Badillo v. Tayag

8/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 400
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Badillo vs. Tayag
*
G.R. No. 143976. April 3, 2003.
Spouses OSCAR and HAYDEE BADILLO, petitioners, vs.

Hon. ARTURO G. TAYAG as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Malolos, Bulacan; and the
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondents.
*
G.R. No. 145846. April 3, 2003.
Spouses OSCAR and HAYDEE BADILLO, petitioners, vs.

Hon. BASILIO A. GABO, JR., as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan; and the
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondents.
Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Appeals; Docket Fees;

In appeals from the MTC to the RTC, failure to pay the appellate
docket fees within the fifteen-day reglementary period bestows on
the appellate court a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss
an appeal.—It holds that in appeals from the MTC to the RTC,
failure to pay the appellate docket fee within the fifteen-day
reglementary period bestows on the appellate court
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
495
VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 495
Badillo vs. Tayag
a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal. The

Court ratiocinated as follows: “x x x [T]his Court restated the
importance and real purpose of the remedy of appeal as an
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c647c2a613a62dc49003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
essential part of our judicial system and advised the courts to

proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of a right to
appeal with the instruction that every party-litigant should be
afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
disposition if his cause, freed from the constraints of
technicalities. Rightly so, for the payment of the appellate docket
fee is not a requirement for the protection of the prevailing party,
and non-compliance therewith within the time prescribed causes
no substantial prejudice to anyone.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Payment of appellate fees from the
RTC to the CA and from the CA to the SC is mandatory according
to the Rules.—On the other hand, the cases cited by petitioners
involve appeals—not from the MTC to the RTC—but from the
RTC to the CA and from the CA to the SC, for which the payment
of appellate fees is indeed mandatory according to the Rules. We
quote Manalili v. Arsenio and De Leon: “Appeal is not a right, but
a mere statutory privilege. Corollary to this principle is that the
appeal must be exercised strictly in accordance with provisions
set by law. x x x “x x x [T]he payment of the appellate docket fee is
not a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential
requirement, without which the decision or final order appealed
from would become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at
all.”
Ejectment; Appeal; Supersedes Bond; Such bond is required to
assure the payment of damages to the winning party in case the
appeal is found frivolous.—There is a rationale for requiring a
losing party to file a supersedeas bond in order to stay the
immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case. Such
bond is required to assure the payment of damages to the winning
party in case the appeal is found frivolous.
Same; Same; Same; Exemption; When the State litigates, it is
not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond.
—In the present cases, the posting of a supersedeas bond is not
necessary to stay the execution of the MTC Order. When a case
involves provable rents or damages incurred by a government-
owned or controlled corporation, the real party in interest is the
Republic of the Philippines. When the State litigates, it is not
required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond—
either directly or indirectly through its authorized officers—
because it is presumed to be always solvent.
Same; Same; Rental; Factors.—In determining reasonable
rent, the RTC therein took account of the following factors: 1) the
realty assessment of the land, 2) the increase in realty taxes, and
3) the prevailing rate of rentals in the vicinity.
496
Badillo vs. Tayag
Same; Same; Same; The reasonable amount of rent could be

determined not by mere judicial notice, but by supporting evidence.
—The reasonable amount of rent could be determined not by mere
judicial notice, but by supporting evidence: “x x x. A court cannot
take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy. The court
may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which
are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial functions. Before taking
such judicial notice, the court must ‘allow the parties to be heard
thereon.’ Hence, there can be no judicial notice on the rental value
of the premises in question without supporting evidence.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Walter T. Young for petitioners.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The National Housing Authority (NHA), a government-

owned and controlled corporation, is exempt from paying
appellate docket fees when it sues or is sued in relation to
its governmental function of providing mass housing. It is
likewise exempt from filing a supersedeas bond that will
stay the execution of a forcible entry case. In order to have
some bases for fixing the reasonable amount of rent in a
forcible entry case, courts must rely on the evidence
presented by the parties.
The Case
Before us are two (2) consolidated Petitions for Review

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside
two rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of 1
Malolos,
Bulacan. The first one is the July 19, 2000 Order issued by
Branch 79 in Case No. 2
P-410-M-2000, annulling both the
May 23, 32000 Order and the May 30, 2000 Writ of
Execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. The dispositive portion of
this assailed RTC Order reads as follows:
_______________
1 See pp. 24-39 of the Rollo in G.R. No. 143976; penned by Judge Arturo
G. Tayag.
2 Id., p. 51.
3 Id., pp. 52-54.
497
VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 497

