G.R. No. L-8465; February 28, 1957
AGAPITO FRANCISCO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. NATIONAL URBAN PLANNING COMMISSION, intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioners-appellees are co-owners of a parcel of land in Manila covered by T.C.T. No. 58176. They filed a verified petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila to terminate the co-ownership and partition the property, having subdivided it into 12 lots, each occupied by a co-owner, with two lots designated as private passageways. They prayed for approval of subdivision plan Psd-40748 and issuance of separate certificates of title. The National Urban Planning Commission (later National Planning Commission) intervened, contending the petition contravened Executive Order No. 98, series of 1946, and its Subdivision Regulations, as the plan lacked the Commission’s prior approval, and argued the court lacked jurisdiction to approve it without such consent. The parties agreed to defer court proceedings until petitioners submitted the plan to the Commission. The Commission disapproved the plan on May 18, 1954, citing non-compliance with frontage, minimum area, and alley requirements. Petitioners then submitted the disapproved plan to the court, arguing the Commission’s regulations were unconstitutional as an unlawful delegation of legislative power and a deprivation of property without due process, and alternatively, that the case fell under an exception for extraordinary hardship. The lower court approved the subdivision plan, holding the regulations applied only to subdivisions for sale or building development, not to partitions to terminate co-ownership, and that even if applicable, extraordinary hardship existed.

ISSUE

Whether the Subdivision Regulations of the National Planning Commission, promulgated under Executive Order No. 98, are applicable to a subdivision of land made solely for the purpose of terminating a co-ownership and partitioning the property among the co-owners.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order approving the subdivision plan. It held that the Subdivision Regulations, which require prior approval of a subdivision plat by the Director of Planning as a condition precedent before a subdivider could sell the lots, are applicable only to subdivisions of tracts or parcels of land for sale or building development. They do not apply to subdivisions like the one in this case, which is for the partition of property among co-owners to terminate co-ownership. Given this conclusion, the Court found it unnecessary to rule on the constitutionality of the Executive Orders or the validity of the regulations. The Court also noted that the procedure followed by the trial judge in approving the plan itself was acceptable under the circumstances, as the Commission had already refused approval, and the court had supervision over the Land Registration Commission and the Director of Lands, who had recommended the plan’s approval.