a reasonable period prior to the implementation of the program of projects affecting them, consultation between the implementing agency and the affected beneficiaries shall be conducted with the assistance of the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor and the concerned nongovernment organization. Sec. 24. Consultation with Private Sector. Opportunities for adequate consultation shall be accorded to the private sector involved in socialized housing project pursuant to this Act. ARTICLE VI AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT, ZONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SITES AND SLUM IMPROVEMENT AND RESETTLEMENT PROGRAMS SITES Sec. 25. Benefits. In addition to the benefits provided under existing laws and other related issuance to occupants of areas for priority development, zonal improvement program sites and slum improvement and resettlement program sites, such occupants shall be entitled to priority in all government projects initiated pursuant to this Act. They shall also be entitled to the following support services: (a) Land surveys and titling at minimal cost; (b) Liberalized terms on credit facilities and housing loans and one hundred percent (100%) deduction from every homebuyer's gross income tax of all interest payments made on documents loans incurred for the construction or purchase of the homebuyer's house; (c) Exemption from the payment of documentary stamp tax, registration fees, and other fees for the issuance of transfer certificate of titles; (d) Basic services as provided for in Section 21 of this Act; and (e) Such other benefits that may arise from the implementation of this Act. ARTICLE VII URBAN RENEWAL AND RESETTLEMENT Sec. 26. Urban Renewal and Resettlement. This shall include the rehabilitation and development of blighted and slum areas and the resettlement of Program beneficiaries in accordance with the provisions of this Act. On-site development shall be implemented whenever possible in order to ensure minimum resettlement of the beneficiaries of the Program from their existing places of occupancy shall be undertaken only when on-site development is not feasible and after compliance with the procedures laid down in Section 28 of this Act. Sec. 27. Action Against Professional Squatters and Squatting Syndicates. The local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined. Any person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who tolerates or abets the commission of the abovementioned acts shall be dealt with in accordance with existing laws. For purposes of this Act, professional squatters or members of squatting syndicates shall be imposed the penalty of six (6) years imprisonment of a fine of not less than Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations: (a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds; (b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or (c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition. In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory: (1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition; (2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated; (3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition; (4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition; (5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise; (6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials; (7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and (8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned. This Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council shall jointly promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the above provision. Sec. 29. Resettlement. Within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, the local government units, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall implement the relocation and resettlement of persons living in danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and in other public places as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds. The local government unit, in coordination with the National Housing Authority, shall provide relocation or resettlement sites with basic services and facilities and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of the affected families. Sec. 30. Prohibition Against New Illegal Structures. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct any structure in areas mentioned in the preceding section. After the effectivity of this Act, the barangay, municipal or city government units shall prevent the construction of any kind of illegal dwelling units of structures within their respective localities. The head of any local government unit concerned who allows, abets or otherwise tolerates the construction of any

structure in violation of this section shall be liable to administrative sanctions under existing laws and to penal sanctions provided for in this Act. ARTICLE VIII COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM Sec. 31. Definition. The Community Mortgage Program (CMP) is a mortgage financing program of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation which assists legally organized associations of underprivileged and homeless citizens to purchase and develop a tract of land under the concept of community ownership. The primary objective of the program is to assist residents of blighted or depressed areas to own the lots they occupy, or where they choose to relocate to, and eventually improve their neighborhood and homes to the extent of their affordability. Sec. 32. Incentives. To encourage its wider implementation, participants in the CMP shall be granted with the following privileges or incentives: (a) Government-owned or -controlled corporations and local government units, may dispose of their idle lands suitable for socialized housing under the CMP through negotiable sale at prices based on acquisition cost plus financial carrying costs; (b) Properties sold under the CMP shall be exempted from the capital gains tax; and (c) Beneficiaries under the CMP shall not be evicted nor dispossessed of their lands or improvements unless they have incurred arrangements in payments of amortizations for three (3) months. Sec. 33. Organization of Beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of the Program shall be responsible for their organization into associations to manage their subdivisions or places of residence, to secure housing loans under existing Community Mortgage Program and such other projects beneficiaries to them. Subject to such rules and regulations to be promulgated by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, associations organized pursuant to this Act may collectively acquire and own lands covered by this Program. Where the beneficiaries fail to form an association by and among themselves, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation shall initiate the organization of the same in coordination with the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor and the local government units concerned. No person who is not a bona fide resident of the area shall be a member or officer of such association. ARTICLE IX RELATED STRATEGIES Sec. 34. Promotion of Indigenous Housing Materials and Technologies. The local government units, in cooperation with the National Housing Authority, Technology and Livelihood Resource Center, and other concerned agencies, shall promote the production and use of indigenous, alternative, and low-cost construction materials and technologies for socialized housing. Sec. 35. Transport System. The local government units, in coordination with the Departments of Transportation and Communications, Budget and Management, Trade and Industry, Finance, and Public Works and Highways, the Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation, and other concerned government agencies, shall device a set of mechanisms including incentives to the private sector so that a viable transport system shall evolve and develop in the urban areas. It shall also formulate standards designed to attain these objectives: (a) Smooth flow of traffic; (b) Safety and convenience of travel; (c) Minimum use of land space;

