MANILA INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT AUTHORITY

VS.

AVILA, et. al.

G.R. NO. 185535 | JANUARY 31, 2011

GRIAR, Marie Stephanie Therese A.

NATRES (G03) ATTY. GASGONIA

FACTS

Tarrosa leased a
property along Pasay
owned by MIAA

CA: Annulled RTCs

last two resolutions

Tarrosa filed a case

against MIAA to allow
him to use his preemptive right to renew
the lease contract

RTC: Granted MTQ by

respondents
- Denied MTQ by
Aguirre
- Writ of execution
against respondents
- Denied MR

TC: Dismiss the

complaint because
Tarrosa did not follow
the contract
CA: affirmed

Respondents were
not covered by the
Writ of Execution

Tarrosa passed away

and substituted by
Estate

Demand letters were

sent by MIAA but
unheeded so
ejectment cases were
filed

MANILA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY

AVILA, ET. AL.

ISSUE

MIAA questions the

annulment of the RTC
Resolutions saying that
the occupants are not
parties to the case for they
themselves admitted that
they had entered the
subject properties without
permission of either MIAA
or the estate. Respondents
are not qualified
beneficiaries of PP 595.

W/N a naked claim

of potential qualified
beneficiaries of a
socialized housing
program prevail over
the rights of the
person with prior
physical possession
and a better right
over the disputed
real property?

Respondents interposed that

they were not covered by the
writ of execution because
they did not derive their rights
from the estate as they
entered the subject land only
after the expiration of the
lease contract between MIAA
and Tarrosa. Additionally, the
subject land had already
been set aside as a
government housing project
pursuant to Presidential
Proclamation No. 595 (PP 595).

RULING

Granting that the occupation

of the subject land was NOT
derived from either Tarrosa or
Balilo, the postulation of the
respondents makes them MERE

TRESPASSERS OR SQUATTERS

acquiring NO vested right

whatsoever to the subject land
and so the claim that they
were potential beneficiaries of
PP 595.
This bare claim CANNOT be given
any consideration. (MIAA
adduced evidence that
respondents were once tenants
of either Tarrosa or Balilo).

Ruling of inapplicability of PP
595 is ONLY provisional and will
NOT bar NHA or any other
agency of the government
tasked to implement PP 595
from making a determination
of respondents qualifications
as beneficiaries in another
action.
The determination of the rights
of claimants to public lands is
distinct from the determination
of who has a better right of
physical possession. (Pajuyo v.
CA).

WE HAVE ARRIVED AT OUR DESTINATION.

THANK YOU FOR FLYING WITH US.