3Repuhlic of tbe ~biltppines $,Upreme QCourt ;!flflatt ila THIRD DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC G.R. No. 217656 ··woRKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, Present: -versus- LEONEN, J, Chairperson, HERNANDO, INTING, EDDIE MANALO, RODRIGO DELOS SANTOS, and MEDIANISTA, CRISTAN A. ROSARIO, JJ ACOSTA, TERESITA D. SANTOS, ARCHEMED IS SARMIENTO, JULIET M. DATUL, OLIVIA 0. SALVADOR, GIRALINE P. BELLEZA, JULIUS N. ORTEGA, LORENZO C. ACOSTA, JOSEPH S. TRIBIANA, . ANALAINE S. TRIBIANA, LORENA B. MUNAR, JUN JUN A. DAVAO, WILLIAM A. MANALO, PAZ I. VILLAR, PERCY M. CARAG, PATRONA R. ROXAS, PABLO P. RESPICIO, LINA M. VALENZUELA, NEDELYN D. CAJOTE, NOEL L. HERNANDEZ, NORMA MARTIN, MA. RODHORA UBANA, LINDA LACARA, NORMAN M. ILAC, MERCY 0. RIVERA, JAIME LUMABAS, JULITA PAJARON, CELESTINO PEREZ, CONCHITA V. NA VALES, REYNALDO V. NAVALES, EDDIE V. VILLAREY, VIRGILIO V. Decision 2 G.R. No. 217656 ALEJANDRINO, MA. CECILIA P. CALVES, EVANGELINE M. MANALO, CONNIE D. BELZA, SONIA G. EVANGELISTA, JEAN OR DELA CRUZ, MADELINE EVANGELISTA, CATHERINE ANTONIO, JAi D. HERNANDEZ, CYNTIA C. HERNANDEZ, JULIE H. DEPIEDRA, JENNIFER H. BESMONTE, RICHARD Z. DIZON, RICHARD H. DIZON, JR., REYNALDO C. HERNANDEZ, NOEL C. HERNANDEZ, AUGUSTAH. DE LEON, VICTORINO U. HERNANDEZ, MARVIN C. HERNANDEZ, LETICIA G. GALO PE, DANIEL P. MABANSAG, EDUARDO J. MALABRIGA, V ANGIE S. NAVARRO, ANSARI P. DITUCALAN, DIOSA P. BAUTISTA, HALIL P. DITUCALAN, CAIRODEN D. PUNGINAGINA, CANDIDATO PUNGINAGINA, RAIKEN P. MACARAUB, JALIL MOKSIR, ISIAS MELCHOR, ROMULO NAVALES, RONALDO GUEVARRA, ANDREA R. DELOS REYES AND SHIELA R. DELOS REYES, Promulgated: Respondents. November 16, 2020 , °t'-\\ \)C-~o-¾\ x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x~ DECISION LEONEN, J.: The mandate of our Constitution is clear: "Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in /':· accordance with law and in a just and humane manner."1 1 CONST., art. XIII, sec. 10. Decision 3 G.R. No. 217656 This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari2 assailing the Decision3 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Order4 denying the Department of Public Works and Highways' motion to dismiss a Complaint seeking just compensation for their properties. Eddie Manalo, Rodrigo Medianista, Cristan A. Acosta, Teresita D. Santos, Archemedis Sarmiento, Juliet M. Datul, Olivia 0. Salvador, Giraline P. Belleza, Julius N. Ortega, Lorenzo C. Acosta, Joseph S. Tribiana, Analaine S. Tribiana, Lorena B. Munar, Jun Jun A. Davao, William A. Manalo, Paz I. Villar, Percy M. Carag, Patrona R. Roxas, Pablo P. Respicio, Lina M. Valenzuela, Nedelyn D. Cajote, Noel L. Hernandez, Norma Martin, Ma. Rodhora Ubana, Linda Lacara, Norman M. Ilac, Mercy 0. Rivera, Jaime Lumabas, Julita Pajaron, Celestino Perez, Conchita V. Navales, Reynaldo V. Navales, Eddie V. Villarey, Virgilio V. Alejandrino, Ma. Cecilia P. Calves, Evangeline M. Manalo, Connie D. Belza, Sonia G. Evangelista, J eanor Dela Cruz, Madeline Evangelista, Catherine Antonio, J ai D. Hernandez, Cyntia C. Hernandez, Julie H. Depiedra, Jennifer H. Besmonte, Richard Z. Dizon, Richard H. Dizon, Jr., Reynaldo C. Hernandez, Noel C. Hernandez, Augusta H. De Leon, Victorino U. Hernandez, Marvin C. Hernandez, Leticia G. Galope, Daniel P. Mabansag, Eduardo J. Malabriga, Vangie S. Navan-o, Ansari P. Ditucalan, Diosa P. Bautista, Halil P. Ditucalan, Cairoden D. Punginagina, Candidato Punginagina, Raiken P. Macaraub, Jalil Moksir, Isias Melchor, Romulo Navales, Ronaldo Guevarra, Andrea R. Delos Reyes, and Shiela R. Delos Reyes (collectively, Manalo, et al.) are owners of residential structures on a parcel of land on Luzon Avenue, Quezon City, owned by Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System. This parcel of land is directly affected by the Department of Public Works and Highways' C-5 extension project,5 an endeavor that would link the South Luzon Expressway and the North Luzon Expressway.6 On September 13, 2010, Manalo, et al. filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, seeking the detennination and payment of just cmnpensation from the Department of Public Works and Highways.7 In their Complaint, Manalo, et al. alleged that despite its expropriation power, the Department of Public Works and Highways neglected to initiate an expropriation proceeding. They averred that the Department was "cutting comers to hasten the completion of the project."8 I 2 Rollo, pp. 9-25. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 3 Id. at 27--40. The March 19, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 121303 was penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concwTed in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales of the Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila. 4 Id. at 66--67. The May 5, 2011 Order in Civil Case No. Q-10-67907 was penned by Presiding Judge Alexander S. Balut of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76. 