NOTES ON PROPERTY committed by the underprivileged.

At best it may
Prince Jan Ronald D. Wacnang mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone
Saint Louis University School of Law the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative
15 June 2017 of every humane society but only when the recipient
is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON PROPERTY
(expanded from Notes on Property, 13 June 2017) Social justice cannot be permitted to be the refuge of
scoundrels any more than can equity be an
Art. II, Sec. 5. The maintenance of peace and order, impediment to the punishment of the guilty. Those
the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the who invoke social justice may do so only if their
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the hands are clean and their motives are blameless and
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of not simply because they happen to be poor. This great
democracy. policy of Constitution is not meant for the protection
of those who have proved they are not worthy of it,
Peace and order will entail, as a consequence, the like the workers who have tainted the cause of labor
protection of life, liberty, and property. (5 Record 11) with the blemishes of their own character. (PLDT v.
NLRC, 164 SCRA 671 [1988])
The general welfare or the common good is the
primary consideration in the exercise of the police xxx
power of the State. (id.)
Magkalas v. National Housing Authority
Persons may be subjected to certain kinds of 565 SCRA 379 (2008)
restraints and burdens in order to secure the general
welfare of the state and to this fundamental aim of Re: Social Justice as applied to Property
the government, the rights of the individual may be
subordinated. (Patalinghug v. Court of Appeals, 229 FACTS: On 26 March 1978, P.D. No. 1315 was issued
SCRA 554 [1994]) expropriating certain lots at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan
City. In the same Decree, the National Housing
Art. II, Sec. 10. The State shall promote social justice Authority (NHA) was named Administrator of the
in all phases of national development.
Bagong Barrio Uban Bliss Project with the former to
take possession, contol (sic) and disposition of the
Under the policy of social justice, the law bends
expropriated properties with the power of
over backward to accommodate the interests of the
demolition. During the Census survey of the area, the
working class on the humane justification that those
structure built by Caridad Magkalas (petitioner) was
with [fewer] privileges in life should have more
assigned TAG No. 0063. After conducting studies of
privileges in law. (Philippine Airlines v. Santos, 218
the area, the NHA determined that the area where
SCRA 415 [1993])
petitioners structure is located should be classified
as an area center (open space). The Area Center was
[However,] social justice cannot be invoked to
determined in compliance with the requirement to
trample on the rights of property owners, who under
reserve 30% open space in all types of residential
our Constitution and laws are also entitled to
development.
protection. The social justice consecrated in our
Constitution was not intended to take away the rights
Petitioner, through counsel, filed an appeal from the
from a person and give them to another who is not
decision of NHA to designate the area where the she
entitled thereto. (Caleon v. Agus Development
has the said structure, as an Area Center. But the
Corporation, 207 SCRA 748 [1992])
appeal was denied. The NHA informed plaintiff that
per Development Program of Bagong Barrio, she was
The policy on social justice is not intended to
being assigned to Lot 77, Block 2, Barangay 132.
countenance wrongdoing simply because it is
The General Law on Property Rights
2

