Regional Trial Court: Comment And/Or Opposition To Motion For Issuance of Writ of Demolition

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 71
Antipolo City
AAAAAAA )
Plaintiff, )
)
)
-versus- ) SCA Case No.
)
) For: Ejectment
)
BBBBBBBB )
)
Defendants. )
x-------------------------------------------------x
COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION TO MOTION

FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF DEMOLITION
Defendant, AAAAAAAAA, through undersigned Public Attorney and

unto this Honorable Court, as and by way of comment and/or opposition to
plaintiffs’ motion for execution, most respectfully avers:
1. On 7 March 2018, the Honorable Court allowed defendant one last

chance to file its comment and/or opposition to plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of a
Writ of Demolition within three (3) days therefrom.
2. Thus, this Comment and/or Opposition.
3. First, herein defendant vehemently opposes the issuance of a Writ

of Demolition considering that there is no compliance with Section 28 of
Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992,
which provides:
“Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. — Eviction or demolition as a

practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed
under the following situations:
(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad
tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public
places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;
(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about
to be implemented; or
(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.
In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and

homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:
(1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date of eviction or demolition;
(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated
representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the
areas where they are to be relocated;
xxx
(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however,

That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving
underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local
government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the
assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service
of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall
be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the
said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing
minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the
affected families by the local government unit concerned. xxx”
4. Section 3(t) of R.A. 7279, in turn, defines the phrase

underprivileged and homeless citizens for the purpose of establishing the
coverage of its provisions, to wit:
“(t) Underprivileged and homeless citizens refers to the beneficiaries of

this Act and to individuals or families residing in urban and urbanizable areas
whose income or combined household income falls within the poverty threshold
as defined by the National Economic and Development Authority and who do
not own housing facilities. This shall include those who live in makeshift
dwelling units and do not enjoy security of tenure;”
s
5. Without question, in view of the financial and other circumstances

of herein defendant, Section 28 of R.A. 7279 applies in the instant case.
6. Thus, in the absence of an adequate relocation for the defendant,

the issuance of a Writ of Demolition is improper.
7. Second, there is nothing in the Decision of the Honorable Court to

be executed that orders the removal of any improvement in the subject property.
8. Elementary is the rule that the execution must conform to the

dispositive portion of the decision to be executed. An execution is void if it is in
excess of and beyond the original judgment or award. Thus, the execution must
2
conform strictly to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated and
may not vary nor go beyond the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.1
9. In view of the foregoing, the instant Motion filed before the

Honorable lower court, should be denied outright.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that the instant Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of
Execution be denied for utter lack of merit.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
Antipolo City, 10 May 2018.
Copy Furnished by Registered Mail:
ATTY. CCCCCCCCCC
Counsel for Plaintiffs
EXPLANATION
1Spouses Iglecerio Mahinay and Fidela Mahinay vs. Hon. Enrique C. Asis, et. al., G.R. No. 170349, 12
February 2009

Regional Trial Court: Comment And/Or Opposition To Motion For Issuance of Writ of Demolition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trial Court: Comment And/Or Opposition To Motion For Issuance of Writ of Demolition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trial Court: Comment And/Or Opposition To Motion For Issuance of Writ of Demolition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION TO MOTION

Defendant, AAAAAAAAA, through undersigned Public Attorney and

1. On 7 March 2018, the Honorable Court allowed defendant one last

2. Thus, this Comment and/or Opposition.

3. First, herein defendant vehemently opposes the issuance of a Writ

“Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. — Eviction or demolition as a

In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and

(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however,

4. Section 3(t) of R.A. 7279, in turn, defines the phrase

“(t) Underprivileged and homeless citizens refers to the beneficiaries of

5. Without question, in view of the financial and other circumstances

6. Thus, in the absence of an adequate relocation for the defendant,

7. Second, there is nothing in the Decision of the Honorable Court to

8. Elementary is the rule that the execution must conform to the

9. In view of the foregoing, the instant Motion filed before the

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

Antipolo City, 10 May 2018.

Copy Furnished by Registered Mail:

You might also like