(d) Minimum damage to the physical environment; and (e) Adequate and efficient transport service to the people and goods at minimum cost. Sec. 36. Ecological Balance. The local government units shall coordinate with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in taking measures that will plan and regulate urban activities for the conservation and protection of vital, unique and sensitive ecosystems, scenic landscapes, cultural sites and other similar resource areas. To make the implementation of this function more effective, the active participation of the citizenry in environmental rehabilitation and in decision-making process shall be promoted and encouraged. The local government units shall recommend to the Environmental and Management Bureau the immediate closure of factories, mines and transport companies which are found to be causing massive pollution. Sec. 37. Population Movements. The local government units shall set up an effective mechanism, together with the appropriate agencies like the Population Commission, the National Economic and Development Authority and the National Statistics Office, to monitor trends in the movements of population from rural to urban, urban to urban, and urban to rural areas. They shall identify measures by which such movements can be influenced to achieve balance between urban capabilities and population, to direct appropriate segments of the population into areas where they can have access to opportunities to improve their lives and to contribute to national growth and recommend proposed legislation to Congress, if necessary. The Population Commission, the National Economic and Development Authority, and the National Statistics Office shall likewise provided advanced planning information to national and local government planners on population projections and the consequent level of services needed in particular urban and urbanizable areas. This service will include early-warning systems on expected dysfunctions in a particular urban area due to population increases, decreases, or age structure changes. Sec. 38. Urban-rural Interdependence. To minimize rural to urban migration and pursue urban decentralization, the local government units shall coordinate with the National Economic and Development Authority and other government agencies in the formulation of national development programs that will stimulate economic growth and promote socioeconomic development in the countryside. ARTICLE X PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Sec. 39. Role of Local Government Units. The local government units shall be charged with the implementation of this Act in their respective localities, in coordination with the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, the national housing agencies, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor, the private sector and other nongovernment organizations. They shall prepare a comprehensive land use plan for their respective localities in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sec. 40. Role of Government Housing Agencies. In addition to their respective existing powers and functions, and those provided for in this Act, the hereunder mentioned housing agencies shall perform the following: (a) The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council shall, through the key housing agencies, provide local government units with necessary support such as: (1) Formulation of standards and guidelines as well as providing technical support in the preparation of town and land use plans;

(2) In coordination with the National Economic and Development Authority and the National Statistics Office, provide data and information for forward-planning by the local government units in their areas, particularly on projections as to the population and development trends in their localities and the corresponding investment programs needed to provide appropriate types and levels of infrastructure, utilities, services and land use patterns; and (3) Assistance in obtaining funds and other resources needed in the urban development and housing programs in their areas of responsibility. (b) The National Housing Authority, upon request of local government units, shall provide technical and other forms of assistance in the implementation of their respective urban development and housing programs with the objective of augmenting and enhancing local government capabilities in the provision of housing benefits to their constituents; (c) The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation shall administer the Community Mortgage Program under this Act and promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act; and (d) The Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation shall design an appropriate guarantee scheme to encourage financial institutions to go into direct lending for housing. Sec. 41. Annual Report. The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council and the local government units shall submit a detailed annual report with respect to the implementation of this Act to the President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines ARTICLE XI FUNDING Sec. 42. Funding. Funds for the urban development and housing program shall come from the following sources: (a) A minimum of fifty percent (50%) from the annual net income of the Public Estate Authority, to be used by the National Housing Authority to carry out its programs of land acquisition for resettlement purposes under this Act; (b) Proceeds from the disposition of ill-gotten wealth, not otherwise previously set aside for any other purpose, shall be applied to the implementation of this Act shall be administered by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation; (c) Loans, grants, bequests and donations, whether from local or foreign sources; (d) Flotation of bonds, subject to the guidelines to be set by the Monetary Board; (e) Proceeds from the social housing tax and, subject to the concurrence of the local government units concerned, idle lands tax as provided in Section 236 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and other existing laws; (f) Proceeds from the date or disposition of alienable public lands in urban areas; and (g) Domestic and foreign investment or financing through appropriate arrangements like the buildoperate-and-transfer scheme. Sec. 43. Socialized Housing Tax. Consistent with the constitutional principle that the ownership and enjoyment of property bear a social function and to raise funds for the Program, all local government units are hereby authorized to impose an additional one-half percent (0.5%) tax on the assessed value of all lands in urban areas in excess of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000). ARTICLE XII TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Sec. 44. Moratorium on Eviction and Demolition. There shall be a moratorium on the eviction of all program beneficiaries and on the demolition of their houses or dwelling units for a period of three (3) years

from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the moratorium shall not apply to those persons who have constructed their structures after the effectivity of this Act and for cases enumerated in Section 28 hereof. ARTICLE XIII COMMON PROVISIONS Sec. 45. Penalty Clause. Any person who violates any provision of this Act shall be imposed the penalty of not more than six (6) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That, if the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entity, the penalty shall be imposed on the officer or officers of said corporation, partnership, association or juridical entity who caused the violation. Sec. 46. Appropriations. The amount necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act shall be included in the annual budget of implementing agencies in the General Appropriations Act of the year following its enactment into law and every year thereafter. Sec. 47. Separability Clause. If for any reason, any provision of this Act shall be included in the annual budget of implementing agencies in the General Appropriations Act of the year following its enactment into law and every year thereafter. Sec. 48. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and regulations, and other issuances, or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Sec. 49. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect upon its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9397

March 18, 2007

AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 12 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ACT OF 1992, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled : SECTION 1. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992," is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 12. Disposition of Lands for Socialized Housing. - The National Housing Authority, with respect to lands belonging to the National Government, and the local government units with respect to the other lands within their respective localities, shall coordinate with each other to formulate and make available various alternative schemes for the disposition of lands to the beneficiaries of the Program. These schemes shall not be limited to those involving transfer of ownership in fee simple but shall include lease, with option to purchase, usufruct or such other variations as the local government units or National Housing Authority may deem most expedient in carrying out the purposes of this Act." "Consistent with this provision, a scheme for public rental housing may be adopted.

"Disposition of lands, including any improvements thereon, owned by the National Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities and/or the local government units through direct negotiated sale to the occupants thereof without need of public bidding shall be allowed subject to the following conditions: "a) The lands are within a residential zone as classified by the local government unit concerned; "b) The lands are certified to be for socialized housing purpose by the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council; "c) The occupants are qualified beneficiaries in accordance with Section 16 and are registered as such in accordance with Section 17 of this Act; "d) The cost of said lands shall be made affordable to the beneficiaries, taking into consideration their income and land valuation required in Section 13 of this Act; "e) Any subsequent disposition of the said land shall be subject to the limitations provided in Section 14 of this Act; and "f) The occupants have resided on the said lands subject to the prohibitions provided in Section 30 of this Act." SEC. 2. Separability Clause. - If any part or provision of this Act shall be held unconstitutional or invalid, other provision hereof that are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect. SEC. 3. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules, regulations, or parts thereof which are not consistent with this Act, are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. SEC. 4. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two newspapers of general circulation.

effect on 27 December 1997. Rep. Act No. 8368 was enacted solely for the purpose of expressly repealing Pres. Decree No. 772. Moreover, Section 3 thereof specifically provides that all pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act. Same; Same; Rep. Act No. 7279; After the repeal of P.D. No. 772, the governing law with respect to the subject of squatting is now the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Rep Act 7229).After the repeal of Pres. Decree No. 772, the governing law with respect to the subject matter of squatting is now the Urban Developmen t and Housing Act of 1992 (Rep. Act 7279). Same; Same; Same; Professional squatters defined in Article I, Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 7279. Article I, Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 7279 defines professional squatters as individuals or groups who occupy lands without the express consent of the landowner and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing. The term shall also apply to persons who have previously been awarded homelot or housing units by the Government but who sold, leased, transferred the same to settle illegally in the same place or in another urban area, and non-bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. [De Castro Homesite, Inc. vs. Leachon, Jr., 453 SCRA 101(2005)] DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before Us are two consolidated petitions, the pivotal issue of both being the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law. G.R. No. 124856 involves a Petition for Certiorari dated 25 January 1996, challenging the legality of the Order[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 224, declaring Presidential Decree No. 772 unconstitutional, annulling the orders[2] of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 35, which denied private respondents Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration, and is suing a preliminary injunction against the MeTC, enjoining the latter from proceeding with the arraignment and trial of the criminal cases filed against private respondents. G.R. No. 127971 on the other hand, pertains to a Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 20 March 1997, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision[3] denying their appeal and affirming the RTC decision[4] which sustained the denial of petitioners (defendants therein) Motion to Quash, on the ground that Pres. Decree No. 772 has not yet been finally declared unconstitutional under the 1987 Constitution or repealed by Republic Act No. 7279.[5] G.R. No.124856

G.R. No. 124856. March 10, 2005.* DE CASTRO HOMESITE, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. EMILIO L. LEACHON, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC Br. 224, Quezon City; LERMA MILLARE, RAZEL ANA, MARITA ABRUA, ALFREDO ABRUA, MARICRIS ABRUA, MICHAEL ADORRADO, ADRIANO RUIZ, RONNIE BARRUN, JESUS BARRUN, MAURO CASTRO, JULIETA DANGALAN, VILMA ESTREMERA, MERLITA ESTOCADO, EVARISTO FLORENTINO, EDEN MATEO, JAIME MIQUE, SR., MARCELO NAGRAMPA, ELENA NUEVAREZ, ROSALINA PASILAN, VERONICA SERASPI, DELIA TOBILLO, EDNA TANIEDO, CORAZON VALENZUELA and MICHAEL VALENZUELA, respondents. G.R. No. 127971. March 10, 2005.* DANILO VALENZUELA, EDUARDO DANGALAN, PURIFICACION SERASPI, and ADRIANO RUIZ, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. JAIME N. SALAZAR, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103, Quezon City, HON. MARIANO M. SINGZON, JR., Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 31, Quezon City, and DE CASTRO HOMESITE, INC., respondents. Remedial Law; Ejectment; Presidential Decree No. 772; P.D. 772 was expressly repealed by RA 8368 providing under Section 3 thereof that all pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act.The solution to the above dilemma, however, has already been supplied by Congress with the enactment of the Anti-Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8368) which took

On 24 August 1993, petitioner De Castro Homesite, Inc., a duly organized corporation and the owner of twelve (12) parcels of residential land situated along 21st Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, known as the Dupax Compound, filed a complaint against private respondents for violation of Pres. Decree No. 772. After the preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, on 20 January 1995, resolved to file before the MeTC separate but identical Informations for violation of Pres. Decree No. 772 against all private respondents. Private respondents, on 11 April 1995, filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that Pres. Decree No. 772 is unconstitutional. Said Motion was denied by the MeTC which stated that said law has not yet been declared unconstitutional by the proper tribunal. A Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied. With the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, the lower court scheduled the arraignment of the respondents on 29 May 1995. On even date, counsel for the respondents informed the court that he had yet to receive the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, hence, the court a quo reset the arraignment on 31 August 1995 in order to give defendants time to take whatever legal step was necessary. On 15 August 1995, private respondents filed a petition[6] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order seeking to

