GR L 44738; (June, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-44738 June 22, 1988
ZOSIMA SAGUN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants, registered tenants or successors-in-interest of lots and units in Block 330, LCH Project 3, Quezon City, filed a complaint for mandamus against the PHHC. They sought to compel the PHHC to sell the lots to them at a price not exceeding P10.00 per square meter, invoking Republic Act No. 3802 , which directed the sale of dwelling units and their lots “at cost” to registered tenants. Their action was prompted by the PHHC’s offer to sell certain lots at P50.00 per square meter and its threat to execute new lease contracts with increased rentals if the offer was not accepted. The plaintiffs alleged that the P50.00 price was excessive and discriminatory, citing sales of other units in the same area for P10.00 per square meter. The PHHC, in its defense, argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the units in question were leased for store or commercial purposes, not as dwelling units, and thus were not covered by R.A. No. 3802 .
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the PHHC can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to sell the subject lots to the plaintiffs at a specific price (P10.00 per square meter) under R.A. No. 3802 .
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs-appellants and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that a writ of mandamus could not issue. First, the Court found that the units leased by the majority of the plaintiffs were intended for store or shop purposes, as stipulated in their contracts, and they paid correspondingly higher commercial rentals. Republic Act No. 3802 explicitly applied only to “dwelling units,” intended to provide low-cost housing. The conversion of these store spaces into living quarters without official approval did not alter their commercial character under the law. Therefore, the PHHC had no ministerial duty under R.A. No. 3802 to sell these commercial units to the plaintiffs at any mandated price; the decision to sell such units and the pricing thereof were discretionary administrative acts.
Second, even for those plaintiffs leasing actual dwelling units covered by the law, the Court ruled that mandamus was still improper. While R.A. No. 3802 created a ministerial duty to sell “at cost,” the determination of what constitutes the “at cost” selling price itself involves the exercise of discretion and valuation by the PHHC. A writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty but cannot control the exercise of discretion. The plaintiffs’ demand to fix the price at P10.00 per square meter sought to dictate the outcome of that discretionary determination. Consequently, the PHHC could not be compelled via mandamus to sell at the plaintiffs’ demanded price. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.