G.R. No. 156850 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, VS. PERICO V. JAO, REPRESENTING THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SPOUSES ANDREA AND IGNACIO JAO TAYAG.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants: Declaring and finding that defendant NHA has utterly failed to comply with the provisions of our Constitution and Article 435 of the Civil Code on Eminent Domain in the expropriation of subject lot , that is, there was taking but there was no payment of just compensation of subject lot until the present; NHA has not also devoted the subject lot for any kind of public use or purpose during the last fifteen years . Ordering NHA to reconvey subject lot to the plaintiff . Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of ten thousand [ pesos (P10,000.00) ] a month for the loss of possession and use of the subject property and the further sum of five hundred thousand [ pesos (P500,000.00) ] as damages to the destroyed improvements thereon with legal interest, until the property is restored to the plaintiffs . Ordering defendant NHA to pay plaintiff the sum of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) for attorney's fees and costs of suit . (Emphasis supplied) On 11 November 1998, the NHA filed a motion for reconsideration of the 4 September 1998 Order. In its 10 May 1999 Order, [6] the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. The trial court held that, "Sadly and regretably, until today, defendant [NHA's] socialized housing project envisioned for subject lot is still a dreamer's dream and only heaven knows when this dream becomes a reality." On 7 June 1999, the NHA appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a Resolution dated 11 February 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the docket and other lawful fees. On 9 March 2000, the 11 February 2000 Resolution became final and executory. The Entry of Judgment [7] dated 9 March 2000 stated: This is to certify that on February 11, 2000 a decision/resolution rendered in the above-entitled case was filed in this Office, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff-appellee, is hereby GRANTED and accordingly, our Resolution of November 8, 1999 allowing defendants-appellants to pay the required docket fees hereby recalled and set aside and the instant appeal ordered DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.