TO : RAMON S.

PARAGAS

Manager, Region III-A

THRU : ROMUEL P. ALIMBOYAO

Department Manager, NCL-Central Luzon

SUBJECT : CANCELLATION OF AWARD FOR PROPERTY SITUATED AT SAPANG

PALAY, BULACAN

DATE : April 19, 2017

This refers to the request for legal advice of Mrs. Catalina Bautista over the Lot 2 Block 29 Area
B, SPRP, CSJDM, Bulacan.

Upon review of the records, the following facts were established:

1. Lot 2 Block 29 Area B located at Sapang Palay Bulacan was previously awarded to
Spouses Danilo L. Bautista and Catalina Bautista on August 11, 1994.

2. That upon receipt of the notice of award covering the mentioned lot, the spouses
Bautista left the place and moved to Manila claiming that they have no source of
livelihood in Bulacan.

3. That although there was no house constructed over the lot, they fenced the area and
asked a caregiver to oversee the lot.

4. The last payment over the lot was made at February 28, 2012.

5. A first, second, and final demand notice dated August 20, 2014, November 12, 2014,
and January 28, 2015 respectively were sent but the same were received by Teresito
Muana and Flora Muana who were residing on the lot since 1994 without the consent
of the Bautistas.

6. On May 2015, the award of Ms.Bautista over the lot was included in the Group
Cancellation of Award No. 044-30-1505-0084 was approved on June 26 2015.

7. As a result the account was removed from the Billing and Collection System on
January 10, 2016 rendering the lot unawarded.

COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
 1. Whether or not the cancellation of award of Spouses Bautista over Lot 2 Block 29 Area B,
SPRP, CSJDM, Bulacan is proper?

A cancellation is proper when there is non-compliance with contractual obligations such as failure
to pay monthly amortizations and/or rentals. The cancellation of the awarded lot to Spouses Bautista is
proper because they failed to pay for their lot amortization after their last payment on February 28, 2012
which was already two years and four months before it was cancelled. Also, despite the proper issuance
of Demand Notice, the same was not heeded by them. Therefore, the cancellation of the award to
Spouses Bautista is proper.

2. Whether or not the Spouses Bautista is entitled for the restoration of award over Lot 2
Blok 29 Area B, SPRP, CSJDM, Bulacan?

The Spouses Bautista failed to avail the remedy given to them upon their non-compliance to settle their
obligations on or before September 2, 2015.

The remedy is provided for by the Memorandum Circular 2374 which states that:

3.2. i.v. If the awardee fails to vacate the lot/unit within the 30-day grace period from
receipt of the Notice of Cancellation, PO shall issue the Eviction Notice duly signed by
the AMO Manager.

If on any day after the issuance of the cancellation notice or prior to the eviction date,
the awardee offers to settle the obligation, full settlement of total arrearages and
payment of processing fee of P500.00 shall be required. This provision can be availed
of only once.

As what can be gleaned in this case, an action was only made last January 20, 2017, which is almost 2
years later than the date of issuance of cancellation notice. The Spouses Bautista is barred by laches in
their claim for recovery of their lot. Laches is defined by the Supreme Court as the negligence or omission
to assert a right within a reasonable time, giving a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

In addition to their undue delay in making a claim on their lot, it is also a fact that the Spouses Bautista left
the lot awarded to them upon their receipt of the notice of award. Although they fenced the area of the lot
and asked a caregiver to look over it, still they did not occupy the same. It is a requirement for lot
awardees to actually occupy the lot awarded to them and the mere setting up of a fence does not
constitute as occupancy.

As provided for by Memorandum Circular No. 1039 entitled POLICY AND PROCEDURES IN THE
RESTORATION OF CANCELLED AWARD OVER SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESIDENTIAL
UNITS/LOTS IN ALL NHA-DIRECTLY ADMINISTERED PROJECTS

I. Statement of Policy

A cancelled award may be restored if the following conditions exist:

1.2 If the unit or lot subject of a request for restoration of award is presently occupied by the
original awardee who is requesting the restoration of the cancelled award and being used
exclusively as residence by his family and not by other persons who are not members of his
immediate family, either on lease or rent-free basis.
 An award, though deemed automatically cancelled for non-compliance to the terms and
conditions of such award, shall be considered cancelled, for purposes of this Circular, only upon
issuance of a formal notice duly received by the awardee or its posting duly witnessed by a
neighbour or barangay official or when such cancellation has been published in a newspaper of
general circulation.

Therefore, abandonment of the lot as soon as it was awarded to them and undue delay in making a claim
to recover their lot bars the Spouses Bautista in reclaiming their lot.

The mere grant of award of the lot to Spouses Bautista is in consideration of the principle of
Social Justice. The basic tenet of social justice is that those who have less in life must have more in law.
Social justice promotes the protection by the State of the needy and the less fortunate members of the
society. However, the said principle cannot tolerate violation of the express provisions of the law.

There is a limitation to social justice. It cannot always cater the poor when the law that was
enacted has specific rule on how the benefits can be given. In this case, the Spouses Bautista has to pay
for the lot awarded to them. Their failure to pay for a period of 5 years constitutes a non-compliance with
their contractual obligations and the same cannot be tolerated.

Given the foregoing, we conclude that the Spouses Bautista can no longer restore their award on
Lot 2 Block 29 Area B, Sapang Palay, Bulacan.

3. Whether or not Ms. Flora Muana may avail of the legalization program of NHA?

Ms. Flora Muana may apply for legalization of her occupancy and eventual award of the lot in her
favor subject to the provisions laid down by MC No. 1216 entitled UPDATED GUIDELINES AND
PROCEDURES ON LEGALIZATION OF OCCUPANCY IN NHA RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS and
giving emphasis on Paragraph IV, 4.2 of the circular which states:

IV. PROCEDURES

4.2 All concerned Project Offices shall submit to the Manager, Estate Management
Department, a complete list of illegally occupied lots and their occupant bases
on the occupancy check conducted using the prescribed format not later than
April 30, 1997. This report shall be validated against the Lot Inventory System
(LIS).

In case Ms. Muana appears in the said list provided to EMD, she may apply for legalization of
occupancy subject to proper evaluation and qualification based on the authoritys criteria for beneficiary
selection.

In the event Ms. Muana was not included in the list submitted to EMD on the prescribed date, she
may no longer be qualified to avail of the program. Hence, she will be considered as an illegal occupant
who may be subjected to eviction as required by Paragraph V, 5.1 of the same circular which provides:

V. SANCTIONS

5.1 All illegal occupants who fail or refuse to file their application for legalization
within the prescribed period, those with disapproved applications, and those
who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of legalization within thirty (30)
days from receipt of the Individual Notice of Legalization of Occupancy (INLO)
shall be subject to summary eviction pursuant to Sec. 2 of PD 1472 and Sec 30
of RA 7279.
It is therefore necessary to determine if Ms. Muana was included in the list of illegal occupants submitted
to EMD to ascertain her qualification for legalization of occupancy.

For your information and guidance.

ATTY. ELEONOR A. BALATBAT

Officer-In-Charge, Legal Department