annul the orders denying the Motion to Quash and the Motion for Reconsideration, to enjoin the MeTC from proceeding with the arraignment of private respondents, and to have Pres. Decree No. 772 declared unconstitutional. During the scheduled arraignment on 31 August 1995, counsel for private respondents requested for postponement alleging that they had previously filed a petition for Certiorari with prayer for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order before the RTC. Since no restraining order was issued by the RTC, Branch 97, the arraignment proceeded on 10 October 1995 where private respondents all entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of violation of Pres. Decree No. 772. The initial hearing was set on 11 January 1996 and continued on 11 March 1996. Following the creation of several new branches of the Quezon City RTC, the Petition for Certiorari was reraffled to Branch 224, presided by respondent Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr. After which, the case was scheduled for pre-trial on 11 January 1996, but the same was cancelled as the presiding judge went on leave, and was reset for further pre-trial on 02 February 1996. On said date, the trial court directed the parties to file their respective memoranda, after which the case was submitted for resolution. On 12 April 1996, the RTC issued an Order in favor of private respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads: Accordingly, therefore, the Court hereby makes the following pronouncements: 1. That Presidential Decree No. 772 is unconstitutional with the adoption of the 1987 Constitution and impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 7279; 2. Setting aside as annulled the Orders of respondent Hon. Presiding Judge Gregorio Dayrit, MTC, Branch 35, Quezon City dated May 4, 1995 and June 22, 1995, denying the petitioners Motion to Quash; and 3. Issuing the Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the respondent Court from proceeding to arraignment and trial in Criminal Cases Nos. 35-174, 35-175, 35-176, 35-178, 35-179, 35-180, 35181, 35-183, 35-184, 34-186, 35-189, 35-196, 35-197, 35-198, 35-199, 35-200, 35-202, 35-203, 35204, 35-205, 35-206 after posting of an injunction bond in the amount of P50,000.00.[7] G.R. No.127971 On 10 November 1993, respondent De Castro Homesite, Inc., filed a complaint-affidavit before the Quezon City Prosecutors office against petitioners for violation of Pres. Decree No. 772. Pursuant to said complaint, four (4) Informations were filed against petitioners on 08 August 1994, and raffled to Branch 31 of the MeTC of Quezon City. Petitioners filed on 27 September 1994 a motion to Quash said Informations on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense since the constitutionality of Pres. Decree No. 772 was put into question with the adoption of the 1987 Constitution and the passage of Republic Act No. 7279. The Motion to Quash was denied in an Order dated 17 November 1994, stating that the grounds relied upon in the Motion to Quash is evidentiary in character which could be properly ventilated during trial. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration maintaining that the issues raised in the Motion to Quash are purely questions of law which have to be adjudicated in order to determine whether or not the case against petitioners may proceed. Said Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied in an Order dated 13 December 1994. The MeTC stated thus: Considering however that P.D. 772 has not yet been declared unconstitutional by our Supreme Court, it is but proper for this court to accept the constitutionality of P.D. 772. True, it is not within the jurisdiction of this court to declare the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of P.D. 772, but the fact is that the same has not yet been declared unconstitutional. In view of the above observations, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. [8]

On 20 February 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, which was denied in a decision dated 05 May 1995. The RTC opined: This Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the judge a quo considering that P.D. 772 has not yet been finally declared by our Supreme Court as unconstitutional under the 1987 Constitution or repealed by RA 7279, the Urban Land Reform Law or Lina Law. Moreover, it has not yet been established that the petitioners are squatters and, therefore, as held below, the motion to quash in question is quite premature as submission of evidence is still required. ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.[9] Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals which was thereafter dismissed in the assailed decision of the appellate court. Hence the consolidated petitions. From the facts, it is clear that the controversies arising from the two consolidated cases center on the question of the constitutionality and legality of Pres. Decree No. 772 vis--vis the adoption of the 1987 Constitution and the enactment of Rep. Act No. 7279. The solution to the above dilemma, however, has already been supplied by Congress with the enactment of the Anti-Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8368) which took effect on 27 December 1997. Rep. Act No. 8368 was enacted solely for the purpose of expressly repealing Pres. Decree No. 772. Moreover, Section 3 thereof specifically provides that all pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act. Necessarily, the legal effect of this declaration by a co-equal branch of government renders superfluous further disquisition of the cases at hand. Furthermore, after the repeal of Pres. Decree No. 772, the governing law with respect to the subject matter of squatting is now the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Rep. Act 7279). Under Article VII, Section 27 of said Republic Act: [T]he local government units, in cooperation with the Philippine National Police, the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), and the PCUP-accredited urban poor organization in the area, shall adopt measures to identify and effectively curtail the nefarious and illegal activities of professional squatters and squatting syndicates, as herein defined. Any person or group identified as such shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished, and shall be disqualified to avail of the benefits of the Program. A public official who tolerates or abets the commission of the above-mentioned acts shall be dealt with in accordance with existing laws. For purposes of this Act, professional squatters or members of squatting syndicates shall be imposed the penalty of six (6) years imprisonment or a fine of not less than Sixty thousand pesos (P60,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court. Article I, Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 7279 defines professional squatters as individuals or groups who occupy lands without the express consent of the landowner and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing. The term shall also apply to persons who have previously been awarded homelot or housing units by the Government but who sold, leased, transferred the same to settle illegally in the same place or in another urban area, and non-bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the consolidated Petitions are hereby DISMISSED, correspondingly, Criminal Cases No. 35-174, 35-175, 35-176, 35-178, 35-179, 35-180, 35-181, 35-183, 35-184, 34-186, 35-189, 35-