On 23 August 1985, petitioner filed a Complaint

for Damages with prayer for the issuance of a [The] Court has stressed more than once
restraining order and writ of Preliminary that social justice or any justice for that
Injunction against the NHA with the Regional matter is for the deserving, whether he
Trial Court of Caloocan City after the NHA sent a be a millionaire in his mansion or a
letter to the petitioner earlier in the month of pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case
August 1985 directing the petitioner to vacate of reasonable doubt, we are called upon
the premises and dismantle her structure. The to tilt the balance in favor of the poor to
trial court dismissed the petitioners complaint whom the Constitution fittingly extends
on 10 March 1999. its sympathy and compassion. But never
is it justified to give preference to the
In this petition to the Supreme Court, petitioner poor simply because they are poor, or to
invokes the Social Justice Clause of the reject the rich simply because they are
Constitution, asserting that a poor and rich, for justice must always be served for
unlettered urban dweller like her has a right to poor and rich alike, according to the
her property and to a decent living. Thus, her mandate of the law. (Gelos v. Court of
relocation and the demolition of her house would Appeals, 208 SCRA 608 [1992])
violate of her right embodied under Article XIII,
Secs. 9 & 10 of the Constitution. Hence, there is a need to weigh and balance the
rights and welfare of both contending parties in
ISSUE: Would the relocation and the demolition every case in accordance with the applicable law,
of petitioners house violate the Social Justice regardless of their situation in life.
Clause of the Constitution in relation with Article
XIII, Secs. 9 & 10? In the instant case, the relocation of petitioner
and the demolition of her structure were in
RULING: No, petitioner cannot find solace in accordance with the mandate of P.D. No. 1315
those Constitutional provisions. Social Justice, as which was enacted primarily to address the
the term suggests, should be used only to correct housing problems of the country and to adopt an
an injustice. As the eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel effective strategy for dealing with slums, squatter
observed, social justice must be founded on the areas and other blighted communities in urban
recognition of the necessity of interdependence areas.
among diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and evenly For sure, the NHAs order of relocating petitioner
extended to all groups as a combined force in our to her assigned lot and demolishing her property
social and economic life, consistent with the on account of her refusal to vacate was
fundamental and paramount objective of the consistent with the laws fundamental objective
State of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of promoting social justice in the manner the will
of all persons, and of bringing about the greatest inure to the common good. The petitioner cannot
good to the greatest number. (Calalang v. disregard the lawful action of the NHA which was
Williams, 70 Phil. 726 [1940]) merely implementing P.D. No. 1315. It is also
worth noting that petitioners continued refusal
Moreover, jurisprudence stresses the need to to leave the subject property has hindered the
dispense justice with an even hand in every case: development of the entire area. Indeed,
The General Law on Property Rights
3

petitioner cannot invoke the social justice clause

at the expense of the common welfare. Hence, private property may be validly taken
where it is offensive to the public welfare, like a
Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, building on the verge of collapse, which may be
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor demolished under the police power in the
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the interest of public safety. It may also be
laws. expropriated, after payment of just
compensation, so it may be devoted to some
A flexible definition of due process is that it is
public use; or it may be distrained and levied
the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.
upon in the case of tax delinquency of its owner.
(Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme
Court, pp. 32-33)
However, there would be unlawful deprivation if
ones property is destroyed by the authorities
Due process is a guaranty against arbitrariness
even if it is not noxious or intended for a noxious
on the part of the government, whether
purpose, or is taken from him without just
committed by the legislature, the executive, or
compensation or is regulated in such an arbitrary
the judiciary. If the law itself unreasonably
manner as to deprive him of its lawful enjoyment
deprives a person of his life, liberty, or property,
and use. (Cruz & Cruz, supra at p. 208) Hence, the
he is denied the protection of due process. If the
Supreme Court in People v. Fajardo (104 Phil.
enjoyment of his rights is conditioned on an
443) as confiscatory a municipal ordinance
unreasonable requirement, due process is
prohibiting the construction on residential land
likewise violated. Whatsoever be the source of
of any building that might obstruct the view of
such rights, be it in the Constitution itself or
the public plaza from the highway.
merely a statute, its unjustified withholding
would also be a violation of due process. Any
Vested Right; What is NOT property
government act that militates against the
ordinary norms of justice or fair play is
The concept of vested right is a consequence
considered an infraction of the great guaranty of
of the constitutional guaranty of due process that
due process; and this is true whether the denial
expresses a present fixed interest which in right
involves violation merely of the procedure
reason and natural justice is protected against
prescribed by the law or affects the very validity
arbitrary state action; it includes not only legal or
of the law itself. (Cruz & Cruz, supra. at pp. 205-
equitable title to the enforcement of a demand
206)
but also exemptions from new obligations
created after the right has become vested. Rights
Deprivation
are considered vested when the right to
enjoyment is a present interest, absolute,
To deprive is to take away forcibly, to prevent
unconditional, and perfect or fixed and
from possessing, enjoying or using something.
irrefutable. (Alcantara v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
(People v. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238 [1996])
[2005]) While one may be deprived of his vested
Deprivation of life, liberty, or property per se is
right, he may lose the same if there is due
not necessarily unconstitutional. What is
process and such deprivation is founded on law
prohibited is deprivation without due process of
and jurisprudence. (Quiao v. Quiao, 675 SCRA
the law.
642 [2012])
The General Law on Property Rights
4

