DOJ Opinion No. 012, s. 2000

DOJ OPINION NO. 012 , s. 2000 February 3, 2000 Honorable Belinda C. Manahan Undersecretary for Management Department of Social Welfare and Development Batasan Pambansa Complex, Constitution Hills Quezon City M a d a m : This has reference to your letter (with attachments) addressed to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and subsequently indorsed to this Department in connection with the request of Ms. Elsa F. Dacuycuy, President Pag-asa Samahan ng Magkakapit-Bahay sa Brookside Nueve de Pebrero, Inc. (PSMBBI) for the immediate implementation of Presidential Decree No. 2016 ( Prohibiting The Eviction of Occupant Families From Land Identified And Proclaimed As Areas For Priority Development [APD] Or As Urban Land Reform Zones And Exempting Such Land From Payment of Real Property Tax ) relative to the Areas Priority Development for Urban Land Reform Zone (A.P.D. No. 7) in Mandaluyong City. prcd Specifically, legal advice/opinion is requested as to what appropriate action the DSWD may take should this Department find the request of PSMBBI to be in order. It appears from the attached documents, particularly Annex "E" of the Petition of PSMBBI, dated October 26, 1998, addressed to President Estrada (see Report dated 08 December 1998 of Atty. Jose S. Loriega, Jr., Investigator, to the Administrator of Land Registration Authority thru the (Chief-Inspection and Investigation Division, pursuant to Assignment Order No. 051895) that the area being claimed by PSMBBI as A.P.D. No. 7 is within the "Welfareville Properties" which the government is planning to sell pursuant to R.A. No. 5260; that the said Report indicates the following findings and recommendation: Findings: "1. Plan Pcs-13-001031 in the name of DSWD is a consolidation plan of the land covered by eleven separate certificates of titles registered in the name of Insular Government." "2. Plan Pcs-13-001031 appeared to a table survey, not a faithful representation of Welfareville Properties. It failed to depict the Brookside Creek, an extant natural landmark that runs within Lot 2 [TCT 10144], Lot 3 [TCT 10145] and Lot 10 [TCT 10946]" "3. That strip of land occupied by petitioners PSMBBI, i . e . between Nueve de Pebrero Street and Brookside Creek, is unquestionably the APD listed as No. 7 of Annex List, of Proclamation No. 1967 and said area is within the assailed Plan-13-001031." "4. That petitioners PSMBBI [and SNNSBI] are homeowners of concrete houses and occupant of more than ten years in that land identified as APD by law. Recommendation: "Premises considered, finding that the consolidation subdivision Plan Pcs-13-001031 not a faithful representation of Welfareville properties, it is respectfully recommended that cancellation of Plan Pcs-13-001031 be effected." With regret, this Department has to decline rendition of opinion on the matter for the following reasons: Firstly, the subject matter of your query involves the substantive rights of private parties and since the opinion of the Secretary of Justice is merely advisory in nature, such opinion would not be binding upon said private parties who, if adversely affected by such opinion, may take issue therewith and contest it before the courts. As a matter of policy, therefore, the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from rendering opinion on questions which are justiciable in nature or those which may be the subject of litigation before the courts (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 91, s. 1987; Ops. No. 19 and 92, s. 1971; Op. No. 108, s. 1978 and Op. No. 46, s. 1981). Secondly, the query also involves factual issues. By established precedents, this Office has declined to resolve questions of fact or even mixed questions of fact and law, for the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney-General, is empowered by the statute to rule only upon questions of law (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 222, s. 1956; No. 128, s. 1977 and No. 192, s. 1982). Thirdly, there is no showing that the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) has acted with finality on the findings and recommendation of the Inspection and Investigation Division. Hence, any opinion that may be taken thereon would be tantamount to preempting whatever action the LRA Administrator may deem appropriate on the matter. Moreover, any opinion that I might render thereon would be purely hypothetical and anticipatory and would also be misconstrued as undue interference in or intrusion into the exercise of the discretion of the LRA Administrator. Accordingly, it is suggested that it would be to the best interest of all concerned that the factual issues of the matter be resolved first with finality by the Office of the Land Registration Authority. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS Secretary