196, 35-197, 35-198, 35-199, 35-200, 35-202, 35-203, 35-204, 35-205, and 35-206 in G.R. No. 124856 and Criminal Cases No. 94-0126, 94-0127, 94-0128, and 94-0129 in G.R. No. 127971, are likewise DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
[1] [2] [3]

been stressed so often, the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. In that sense, it stands as a guaranty of justice. That is the standard that must be met by any governmental agency in the exercise of whatever competence is entrusted to it. As was so emphatically stressed by the present Chief Justice, Acts of Congress, as well as those of the Executive, can deny due process only under pain of nullity. x x x. The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character. Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which private property should be expropriated. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted.Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted. Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are the only safeguards of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against what may be a tyrannical violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken from them allegedly for public use. Same; Same; Same; Law-Making; For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable. [Lagcao vs. Labra, 440 SCRA 279(2004)] DECISION

Dated 12 April 1996, Rollo, pp. 117-122. Dated 4 May 1995 and 22 June 1995, respectively. Dated 24 January 1997, penned by now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Cancio C. Garcia, with Associate Justices Eugenio Labitoria and Omar U. Amin concurring. Dated 05 May 1995. Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. Docketed as Case No. Q-95-24735 and raffled to Branch 97. Rollo, p. 122. Rollo, p. 167. Rollo, p. 181.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

G.R. No. 155746. October 13, 2004.* DIOSDADO LAGCAO, DOROTEO LAGCAO and URSULA LAGCAO, petitioners, vs. JUDGE GENEROSA G. LABRA, Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Cebu, and the CITY OF CEBU, respondent. Constitutional Law; Local Government; Powers; Eminent Domain; Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. Under Section 48 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, local legislative power shall be exercised by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the city. The legislative acts of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in the exercise of its lawmaking authority are denominated ordinances. Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. By virtue of RA 7160, Congress conferred upon local government units the power to expropriate. Same; Same; Same; Same; Limitations; There are two legal provisions which limit the exercise of this power. There are two legal provisions which limit the exercise of this power: (1) no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws; and (2) private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Thus, the exercise by local government units of the power of eminent domain is not absolute. In fact, Section 19 of RA 7160 itself explicitly states that such exercise must comply with the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character.The due process clause cannot be trampled upon each time an ordinance orders the expropriation of a private individuals property. The courts cannot even adopt a hands -off policy simply because public use or public purpose is invoked by an ordinance, or just compensation has been fixed and determined. In De Knecht vs. Bautista, we said: It is obvious then that a land-owner is covered by the mantle of protection due process affords. It is a mandate of reason. It frowns on arbitrariness, it is the antithesis of any governmental act that smacks of whim or caprice. It negates state power to act in an oppressive manner. It is, as had

CORONA, J.: Before us is a petition for review of the decision dated July 1, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cebu City1 upholding the validity of the City of Cebus Ordinance No. 1843, as well as the lower courts order dated August 26, 2002 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. In 1964, the Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in Capitol Hills, Cebu City, with an area of 4,048 square meters. In 1965, petitioners purchased Lot 1029 on installment basis. But then, in late 1965, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029, reverted to the Province of Cebu. 2Consequently, the province tried to annul the sale of Lot 1029 by the City of Cebu to the petitioners. This prompted the latter to sue the province for specific performance and damages in the then Court of First Instance. On July 9, 1986, the court a quo ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered the Province of Cebu to execute the final deed of sale in favor of petitioners. On June 11, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Pursuant to the ruling of the appellate court, the Province of Cebu executed on June 17, 1994 a deed of absolute sale over Lot 1029 in favor of petitioners. Thereafter, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 129306 was issued in the name of petitioners and Crispina Lagcao.3 After acquiring title, petitioners tried to take possession of the lot only to discover that it was already occupied by squatters. Thus, on June 15, 1997, petitioners instituted ejectment proceedings against the squatters. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Cebu City, rendered a decision on April 1, 1998, ordering the squatters to vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order of demolition.1avvphi1 However, when the demolition order was about to be implemented, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters4to the MTCC, requesting the deferment of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters. Acting on the mayors request, the MTCC issued two orders suspending the

demolition for a period of 120 days from February 22, 1999. Unfortunately for petitioners, during the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cebu City passed a resolution which identified Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279.5 Then, on June 30, 1999, the SP of Cebu City passed Ordinance No. 17726 which included Lot 1029 among the identified sites for socialized housing. On July, 19, 2000, Ordinance No. 18437 was enacted by the SP of Cebu City authorizing the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of Lot 1029 which was registered in the name of petitioners. The intended acquisition was to be used for the benefit of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants thereof. For this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount of P6,881,600 for the payment of the subject lot. This ordinance was approved by Mayor Garcia on August 2, 2000. On August 29, 2000, petitioners filed with the RTC an action for declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 1843 for being unconstitutional. The trial court rendered its decision on July 1, 2002 dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners whose subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on August 26, 2002. In this appeal, petitioners argue that Ordinance No. 1843 is unconstitutional as it sanctions the expropriation of their property for the purpose of selling it to the squatters, an endeavor contrary to the concept of "public use" contemplated in the Constitution.8 They allege that it will benefit only a handful of people. The ordinance, according to petitioners, was obviously passed for politicking, the squatters undeniably being a big source of votes. 1avvphi1 In sum, this Court is being asked to resolve whether or not the intended expropriation by the City of Cebu of a 4,048square-meter parcel of land owned by petitioners contravenes the Constitution and applicable laws. Under Section 48 of RA 7160,9 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, 10 local legislative power shall be exercised by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the city. The legislative acts of the Sangguniang Panlungsod in the exercise of its lawmaking authority are denominated ordinances. Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature.11 By virtue of RA 7160, Congress conferred upon local government units the power to expropriate. Ordinance No. 1843 was enacted pursuant to Section 19 of RA 7160: SEC. 19. Eminent Domain. A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws xxx. (italics supplied). Ordinance No. 1843 which authorized the expropriation of petitioners lot was enacted by the SP of Cebu City to provide socialized housing for the homeless and low-income residents of the City. However, while we recognize that housing is one of the most serious social problems of the country, local government units do not possess unbridled authority to exercise their power of eminent domain in seeking solutions to this problem. There are two legal provisions which limit the exercise of this power: (1) no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws; 12 and (2) private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.13 Thus, the exercise by local government units of the power of eminent domain is not absolute. In fact, Section 19 of RA 7160 itself explicitly states that such exercise must comply with the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws. The exercise of the power of eminent domain drastically affects a landowners right to private property, which is as much a constitutionally-protected right necessary for the preservation and enhancement of personal dignity and intimately connected with the rights to life and liberty.14 Whether directly exercised by the State or by its authorized agents, the exercise of eminent domain is necessarily in derogation of private rights. 15 For this reason, the need for a painstaking scrutiny cannot be overemphasized.

