[G.R. No.164527, July 01, 2008]
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 1, 2008
“G.R. No.164527 (Francisco I. Chavez vs. National Housing Authority et al.).- Petitioner filed with this Court a Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 15 August 2007] dated September 13, 2007.[1] In the motion, petitioner raises the following issues:
An examination of the issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration reveals that they are substantially the same issues which have been sufficiently passed upon, extensively discussed, and resolved in the assailed Decision. Thus, further discussion of the points raised in the Motion for Reconsideration would be a mere repetition of the Decision already rendered.
Notably, the last issue raised by petitioner, which is the only new issue in the Motion for Reconsideration, still does not imbue the motion with any merit. Petitioner argues that the denial of the underlying petition was premature after this Court ruled that the National Housing Authority (NHA) must disclose all information and papers regarding the Project.
Such assertion must fail.
The argument all the more serves to confirm this Court’s findings that the petition is without merit. Petitioner is saying will be supported by the information that will revealed from the records of the NHA. Such should not be the case. Petitioner must have a cause of action as basis for filing a petition with this Court anchored on undisputed facts. With the admission that the facts to prop up the petition will still have to be procured from the NHA, then the petition is clearly baseless for want of factual support.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner‘s Motion for Reconsideration is, for lack of merit, DENIED with finality.
Carpio and Reyes, JJ, no part. Nazario, J., on leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1455-1503.
[2] Id. at 1458-1460.
“G.R. No.164527 (Francisco I. Chavez vs. National Housing Authority et al.).- Petitioner filed with this Court a Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 15 August 2007] dated September 13, 2007.[1] In the motion, petitioner raises the following issues:
I
Contrary to this Honorable Court’s Decision, the distinctions laid out by this Honorable Court between the present case and its ruling in Chavez vs. PEA-Amari are, with due respect, clearly baseless.II
This Honorable Court gravely erred when it ruled NHA may validly undertake the reclamation of the subject lands, for:
- The power to reclaim lands cannot be implied from NHA’s powers to undertake and develop housing projects.
- Presidential Decree No. 3-A, which supposedly allows the nation government to undertake reclamation of lands, does not legalize NHA’s act of reclaiming the subject lands.
III
Contrary to this Honorable Court’s ruling, the required DENR approval cannot be implied from the presidential approval of the project.IV
This Honorable Court erred in ruling that the reclaimed lands had already been declared alienable and disposable for neither Memorandum Order No. 415 nor Proclamation Nos. 39 and 465 converted the subject lands to alienable and disposable for the very simple reason that, at the time they were issued, the alleged reclaimed lands were still inexistent.V
Contrary to this Honorable Court’s ruling, the mere fact that subject lands may be sold to the Smokey Mountain dwellers does not imply that they are no longer needed for public use. In fact, that opportunity proves that the subject lands are needed for public use.VI
This Honorable Court erred in ruling that there was a public bidding of the reclaimed lands.VII
Despite the effectivity of the BOT law, R-II Builders, being a private corporation is still barred from acquiring lands of the public domain.VII
The Operative Fact Doctrine is an equitable doctrine which could not be used to countenance an inequitable result that is contrary to its proper office.VIII
At the very least, the denial of the instant petition is premature as this Honorable Court granted petitioner’s prayer for Mandus to compel respondents to disclose all documents and information relating to the project.[2]
An examination of the issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration reveals that they are substantially the same issues which have been sufficiently passed upon, extensively discussed, and resolved in the assailed Decision. Thus, further discussion of the points raised in the Motion for Reconsideration would be a mere repetition of the Decision already rendered.
Notably, the last issue raised by petitioner, which is the only new issue in the Motion for Reconsideration, still does not imbue the motion with any merit. Petitioner argues that the denial of the underlying petition was premature after this Court ruled that the National Housing Authority (NHA) must disclose all information and papers regarding the Project.
Such assertion must fail.
The argument all the more serves to confirm this Court’s findings that the petition is without merit. Petitioner is saying will be supported by the information that will revealed from the records of the NHA. Such should not be the case. Petitioner must have a cause of action as basis for filing a petition with this Court anchored on undisputed facts. With the admission that the facts to prop up the petition will still have to be procured from the NHA, then the petition is clearly baseless for want of factual support.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner‘s Motion for Reconsideration is, for lack of merit, DENIED with finality.
Carpio and Reyes, JJ, no part. Nazario, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, pp. 1455-1503.
[2] Id. at 1458-1460.
No comments:
Post a Comment