FACTS: (See digest under notes on Art. II, Sec. 10,

One cannot have a vested right to a public p. 1) Petitioner maintains that she had acquired a
office, as this is not regarded as property. If vested right over the property subject of this case
created by statute, it may be abolished by the on the ground that she had been in possession of
legislature at any time, even if the term of the it for forty (40) years already.
incumbent therein has not expired. And the same
observation may be made of the salary attached ISSUE: Did petitioner acquired vested right over
to it, which may be reduced or even completely the property?
withdrawn without violation of due process
(Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. RULING: No, petitioners contentions must
660) although this will cause prejudice to the necessarily fail. The NHAs authority to order the
office-holder. The only exception is where the relocation of petitioner and the demolition of her
salary has already been earned, in which case it property is mandated by Presidential Decree
cannot be reduced or withdrawn by a retroactive (P.D.) No. 1315. Under this Decree, the entire
law as the said salary has already accrued as a Bagong Barrio in Caloocan City was identified as
property right. (Mississippi v. Miller, 276 U.S. a blighted area and was thereby declared
174) expropriated. The properties covered under P.D.
No. 1315 included petitioners property. The
It has also been held that mere privileges, such as NHA, as the decrees designated administrator for
a license to operate a cockpit (Pedro v. Provincial the national government, was empowered to
Board of Rizal, 56 Phil. 123 [1931]) or a liquor take possession, control and disposition of the
store (Board v. Barrio, 24 N.Y. 659), are not expropriated properties with the power of
property rights revocable at will. demolition of their improvements.

Likewise, one does not have a vested property Inasmuch as petitioners property was located in
right in the continued operation of a law, which the area identified as an open space by the NHA,
may be repealed or amended at will by the her continued refusal to vacate has rendered
legislature, or in the maintenance of a judicial illegal her occupancy thereat. Thus, in
doctrine, which may be modified or reversed in accordance with P.D. No. 1472, petitioner could
the discretion of the Supreme Court. Such lawfully be ejected even without a judicial order.
changes may be validly made regardless of
adverse consequences upon any person who may Neither can it be successfully argued that
have previously acted thereunder. (Cruz & Cruz, petitioner had already acquired a vested right
supra. at p. 212) over the subject property when the NHA
recognized her as the censused owner by
xxx assigning to her a tag number (TAG No. 77-
0063).
Magkalas v. National Housing Authority
Supra. A vested right is one that is absolute, complete
and unconditional and no obstacle exists to its
Re: Vested right exercise. It is immediate and perfect in itself and
not dependent upon any contingency. To be
vested, a right must have become a title legal or
The General Law on Property Rights
5

equitable to the present or future enjoyment of

property.

Contrary to petitioners position, the issuance of

a tag number in her favor did not grant her
irrefutable rights to the subject property. The
tagging of structures in the Bagong Barrio area
was conducted merely to determine the qualified
beneficiaries and bona fide residents within the
area. It did not necessarily signify an assurance
that the tagged structure would be awarded to its
occupant as there were locational and physical
considerations that must be taken into account,
as in fact, the area where petitioners property
was located had been classified as Area Center
(open space). The assignment of a tag number
was a mere expectant or contingent right and
could not have ripened into a vested right in
favor of petitioner. Her possession and
occupancy of the said property could not be
characterized as fixed and absolute. As such,
petitioner cannot claim that she was deprived of
her vested right when the NHA ordered her
relocation to another area.

--- end of notes for 15 June 2017 ---