Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc.

G.R. No. 175155/ OCT 22, 2012/MENDOZA, J./PROCEDURAL DUE

PROCESS/IMDQUINTANA

evidence and be heard in court, where opportunity to be heard either

through oral argument or pleadings is accorded, there can be no denial
of procedural due process.

NATURE Petition for review on certiorari

PETITIONERS John C. Arroyo, Jasmin Alipato, Primitivo Belandres, et. al.
RESPONDENTS Rosal Homeowners Associatoin, Inc.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1 WON the petitioners were denied of their right to due process
NO.
The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.
What the
SUMMARY. This case pertains to the procedural due process of evicting members/occupants
of law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but
the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be
the Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc. (RHAI) from the land situated in Brgy. Rosal, Taculing,
In this case the petitioners were given all the opportunity to be
Bacolod City. Petitioners in this case claim that their right to due process was violated heard.
when
heard
they were evicted from their lands. Lower court ruled that there was no violation of the
right.and defend themselves. The RHAI did not violate their right to due
The Supreme Court affirmed this decision. In reviewing the evidence presented, RHAI process
compliedwhen they were expelled and even during the court proceedings
for their case, they were given a chance to be heard. They were even
with the requirements of due process for the eviction of their members.
represented by a proper counsel, Atty. Alan Zamora.
DOCTRINE. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits
is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack ofThe records of this case disclose that there was a board resolution
issued
opportunity to be heard. In any case, the due process guarantee cannot be invoked when
no for the expulsion of the erring or defaulting members of RHAI. The
latter were duly informed that they were already expelled as members of
vested right has been acquired.
the association through notices sent to them. These notices, however,
were refused to be received by petitioners. Their expulsion was made
FACTS.
pursuant to the By-Laws of RHAI as shown by the testimony of Mildred de
There is a parcel of land with an area of 19,897 square meters located in
la Pea (dela Pea), President, on cross-examination by the counsel for
Brgy. Rosal, Taculing, Bacolod City, formerly owned by the Philippine
petitioners.
Commercial International Bank (PCIB).
Petitioners were actual occupants of the subject land. They were occupants
2 WON petitioners were denied their right to own the piece of land
by mere tolerance before the land was acquired by PCIB in 1989. To
under the socialized housing program NO.
avoid eviction and avail the land, occupants of the said land organized
The petitioners are not actual owners of the land they claim to own. They
themselves and formed the RHAI.
refused to sign and participate in activities. Their refusal was a sign of their
The RHAI is a non-stock, non-profit organization and its members are
lack of desire to legally own the land and maintain their membership in
mostly composed of the occupants of the subject land.
the RHAI.
RHAI successfully acquired the land from the PCIB through the Community
Mortgage Program (CMP). All the occupant automatically become
Apparently, petitioners refusal to sign and submit the LPA, the most
members of RHAI.
important requirement of the NHMFC for the acquisition of the land,
The land was then transferred to RHAI with the help of the National Home
disqualified them as loan beneficiaries. As such, they acquire no better
Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
rights than mere occupants of the subject land.
The NHMFC required RHAI members to sign a Lease Purchase Agreement
(LPA) and maintain the membership in the organization.
In any case, the due process guarantee cannot be invoked when
Petitioners refused to sign the LPA and failed to attend meetings. Due to
no vested right has been acquired. The period during which petitioners
their failure to comply with the requirements, the RHAI brought up the
occupied the lots, no matter how long, did not vest them with any right to
issue to their Board of Directors. A resolution was then enforced to evict
claim ownership since it is a fundamental principle of law that acts of
the petitioners from the part of the land that they were occupying. RHAI
possessory character executed by virtue of license or tolerance of the
sent written letters of demand which were ignored by the petitioners.
owner, no matter how long, do not start the running of the period of
This prompted RHAI to file a case against the petitioners for recovery of
acquisitive prescription.
possession.

RTC: The court ruled in favor of RHAI. The petitioners were found to be nonmembers when they were expelled by the organization. This was due to
their failure to comply with the membership requirements. They have no
right to remain in the land.
CA: The court affirmed the trial courts decision. They were not denied the
right to due process. They were given the opportunity to present

DECISION.
Petition denied. CA and RTC decision affirmed.