G.R. No. 195919, November 21, 2018
General Milling Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Norberto Constantino, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the demolition of approximately 200 houses on parcels of land in Cagayan de Oro City. Petitioner General Milling Corporation (GMC), claiming ownership, initiated the demolition by writing to city officials, labeling the occupants as squatters. The Office of the Building Official, through Engineer Flavia Merilles, issued a letter stating the structures violated the National Building Code for lack of permits and enjoined GMC to stop construction or remove the shanties. Relying on this, GMC proceeded with the demolition.
The respondents, the displaced residents, filed a complaint for cancellation of GMC’s lease applications and titles, with injunction and damages. They asserted possession since time immemorial, arguing the lands were public domain and that GMC’s titles were dubious. They specifically contended the demolition violated Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act), which mandates a court order, adequate notice, consultation, and provision of a relocation site prior to eviction or demolition.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether GMC’s demolition of the structures was lawful, and consequently, whether the respondents were entitled to damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the Regional Trial Court. The legal logic centered on the improper basis for the demolition and the violation of statutory safeguards.
The Court held that Engineer Merilles’s letter was not a valid demolition order. It was merely an advisory citing a violation of the National Building Code and was addressed to GMC’s counsel, not to the occupants. Critically, the Court emphasized that the letter could not justify the demolition because the power to order demolition under the Building Code is vested in the Building Official, not in a private entity like GMC. GMC essentially acted unilaterally based on a letter that granted it no enforcement authority.
Furthermore, the demolition was conducted in blatant violation of Republic Act No. 7279. The law establishes a clear procedure for eviction and demolition involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, requiring a court order, prior notice, adequate consultation, and the provision of a relocation site. GMC failed to comply with any of these mandatory requirements. Since the demolition was illegal, GMC’s claim of exercising a property right under Article 429 of the Civil Code was unavailing; one cannot use force to enforce a right without observing due process and specific legal protocols. Consequently, the respondents, having been unlawfully ejected, were entitled to moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees.