PEOPLE and FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSCN. v.

LEACHON
G.R. No. 108725-26. September 25, 1998
Purisima, J.

Doctrine: What is meant by in accordance with law and just and humane manner is that
the person to be evicted be accorded due process or an opportunity to controvert the
allegation that his or her occupation or possession of the property involved is unlawful or
against the will of the landowner.

FACTS
The present case is a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus filed by the
Provincial Prosecutor of Occidental Mindoro and private complainant FACOMA in which they
assail the validity of the orders issued by respondent which dismissed the criminal cases filed
against Noli Hablo, Edmundo Mapindan and Diego Escala.
The facts would show that the Provincial Prosecutor of Occidental Mindoro filed two
separate information against Hablo, Mapindan and Escala for violation of the Anti-Squatting
Law. The cases then proceeded to trial however, the respondent judge issued an order which
dismissed the cases on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved, petitioners then filed an
appeal before this court which was remanded to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. The
CA then ordered respondent judge to continue the trial but instead of adhering to said order,
respondent judge issued the assailed order which dismissed the cases on the ground that P.D>
772 has been repealed by Sections 9 and 10, Article 13 of the Constitution.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N respondent judge erred in dismissing the criminal cases and for declaring the Anti-
Squatting Law as repugnant and repealed by Secs 9-10, Article 13 of the Constitution-
YES
To begin, every law enjoys a presumption of constitutionality. Unless repealed by
law or declared as unconstitutional by the Court, a law will always be presumed to be
valid. The Anti-Squatting Law also enjoys the same presumption. When respondent
judge rendered the assailed decision, the law was still operative, nor it has been declared
unconstitutional.
Respondent judge, in dismissing the criminal cases is under the impression that a
conviction for all the accused will run counter to the constitutional provisions because it
will not be in a just and humane manner given the absence of resettlement plans and lack
of consultation with the accused as to where they should be located. This is an erroneous
interpretation of the law and constitutional mandate. Sec. 10, Article 13 provides that
urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted, nor their dwellings demolished, except
in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner and that no resettlement shall be
undertaken without adequate consultation with them and communities where they are to
be relocated.
While respondent judge correctly asserted that what makes the eviction and
demolition of urban or rural poor dwellers illegal or unlawful is when the same are not
done in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner, he erred in interpreting
the meaning of just and humane manner. Just and humane as contemplated by the law
and the constitution is affording due process to a person to be evicted and give him a

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 chance to rebut the allegations imputed against him. Just and humane is not hinged on the
existence of a resettlement area or earmarked by the government.
Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, the enactment of an anti-squatting law
affords the alleged squatters the opportunity to present their case before a competent
court where their rights will be amply protected, and due process strictly observed. By
filing the proper information in court, complainants have complied with the first
requirement of due process, that is, the opportunity for the accused to be heard and
present evidence to show that his or her occupation or possession of the property is not
against the will or without the consent of the landowner and is not tainted by the use of
force, intimidation, threat or by the taking advantage of the absence of or tolerance by the
landowners.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED, without any pronouncement as to costs.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2