Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    38 - Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag - Co

    Uploaded by

    Selynn Co
    Petitioners refused to comply with requirements to purchase the lots they were occupying through a community mortgage program. Respondents delisted petitioners as beneficiaries and declared their lots would be shared among complying members or raffled. Petitioners alleged their property was taken without due process. The court held petitioners were not deprived of due process as they had received sufficient notice and opportunities to be heard through postings and letters setting deadlines to submit requirements. Long occupation did not give petitioners ownership rights as it was by permission of the owner. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    38 - Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag - Co

    Uploaded by

    Selynn Co
    110 views1 page
    Petitioners refused to comply with requirements to purchase the lots they were occupying through a community mortgage program. Respondents delisted petitioners as beneficiaries and declared their lots would be shared among complying members or raffled. Petitioners alleged their property was taken without due process. The court held petitioners were not deprived of due process as they had received sufficient notice and opportunities to be heard through postings and letters setting deadlines to submit requirements. Long occupation did not give petitioners ownership rights as it was by permission of the owner. The petition was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    38_Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag_Co

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners refused to comply with requirements to purchase the lots they were occupying through a community mortgage program. Respondents delisted petitioners as beneficiaries and declared their lots would be shared among complying members or raffled. Petitioners alleged their property was taken without due process. The court held petitioners were not deprived of due process as they had received sufficient notice and opportunities to be heard through postings and letters setting deadlines to submit requirements. Long occupation did not give petitioners ownership rights as it was by permission of the owner. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    110 views1 page

    38 - Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag - Co

    Uploaded by

    Selynn Co
    Petitioners refused to comply with requirements to purchase the lots they were occupying through a community mortgage program. Respondents delisted petitioners as beneficiaries and declared their lots would be shared among complying members or raffled. Petitioners alleged their property was taken without due process. The court held petitioners were not deprived of due process as they had received sufficient notice and opportunities to be heard through postings and letters setting deadlines to submit requirements. Long occupation did not give petitioners ownership rights as it was by permission of the owner. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Co, Selynn

    Article III. Section 2. Substantive Due Process


    Esponcilla v. Bagong Tanyag 529 SCRA 654 [2007]
    FACTS: Bagong Tanyag Homeowners Association (BATAHAI) was incorporated to enable occupants of the land
    located in Bagong Tanyag to purchase the respective lots they were occupying under the Community Mortgage
    Program (CMP) of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation.
    Following the conduct of a structural survey, it was recommended that some houses or structures would be relocated
    to make way for the construction of roads under a schematic plan selected by a majority of the BATAHAI members.
    Petitioners refused to submit the requirements of NHMFC. The NHA gave 15 days for the rest of the members to
    comply. After which, a Pahayag was posted containing the list of members who had not complied, and calling for
    compliance. Respondents then issued a list of CMP beneficiaries, wherein member who did not comply with the
    requirements were delisted. The respondents, however set a new deadline for compliance, sending petitioners
    individual letters stating that failure to comply would be deemed to be a lack of interest and a forfeiture of rights.
    Respondents later issued Resolution No. 24 declaring that the lots occupied by the recalcitrant members would be
    shared among the other BATAHAI members and that the vacant lots would be raffled off to the second priority
    beneficiaries.
    In their complaint, petitioners alleged that respondents subdivided the lots, which they have been occupying since
    1978 without their knowledge and consent, reassigned the lots without observing due process of law, omitted or
    deleted their names from the list of prospective beneficiaries.
    ISSUE: W/N petitioners were deprived of property without due process?
    HELD: The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits is not the absence of
    previous notice but the absolute absence thereof.
    Petitioners have had more than sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard. Before respondents issued the list of
    prospective beneficiaries, notices were posted informing petitioners the need to submit documents required by the
    NHMFC. Even after petitioners were delisted, respondents set new deadlines to submit the requirements.
    The period during which petitioners occupied the lots, no matter how long, did not vest them with any right to claim
    ownership since it is a fundamental principle of law that acts of possessory character executed by virtue of license or
    tolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do not start the running of the period of acquisitive prescription. It bears
    recalling that BATAHAI was formed precisely to enable the Bagong Tanyag settlers, including petitioners, to
    purchase the lots they were occupying.
    Petition is dismissed.

    You might also like