Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40402:g-r-no-122089-august-23,-2000-meliton-zabat,-et-al-v-court-of-appeals,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:09:52+00:00

Document:
MELITON ZABAT and MARYLOU ZABAT, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, Branch 114, Pasay City, THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY and ALEJANDRA & GUILLERMO MAURI, JR., Respondents.
"This controversy traces its beginning to the contest between plaintiffs-appellants, spouses Meliton and Marylou Zabat (plaintiffs-appellants, for brevity) and defendants-appellees Alejandra and Guillermo Mauris (Mauris, for brevity) over a piece of land particularly designated as Lot 8, Block 7, Phase I-a in the Tramo/F Victor upgrading project of the National Housing Authority (NHA, for brevity), with an area of sixty (60) square meters.
Marylou Zabat raised the matter on appeal to the Awards and Arbitration Committee (AAC, for brevity) of the NHA on March 15, 1983.
A motion to reconsider that Order was filed by Zabat but was denied by the AAC on August 16, 1985.
Eight (8) days later or on August 24, 1985, the lot was awarded to the Mauris and a conditional contract to sell was executed by the NHA in the former’s favor.
Thereafter NHA sent several notices of demolition to the plaintiffs-appellants.
In the course of the proceedings before the trial court, the City Hall of Pasay City was gutted by fire destroying the Court records therein including those of Civil Case No. 8294.
"WHEREFORE. premises considered, the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 9365 is AFFIRMED with the modification that the award of attorney’s fees is deleted.
No special pronouncement as to costs.
BASIC ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT COURT WHEN IT RELIED ON THE REQUISITES. FOR A "WRIT OF INJUNCTION", AN ANCILLARY AND PRELIMINARY REMEDY DIFFERENT FROM THE ACTION FOR INJUNCTION WHICH WAS FILED IN THE INSTANT CASE.
THE CONCLUSIONS THAT PETITIONERS SLEPT ON THEIR RIGHTS IS CONTRARY TO THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE; AND THE RESPONDENT COURT, MOREOVER, DISREGARDED THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT LACHES CANNOT BE WORKED TO DEFEAT JUSTICE OR TO PERPETUATE FRAUD OR INJUSTICE.
In this petition, we must also determine (1) whether the filing of a complaint for injunction below was the proper remedy available to petitioners; (2) whether petitioners should have availed of the administrative processes of the National Housing Authority (NHA) before resorting to judicial relief; and (3) whether petitioners’ complaint before the trial court has become stale or moot.
At the outset, we find that on record, the NHA automatically disqualified herein petitioner Marylou Pelayo Zabat from maintaining a structure on the subject lot when it found her to be an "absentee structure owner" during a census of households in 1981. It found that said petitioner rented the lot to a certain Conrado Briones. The NHA also concluded that the Mauris have maintained occupancy of their house on the lot in question, justifying the award of the lot to them.
When the NHA Awards and Arbitration Committee (AAC) reviewed Zabat’s disqualification, it declared her a project beneficiary, and awarded her a lot other than where her house stood. Zabat moved for reconsideration but the AAC denied her plea to co-own the lot already awarded to the Mauris.
On August 24, 1985, after the NHA General Manager approved the award to the Mauris, a conditional contract to sell was executed between the NHA and the Mauris, who tendered amortized payments. Thereafter, notices requesting petitioners (Zabats) to transfer to the lot earmarked for them and notices for the demolition of their house were sent.
As a rule, injunction is not granted to take property out of the possession or control of one party to be placed into that of another whose title has not been clearly established by law. 10 For the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to. be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. 11 In our view, petitioners have not clearly and unmistakably shown why they were entitled to co-own the lot with the Mauris. Though they were given a tag number for the structure they reportedly owned, still they were deemed absentee owners who should have been disqualified outright. If at all the NHA awarded them another lot, it was out of its beneficence.
In this case, after their motion for reconsideration was denied by the AAC in 1985, petitioners should have elevated their case to the NHA General Manager, pursuant to NHA Circular No. 13. 22 The latter provides that all decisions of the AAC shall be subject to review and approval by the General Manager of the NHA. 23 There being no such review instituted by petitioners, the NHA subsequently awarded the lot to the Mauris on August 24, 1985, as well as the contract to sell said lot. 24 From the award of the lot and the execution of the contract to sell by the NHA, petitioners should have appealed to the Office of the President, pursuant to Executive Order No. 19. 25 Under the provisions thereof, appeals from awards of contracts by government-owned or controlled corporations, such as the NHA, as well as other appeals of similar nature not governed by special laws, shall be taken to the Office of the President by private parties adversely affected. 26 None of. these administrative remedies were resorted to by petitioners, thus foreclosing on their right to seek judicial relief.
Administrative disputes must end sometime, just as much as public policy demands that finality be written in judicial controversies. 27 For failure to avail of the administrative processes of the NHA to resolve their plaint, substituting resort to judicial relief — after much delay at that — we are constrained to rule that petitioners may not assail of the injunctive remedy they seek.
2.	CA Rollo, p. 128.
3.	Supra, note 1 at 44-53.
10.	Heirs of Joaquin Asuncion v. Gervacio, Jr., 304 SCRA 322, 330 (1999).
11.	Arcega v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 176, 180 (1997).
12.	Africa v. Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 408, 418 (1998).
13.	Rollo, pp. 25-26; Records. pp. 4-5.
14.	Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133366, August 5, 1999, p. 8.
16.	Republic v. Silerio, 272 SCRA 280, 289 (1997).
17.	Bogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. Office of the President, 270 SCRA 63, 81 (1997).
18.	Republic v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 366, 378-389 (1999).
20.	Dy v. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 331, 336 (1999).
21.	Jariol v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 255, 262 (1997).
22.	Code of Policies on Beneficiary Selection and Disposition of Homelots and structures in Urban BLISS Level I Projects (ZIP); issued February 19, 1982.
7. . . .All decisions of the AAC shall be subject to revive and approval of the General Manager of the Authority. .
25.	Prescribing Rules And Regulations For Appeals To The Office Of The President And For Finality Of Decisions Thereof; issued April 2, 1966.
26.	Id., "8. The foregoing rules shall apply to and be observed in appeals to this Office taken by private parties adversely affected by decisions of the departments, of fives and entities specified below, as well as other appeals of similar nature not governed by special laws.
27.	Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 286 SCRA 666, 681 (1998).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.