Magkalas vs.

NHA
G.R. No. 138823 (2008)
Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro

FACTS:

On March 26, 1978, PD No. 1315 was issued, expropriating certain lots at Bagong
Barrio, Caloocan City. The National Housing Authority (NHA) was named administrator
of the Bagong Barrio Urban Bliss Project. The decree also allowed NHA to take
possession, control, and disposition of the expropriated properties through
demolition.During NHAs survey, it determined that Caridad Magkalas (petitioner)
property was located in what would be classified as an area center or open space. This
is in compliance with the requirement of having 30% open space in all types of
residential development.

The NHA even wrote a letter to Magkalas and two others to explain why they had to
leave their lots. The letter also contained the Notice of Lot Assignment, saying that
Magkalas was being assigned to Lot 77, Block 2, Barangay 132. But even after losing
the case in RTC, Magkalas did not dismantle her structure/home. Sometime in March
1994, she was directed to remove her structure in its present lot and transfer to Lot 77.
A judicial order was no longer necessary pursuant to PD 1472. At this point, the two
others who appealed to NHA have already transferred to their allocated lots.

Magkalas appealed on the basis of social justice. She also questioned the implied
repeal of PD 1472 and PD 1315.

ISSUE: W/N Magkalas could use social justice as a basis to assert permanent
residency

DOCTRINE: A vested right is one that is absolute, complete, and unconditional
and no obstacle exists to its exercise. It is immediate and perfect in itself and not
dependent upon any contingency. To be vested, a right must have become a title
legal or equitable to the present or future enjoyment of property.

HELD: NO. Magkalas cannot use the argument of social justice in her case even if she
has lived in her lot for 40 years already. She argued that the Social Justice clause of the
Constitution provided that a poor and unlettered urban dweller like her has a right to
her property and to a decent living. The Constitution, however, provides that such
should still be in accordance with law. The SC also said, Social justiceshould be
used only to correct an injustice. As the eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel observed, social
justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among
diverse units of society, and of the protection that should be equally and evenly
extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent
with the fundamental and paramount objective of the State of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about the greatest good to the
greatest number.

Furthermore, RA 7279 does not repeal PD No 1315 and PD 1472 even if it, according to
the petitioner, discourages demolition. There is no provision RA 7279 that expressly
repeals the two decrees. Repeals by implication are not facored as laws are
presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowlee of all laws existing on
the subject.