The due process clause cannot be trampled upon each time an ordinance orders the expropriation of a private individuals property. The courts cannot even adopt a hands-off policy simply because public use or public purpose is invoked by an ordinance, or just compensation has been fixed and determined. In De Knecht vs. Bautista,16 we said: It is obvious then that a land-owner is covered by the mantle of protection due process affords. It is a mandate of reason. It frowns on arbitrariness, it is the antithesis of any governmental act that smacks of whim or caprice. It negates state power to act in an oppressive manner. It is, as had been stressed so often, the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play. In that sense, it stands as a guaranty of justice. That is the standard that must be met by any governmental agency in the exercise of whatever competence is entrusted to it. As was so emphatically stressed by the present Chief Justice, "Acts of Congress, as well as those of the Executive, can deny due process only under pain of nullity. xxx. The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character.17 Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which private property should be expropriated. In this case, there was no showing at all why petitioners property was singled out for expropriation by the city ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection. Ordinance No. 1843 stated no reason for the choice of petitioners property as the site of a socialized housing project. Condemnation of private lands in an irrational or piecemeal fashion or the random expropriation of small lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or squatters is certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution. This is depriving a citizen of his property for the convenience of a few without perceptible benefit to the public.18 RA 7279 is the law that governs the local expropriation of property for purposes of urban land reform and housing. Sections 9 and 10 thereof provide: SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: (a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; (b) Alienable lands of the public domain; (c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands; (d) Those within the declared Areas or Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired; (e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS which have not yet been acquired; and (f) Privately-owned lands. Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site development of government lands. (Emphasis supplied). SEC. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however,That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act: xxx. (Emphasis supplied). In the recent case of Estate or Heirs of the Late Ex-Justice Jose B.L. Reyes et al. vs. City of Manila,19 we ruled that the above-quoted provisions are strict limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units, especially with respect to (1) the order of priority in acquiring land for socialized housing and (2) the resort to expropriation proceedings as a means to acquiring it. Private lands rank last in the order of priority for

purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted. Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are the only safeguards of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against what may be a tyrannical violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken from them allegedly for public use. We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted. Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.20 We therefore find Ordinance No. 1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process. It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, petitioners had already obtained a favorable judgment of eviction against the illegal occupants of their property. The judgment in this ejectment case had, in fact, already attained finality, with a writ of execution and an order of demolition. But Mayor Garcia requested the trial court to suspend the demolition on the pretext that the City was still searching for a relocation site for the squatters. However, instead of looking for a relocation site during the suspension period, the city council suddenly enacted Ordinance No. 1843 for the expropriation of petitioners lot. It was trickery and bad faith, pure and simple. The unconscionable manner in which the questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA 7160 and RA 7279. For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in accordance with certain wellestablished basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.21 Ordinance No. 1843 failed to comply with the foregoing substantive requirements. A clear case of constitutional infirmity having been thus established, this Court is constrained to nullify the subject ordinance. We recapitulate: first, as earlier discussed, the questioned ordinance is repugnant to the pertinent provisions of the Constitution, RA 7279 and RA 7160; second, the precipitate manner in which it was enacted was plain oppression masquerading as a pro-poor ordinance; third, the fact that petitioners small property was singled out for expropriation for the purpose of awarding it to no more than a few squatters indicated manifest partiality against petitioners, and fourth, the ordinance failed to show that there was a reasonable relation between the end sought and the means adopted. While the objective of the City of Cebu was to provide adequate housing to slum dwellers, the means it employed in pursuit of such objective fell short of what was legal, sensible and called for by the circumstances. Indeed, experience has shown that the disregard of basic liberties and the use of short-sighted methods in expropriation proceedings have not achieved the desired results. Over the years, the government has tried to remedy the worsening squatter problem. Far from solving it, however, governments kid -glove approach has only resulted in the multiplication and proliferation of squatter colonies and blighted areas. A pro-poor program that is well-studied, adequately funded, genuinely sincere and truly respectful of everyones basic rights is what this problem calls for, not the improvident enactment of politics-based ordinances targeting small private lots in no rational fashion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The July 1, 2002 decision of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales*, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna*, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario*, JJ., concur. Footnotes
*

