G.R. No. L-20643 November 29, 1965
PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. MARCELINO BAYLON, NARCISO AQUINO, JUAN AQUINO, JULIA AQUINO, NARCISA BUENAVENTURA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The People’s Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC) petitioned to annul an order of the Rizal Court of First Instance directing execution of its judgment in Civil Case No. 6376. The case was an action by about fifty-seven plaintiffs to compel PHHC to sell to them the portions of the Gonzales estate in Caloocan, Rizal, which they respectively occupied. The government had expropriated the estate for resale to tenants or occupants. PHHC denied the obligation, contending its duty was to sell lots to bona fide tenants or to private individuals who would work the lots themselves, and that some plaintiffs had sold their rights to the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, thereby losing any preferential rights. The Araneta Institute was permitted to intervene over PHHC’s objection, alleging it acquired lots from some plaintiffs for expanding its agricultural school. The parties reached a compromise agreement, which was embodied in a judgment rendered in December 1961. The agreement recognized the plaintiffs’ priority rights to purchase their respective lots at a set price, subject to reservations for public use like streets, market sites, playgrounds, and school sites to be determined in a survey. In February 1962, plaintiffs moved for execution. PHHC objected, alleging some plaintiffs had not made the required down payment, deeds of sale were not yet approved by the Auditor General, and the survey to determine public use reservations was not yet completed. The court issued the order of execution. PHHC instituted this proceeding, alleging abuse of discretion in allowing the intervention of Araneta Institute and in issuing execution before public use reservations were marked on survey plans. This Court issued a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the Court required PHHC to state reasons why the injunction should not be lifted. PHHC, in its submission, no longer alleged the non-designation of streets, parks, and markets but insisted on questioning the right of Araneta Institute to intervene and the rights of tenants who sold their lots to the Institute without permission from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, arguing they had forfeited their rights.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the intervention of the Araneta Institute of Agriculture.
2. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution before the reservations for public use (streets, market sites, playgrounds, etc.) had been properly marked on the survey plans.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion. The preliminary injunction was dissolved.
1. On the issue of intervention, the Court held it was too late for PHHC to insist on this issue. PHHC had objected to the intervention in the court below, but its objection was overruled. Although PHHC contended that those who sold to the Institute had lost their preferential rights, the compromise agreement undertaken by PHHC obligated it to convey the lots to the plaintiffs without excluding those who had sold to the Araneta Institute. Furthermore, the identical point was raised through a motion to dismiss the intervention, which was overruled, and no appeal was interposed therefrom.
2. On the issue of execution, the Court noted that when it required PHHC to state reasons for maintaining the injunction, PHHC’s submission no longer alleged the non-designation of streets, parks, and markets, implying that after the passage of time, the delay could no longer be excused. Thus, the objection based on incomplete survey and reservations for public use had effectively disappeared.