5 Id. at 12. 6 Id. at 30. 7 Id. at 29. 8 Id. at 30. Decision 4 G.R. No. 217656 Moreover, Manalo, et al. claimed that while the Department of Public• Works and Highways made a voluntary offer of financial assistance to them, the amount was "notoriously small"9 that they had to tum down the offer. 10 Manalo, et al. also asserted that they should be paid the replacement costs of their houses, as what happened with the informal settlers of Barangay UP Campus. 11 Citing an August 6, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement, which the Department of Public Works and Highways had entered into with the Quezon City government, Manalo, et al. claimed that the parties had acknowledged that they were informal settlers. 12 The agreement states in part: WHEREAS, to implement these proposed projects, there is a need to relocate the affected squatters and to acquire the needed road right of way; ARTICLE II-RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 2.1 Acquire and cleru.· at their own expense the needed Road Right~ of-Way that will be affected by the approach of the Construction of Flyover Crossing [C]ommonwealth Avenue (Damayan Alley Side) and the [c]onstruction/widening of Luzon Avenue including the clearing and relocation of squatters/illegal shanties thereat. 13 Thus, Manalo, et al. prayed for the determination of just compensation due to them, and that they be entitled to rights accruing to individuals whose properties were expropriated for public use,· and to moral da111ages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 14 · On November 15, 2010, the Quezon City Task Force Control and Prevention of Illegal Structures and Squatting issued a Notice of Demolition, asking Manalo, et al. to vacate the land and remove the structures within seven days of receiving the notice. This came with financial assistance worth P21,000.00 per family. Despite notice, Manalo, et al. refused to vacate the property and accept the financial aid. 15 On January 19, 2011, the Department of Public Works and Highways filed its Answer16 praying that the Complaint be dismissed.17 It alleged that 9 Id. at 31. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 66. 12 Id. at 66---(57. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 32. 15 Id. at 12. 16 Id. at 98-114. Decision 5 G.R. No. 217656 Manalo, et al. were admittedly squatting on a government-owned property without the owner's express consent. As such, the structures they built may be demolished under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 7279. 18 The Department of Public Works and Highways also noted that it had already offered Manalo, et al. cash compensation to show good faith and honest intention to help them. It likewise refuted their claim of entitlement to replacement costs, noting that they were only entitled to financial assistance under Section 28 of Republic Act No. 7279. It also asserted that expropriation was not the proper remedy, and that it may avail of summary eviction and demolition under Republic Act No. 7279. 19 Finally, the Department of Public Works and Highways asserted that since Manalo, et al. achnitted that the land was not their own, they were builders in bad faith who, under Article 449 of the Civil Code, had no right of reimbursement for the value of their structures.20 Hearings were conducted on the special and affirmative defenses interposed by the Department of Public Works and Highways on February 21, February 28, and March 7, 2011.21 In a May 5, 2011 Order,22 the Regional Trial Court denied the Department of Public Works and Highways' prayer to dismiss Manalo, et al.' s case. This, after it had found that the allegations in the Complaint had a cause of action. 23 It disposed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prayer for the dismissal of this case is denied. SO ORDERED.24 (Emphasis in the original) The Department of Public Works and Highways sought reconsideration, but this was denied in the Regional Trial Court's June 30, 2011 Order.25 Thus, it filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.26 j 17 Id. at 110. 18 Id. at 33-34. 19 Id. at 34-35. 20 Id. at 35. 21 Id. 22 Id. at 66-67. 23 Id. at 67. 24 Id. 25 Id. at 68. 26 Id. at 28-29. Decision 6 G.R. No. 217656 In its March 19, 2015 Decision,27 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's findings. It held that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it relied on the Memorandum of Agreement in denying the prayer for the case's dismissal.28 It disposed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Orders of respondent Judge Alexander S. Balut of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.29 (Emphasis in the original) Thus, the Department of Public Works and Highways filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari30 before this Court.