on leave Presided by Judge Generosa G. Labra. The records of the case do not state why and how the lots reverted to the Province of Cebu. 3 Now deceased. 4 Dated February 22, 1999 and May 20, 1999. 5 The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Lina Law). 6 Entitled, "AN ORDINANCE FURTHER AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1656 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1684 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 1966 REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CEBU, BY INCORPORATING THEREIN A NEW DISTRICT CALLED SOCIALIZED HOUSING SITES." 7 Entitled "AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR OF CEBU CITY TO INSTITUTE EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MRS. CRISPINA VDA. DE LAGCAO, OWNER OF LOT NO. 1029 LOCATED AT GREEN VALLEY, CAPITOL SITE, CEBU CITY, TO ACQUIRE THE SAME FOR PUBLIC USE OR PURPOSE." 8 Article IV, Section 9 "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." 9 Section 48. Local Legislative Power Local legislative power shall be exercised by the sangguniang panlalawigan for the province; the sangguniang panlungsod for the city; the sangguniang bayan for the municipality; and the sangguniang barangay for the barangay. 10 The law was approved on October 10, 1991 and it became effective on January 1, 1992. 11 City of Cincinnati vs. Vester, 281 US 439, 74 L. ed 950, 50 S Ct. 360. 12 Article 3, Section 1, 1987 Constitution. 13 Article 3, Section 9, 1987 Constitution. 14 Joaquin G. Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, vol. 1. p. 43, 1987. 15 City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil. 349, 1919. 16 G.R. No. L-51078, 30 October 1980, 100 SCRA 660. 17 City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila, supra. 18 Urban Estates, Inc. vs. Montesa, 88 Phil. 348 (1951). 19 G.R. Nos. 132431 and 137146, February 13, 2004. 20 Sec 19. Eminent Domain "xxx. Provided however, that the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: xxx." 21 Tatel vs. Municipality of Virac, G.R. No. 40243, 11 March 1992, 207 SCRA 157.
1 2

G.R. No. 138962. October 4, 2002.* PRESCILLA TUATES and ANDRES DE LA PAZ, petitioners, vs. HON. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, as Presiding Judge, Branch 96, RTC Quezon City, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and I.C. CONSTRUCTION, INC., respondents. Republic Act No. 8368; Repeals; Effects; The absolute repeal of P.D. 772 has the effect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the old law prior to its repeal. In the same vein, the absolute repeal of P.D. 772 has the effect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the old law prior to its repeal. This is because an unqualified repeal of a penal law constitutes a legislative act of rendering legal what had been previously declared as illegal, such that the offense no longer exists and it is as if the person who committed it never did so. Specially so, as in the present case where it is unconditionally stated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 8368 that: (A)ll pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be

dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act. Obviously, it was the clear intent of the law to decriminalize or do away with the crime of squatting. Hence, there being no criminal liability, there is likewise no civil liability because the latter is rooted in the former. Where an act or omission is not a crime, no person can be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, logically, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question. Same; Same; Same; Remedies; Legitimate landowners have other remedies to resort to for violation of their property rights.The law is not intended to compromise the property rights of legitimate landowners. Recourse may be had in cases of violation of their property rights, such as those provided for in Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act, penalizing professional squatters and squatting syndicates as defined therein, who commit nefarious and illegal activities; the Revised Penal Code providing for criminal prosecution in cases of Trespass to Property, Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property, and similar violations, and, cases for Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer under the Rules of Court, as well as civil liability for Damages under the Civil Code. [Tuates vs. Bersamin, 390 SCRA 458(2002)]

only the criminal liability was absolved and the civil liability remains inasmuch as it was not extinguished in accordance with Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads: ART. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. -- Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article, the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason. In its Motion to Deny Due Course, private respondent also argues that the petition should now be denied as its title to the land subject of this case has already been adjudged in its favor. [8] In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General, in behalf of public respondents, agrees with petitioners that both the criminal and civil liability were rendered extinct with the repeal of P.D. 772, and recommended that the assailed issuances be reversed and set aside. We find the petition to be meritorious.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the following: (1) Decision dated April 30, 1999 and Resolution dated June 9, 1999, rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 46845;[1] (2) Decision dated September 10, 1997 and the Order dated January 28, 1998 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 96) in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-97-70428 and Q-97-70429;[2] and (3) Decision dated December 16, 1996 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 38) in Criminal Cases Nos. 38-0130 and 38-0131.[3] The facts are as follows: Convicted by the MTC-Quezon City (Branch 38) of the crime of Violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law, petitioners Prescilla Tuates and Andres de la Paz, appealed to the RTC of Quezon City (Branch 96). Their conviction was affirmed in toto by the RTC in its decision dated September 10, 1997. Pending resolution of their motion for reconsideration, however, Republic Act No. 8368, An Act Repealing Presidential Decree No. 772, entitled Penalizing Squatting and Other Similar Acts was enacted. In its Order, dated January 28, 1998, the RTC ruled that only petitioners criminal convictions were extinguished by R.A. 8368, and the civil aspect, i.e., the removal of petitioners illegally constructed house and improvements, shall remain executory against them.[4] On a petition for review, the Court of Appeals sustained the ruling of the RTC and denied due course to the petition per its Decision, dated April 30, 1999.[5] Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA in its Resolution dated June 9, 1999.[6] Hence, the present recourse taken by petitioners, raising the following issues: 1. That petitioners, being charged with Violation of Presidential Decree No. 772, the express repeal of said decree absolves the petitioners of any criminal or civil liability; 2. That public respondent erred in holding that the civil aspect of the judgment rendered x x x shall be executory against the accused; and 3. That the Honorable Court of Appeals, in affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 96), dated June 9, 1999, grossly erred in ignoring applicable laws and jurisprudence.[7] Petitioners argue that the repeal of P.D. 772 by R.A. 8368 carries with it the extinction of both the criminal and civil aspects of the crime. Private respondent, however, insists that public respondents were correct in ruling that

