FACTS: A small portion of land owned by Manotok Realty Inc. situated in TOndo Manila was leased to Arturo Belen. Unknown to the latter, latter, a certain Juliano bought the house house already build inside the lot in question. After the fact came to the knowledge of Belen, he and Juliano came to an agreement that the latter will continue to stay in the said lot on condition that Juliano will shoulder half of the rent of the lot to ManotoK Realty services. Later, a fire razed to the ground of their houses. Belen prevented Juliano from ever erecting erecting a house again within the area. Howver, Belen acceded acceded to the appeal of Juliano for a continued stay, provided that the latter latt er wouldn’t stay beyond two and a half years. Failng to honor the agreement, agreement, Belen sued Juliano before the Metropolitian Trial Court sometime sometime in 1982 and got favourable decision in 1984. Juliano appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The RTC reversed the decision of the lower court on the bases of PD 1670 and PD 1669 that purportedly expropriated expropri ated the Manotok property as early as 1980 where the land in question was located, saying that at the time Belen complained at the MTC the said land was no longer a property of Manotok Realty. Belen raised his case to the Appellate court. the court affirmed the RTC’ s decision on the same grounds. Finally, Belen petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari arguing that Manotok was still the rightful owner of the said property since no Just compensation has been extended to the said company. This time, the High Court reversed and set aside the decisions of CA and RTC and re-instated the decision of the MTC . ISSUES. WON PD 1670 and PD 1669 were constitutional and valid exercise of police power? WON the due process clause was afforded to the aggrieved parties to be heard to determine propriety of the expropriation and the just compensation? HELD: The Supreme Court, supra,. Declared PD1670 and PD 1669 unconstitutional for failing to provide any form of hearing or procedure by which the petitioner could question the propriety of the expropriation or the reasonableness of the compensation to be paid for the property.
