Astudillo v. Board of Directors Case Digest

Constitutional Law – 1
Andrei R. Tibi
S.N. 22-00373 -Section C
Astudillo v. Board of Directors: Case Digest

I. Citation
Astudillo v. Board of Directors 73 SCRA (1976)
II. Nature and Procedural History

Peregrina Astudillo appealed from the "resolution" dated April 18, 1967, of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch V, granting the motion for summary judgment filed by
Ramon P. Mitra and dismissing her petition for certiorari and mandamus.
III. Facts
 Mitra on December 28, 1957, applied in behalf of his minor son for the purchase of Lot 16,
Block E-155 of the East Avenue Subdivision of the PHHC in Piñahan, Q.C. It was approved
on January 3, 1958.
 Mitra made a down payment equivalent to 10% of the price and later paid the full price of
nine thousand pesos. Final deed of sale was executed in his favor on February 18, 1965. The
Transfer Certificate of Title was issued on March 1, 1965.
 The lot in question is in the possession of Peregrina Astudillo where she constructed a shanty
house, squatting “uninterruptedly since 1957 up to the present”.
 She filed a request with the administrative investigating committee of the PHHC dated
February 24, 1963, to cancel the award of Lot 16 to Mitra and recommend that it be re-
awarded to her. No action was taken on that request.
 On May 3, 1965, Peregrina filed her petition in the lower court against the PHHC board of
directors, the register of deeds of Quezon City, and the spouses Mitra. She questioned the
legality of the award of Lot 16 to Mitra. She asked that Lot 16 be sold to her.
IV. Issue:
1. Does Peregrina Astudillo have a cause of action to annul the sale of Lot 16?
2. Are the remedies of mandamus and certiorari used by the petitioner proper?
3. Can the issue on graft and corruption be used to resolve this case?
V. Decision
WHEREFORE, the lower court's order of dismissal is affirmed. No costs.
VI. Held:
1. No. We hold that she has no cause of action to impugn the award to Mitra and to require that
she be allowed to purchase the lot. As a squatter, she has no possessory rights over Lot 16.
2. No. Respondent PHHC board is not the board contemplated in section 1 of Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. It does not exercise judicial functions.
3. No. The court is in the opinion that assignment of error need not be resolved in this case.
VII. Reasoning (Analysis)

1. No. As a squatter, Astudillo has no possessory rights over Lot 16. She was not entitled to sue Mitra
and the PHHC for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention of a wrong. Those
respondents did not commit any delict or wrong in violation of Astudillo’s rights. Given that she is
not bound principally or subsidiarily in the contract of sale between Mitra and the PHHC, she is not
entitled to ask for its annulment (Art. 1397, Civil Code).
The State is committed to promote social justice and to maintain adequate social services in the field
of housing (Secs. 6 and 7, Art. 11, New Constitution). However, the State’s concern for the destitute
and the have-nots does not mean that it should tolerate usurpations of property, public, or private.
The State, in carrying out its social readjustment policies, could not simply lay aside moral standards,
and aim to favor usurpers, squatters, and intruders, unmindful of the lawful and unlawful origin and
character of their occupancy. Such a policy would perpetuate conflicts instead of attaining their just
solution”
2. No. Respondent PHHC board is not the board contemplated in section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. It does not exercise judicial functions. The award being questioned was a routinary corporate
act that was within the board’s competence. No jurisdictional issue was involved in that award.
Certiorari lies only for the correction of jurisdictional errors nor is the relief sought by Astudillo,
which is to compel the PHHC board to cancel the award of Lot 16 to Mitra and to resell it to her, a
right that can be enforced by mandamus. What she wants is to force the PHHC to execute a contract
of sale in her favor. That is not within the purview of the writ of mandamus. Thus, it was held that
“the writ of mandamus is not an appropriate or even admissible remedy to enforce the performance
of a private contract which has not been fully performed by either party.” The PHHC board
completely ignored the alleged demands of Peregrina for the purchase of Lot 16. It did not render
any decision against her. Its inaction cannot be assailed by certiorari or mandamus.
3. No. The court is in the opinion that assignment of error need not be resolved in this case. Having
shown that Astudillo has no cause of action to assail the award of Lot 16 to Mitra, it follows that in
this particular case, she cannot assail that award by invoking the provisions of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Law and the Constitution.

Astudillo v. Board of Directors Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Astudillo v. Board of Directors Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Astudillo v. Board of Directors Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law – 1

Astudillo v. Board of Directors: Case Digest

II. Nature and Procedural History

VII. Reasoning (Analysis)

You might also like