Republic Act No. 8368, otherwise known as the Anti-Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997, provides: SECTION 1. Title. -- This Act shall be known as the Anti-Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997. SEC. 2. Repeal. -- Presidential Decree No. 772, entitled Penalizing Squatting and Other Similar Acts is hereby repealed. SEC. 3. Effect on Pending Cases. -- All pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act. SEC. 4. Effect on Republic Act No. 7279. -- Nothing herein shall be construed to nullify, eliminate or diminish in any way Section 27 of Republic Act No. 7279 or any of its provisions relative to sanctions against professional squatters and squatting syndicates. SEC. 5. Effectivity. -- This Act shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication in two (2) newspapers of national circulation. Approved, October 27, 1997.[9] The repeal of P.D. No. 772 under Section 2 of R.A. No. 8368 is explicit, categorical, definite and absolute. As such, the act that was penalized by P.D. 772, i.e., squatting, ceases to be criminal under R.A. 8368, and the previous offense is obliterated. [10] In the same vein, the absolute repeal of P.D. 772 has the effect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the old law prior to its repeal. This is because an unqualified repeal of a penal law constitutes a legislative act of rendering legal what had been previously declared as illegal, such that the offense no longer exists and it is as if the person who committed it never did so. [11] Specially so, as in the present case where it is unconditionally stated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 8368 that: (A)ll pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act. [12] Obviously, it was the clear intent of the law to decriminalize or do away with the crime of squatting. Hence, there being no criminal liability, there is likewise no civil liability because the latter is rooted in the former. Where an act or omission is not a crime, no person can be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, logically, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question. [13] In fact, in People v. Leachon, Jr.[14] we implicitly recognized the unconditional repeal of P.D. 772 by R.A. 8368 when we ordered the dismissal of the petition filed in said case, without any qualification whatsoever, because of the enactment of R.A. 8368, viz.:

But the foregoing antecedent facts and proceedings notwithstanding, the petition cannot now prosper because on October 27, 1997, Republic Act No. 8368, entitled An Act Repealing Presidential Decree No. 772 Entitled Penalizing Squatting and Other Similar Acts was enacted. Section 3 of the said Act provides that all pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act. [15] This is not to say, however, that people now have the unbridled license to illegally occupy lands they do not own. R.A. No. 8368[16] was unanimously approved by the members of the Senate of the Philippines present on its third reading.[17] The legislature considered it a major piece of legislation on the countrys anti -poverty program[18] as it sought to confront the perennial problem of poverty at its root, abolish an otherwise inutile and oppressive law, and pave the way for a genuine urban housing and land reform program. Senate records reveal that it is the manifest intent of the authors of R.A. 8368 to decriminalize squatting but does not encourage or protect acts of squatting on somebody elses land.[19] The law is not intended to compromise the property rights of legitimate landowners.[20] Recourse may be had in cases of violation of their property rights, such as those provided for in Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act, penalizing professional squatters and squatting syndicates as defined therein, who commit nefarious and illegal activities[21]; the Revised Penal Code providing for criminal prosecution in cases of Trespass to Property, [22] Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property,[23] and similar violations, and, cases for Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer under the Rules of Court,[24] as well as civil liability for Damages under the Civil Code. Considering that prosecution for criminal as well as civil liability under P.D. 772 has been rendered nugatory with the passage of R.A. 8368, both criminal and civil aspects of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-97-70428 and Q-97-70429 in the RTC as well as Criminal Cases Nos. 38-0130 and 38-0131 in the MTC filed against petitioners should be dismissed. WHEREFORE, finding the petition for review to be with merit, the Decision dated April 30, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 46845, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered modifying the Decision dated September 10, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 96) in Criminal Cases No. Q-97-70428 and Q-97-70429 and the Decision dated December 16, 1996 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 38), to the effect that the dismissal of the aforementioned criminal cases likewise include the dismissal of the civil aspects thereof, without prejudice to the filing of civil and/or criminal actions under the prevailing laws. No costs. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Acting C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., on official leave.
[1]

[17] [18]

Records of the Senate, Third Regular Session [October 1 to November 26, 1997]; Vol. II, Nos. 18-38, p. 20. Ibid. [19] Records of the Senate, Third Regular Session [July 28 to September 30, 1997]; Vol. 1, Nos. 1-18, p. 1005. [20] Id., p. 469; 470. [21] R.A. 7279, Section 27. [22] Revised Penal Code, Article 281. [23] Id., Article 312. [24] 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, Rule 70.

Entitled, Prescilla Tuates and Andres de la Paz, Petitioners vs. Hon. Lucas P. Bersamin, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, People of the Philippines and I.C. Cruz Construction, Inc.,Respondents. [2] Entitled, People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus, Prescilla Tuates, Accused; and People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus, Andres de la Paz, Accused. [3] Ibid. [4] Rollo, p. 23, Annex A. [5] Id., p. 25, Annex B. [6] Id., p. 34, Annex D. [7] Id., p. 15. [8] Id., p. 71. [9] Vital Legal Documents (Second Series), Book 7, p. 197. [10] People v. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542, 555-556 [1998]. [11] Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001. [12] Section 3. [13] Manantan v. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 387, 397 [2001]. [14] 296 SCRA 163 [1998]. [15] Id., p. 170. [16] Entitled An Act to Decriminalize Squatting and Other Similar Acts, Thereby Repealing Presidential Decree No. 772, Entitled Penalizing Squatting and Other Similar Acts.