Badillo vs. Tayag
“WHEREFORE, the [O]rder of the [t]rial [c]ourt dated May 23,

2000 is hereby annulled.
“The [W]rit of [Execution issued by the clerk of court of the
Municipal Trial Court of San Jose del Monte Bulacan is also
annulled.
“Prohibiting the [t]rial [c]ourt from enforcing the [W]rit; and
commanding the Municipal Trial Court to transmit the records of
the case to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan together with the
Money Order of [t]wo hundred [p]esos Annex ‘I’ and ‘I-2’ as
appellate docket fee and the alleged Supersedeas Bond per
[Annex] ‘A’, ‘A-1’, ‘A-2’ to ‘A-3’ of the OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO CLARIFY (with manifestation) filed by Petitioner NHA
received
4
by this [C]ourt on July 17, 2000 although dated July 14,
2000.”
The second
5
ruling being contested is the October 23, 2000
Decision of Branch 11 in Civil Case No.6 512-M-2000, which
modified the February 1, 2000 Decision of the MTC of San
Jose del Monte, Bulacan. The challenged RTC Decision
disposed as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED

insofar as defendants are ordered to vacate plaintiffs’ property
and return the possession thereof to the latter and to pay
plaintiffs, jointly and severally P20,000.00 for attorney’s fees and
P20,000.00 7 for litigation expenses and to pay the costs are
concerned.”
Since the parties were the same and the issues related, the
two Petitions were consolidated8
by this Court in its
Resolution of October 17, 2001.
The Facts
Petitioners are plaintiffs in a forcible entry/ejectment case

docketed as Civil Case No. 263-94 in the MTC of San Jose
del Monte, Bulacan, entitled “Spouses Oscar and Haydee
Badillo v. Triad Construction and Development
Corporation and National 9

Housing Authority.” In its
February 1, 2000 Decision, the MTC ordered the
_______________
4 Assailed RTC Order, p. 16; page 39 of the Rollo in G.R. No. 143973.
5 Penned by Judge Basilio Gabo, Jr.; See pp. 17-19 of the Rollo in G.R.
No. 145846.
6 Written by Judge Aznar D. Lindayag; pp. 20-30 of the Rollo in G.R.
No. 145846.
7 Id., p. 19.
8 October 17, 2001 Resolution; id., p. 111.
9 G.R. No. 143976; Rollo, pp. 40-50.
498

Badillo vs. Tayag
NHA to vacate the disputed land; to return possession

thereof to petitioners; to pay rental for its use and
occupation at the rate of P10 per square meter per month;
and to shoulder the attorney’s fees, the litigation expenses
and the costs of suit.
The disputed parcel of land was part of the Bagong
Silang Resettlement Project (BSRP) of the NHA. The NHA
contended that the property was part of the Tala Estate
and was among the 598 hectares reserved by the
government for its housing resettlement site, pursuant to
Presidential Proclamation No. 843 issued by then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos on April 26, 1971.
In June 1994, the NHA offered for bidding the
development of certain portions of the BSRP. It eventually
contracted with the Triad Construction and Development
Corporation (“Triad”) for the development of parts of the
site. These were then developed and subdivided into
smaller lots that were allocated, awarded and distributed
by the NHA to qualified beneficiaries.
On the other hand, petitioners claimed that they were
the owners and exclusive possessors of a portion of the land
that had been awarded by the NHA to Triad. They argued
that the NHA intruded on, occupied and developed their
property despite their protests.
Upon receipt of the February 1, 200010 Decision of the
MTC, the NHA filed a Notice of Appeal with the same
court on February 24, 2000. The NHA, however, did not
pay the appellate docket fees within the reglementary
period. Consequently, petitioners filed with that court a
Motion for the immediate

11
issuance of a writ of execution
and demolition. They contended that because of the
NHA’s failure to pay the appellate docket fees within the
prescribed period, the MTC Decision became final.
After a hearing on the Motion, the MTC promulgated an
Order on May 23, 2000, authorizing the issuance of a writ
of execution in favor of petitioners:
“For failure of the National Housing Authority to comply with the

requirements laid down under Section 5 of Rule 40 as regards the
payment of docket fee and for its failure to comply with Section 19
of Rule 70 in regard to the payment of the supersedeas bond, the
execution of the judg-
_______________
10 Records, Vol. II, pp. 280-281.

11 Id., pp. 292-294.
499
VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 499

Badillo vs. Tayag
ment rendered in this case has become a ministerial duty of the

court in view of the mandatory nature of said requirements.
“Let therefore, a writ
12
of execution be issued immediately
against the defendants.”
13
Thereafter, the Writ of Execution was actually issued by 14
the MTC on May 30, 2000. Pursuant thereto, the sheriff
served a Notice of Garnishment of NHA’s funds in the
Landbank of the Philippines. The bank, however, refused
to release the garnished amount.
On June 9, 2000, the NHA filed a Motion to set aside
15
the
Writ of Execution and the Notice of Garnishment. The
Motion was,16 however, denied by the MTC in its June 23,
2000 Order.
The NHA paid the appellate dockets fees only on June
29, 2000—four months late. It simultaneously filed a
Petition for
17
Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and
Injunction before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, assailing
the MTC’s May 23, 2000 Order and May 30, 2000 Writ of
Execution.
Acting on the NHA Petition, RTC Executive Judge
Danilo A. Manalastas18
issued a 72-hour Temporary
Restraining Order. Thereafter, the case was assigned to
RTC Branch 79, which issued the first assailed July 19,
2000 Order annulling the Writ. After declaring that the
NHA had been able to perfect its appeal on time, the RTC
ordered the MTC to transmit the records of the case for
appropriate appellate proceedings.
Upon transmittal of the records from the MTC, the case
was raffled to RTC Branch 11, which issued the second
assailed October 23, 2000 Decision. This Decision was
appealed by the NHA to the Court of Appeals (CA). The
appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 61981, is still pending
resolution.
_______________
12 G.R. No. 143976; Rollo, p. 51.

13 Id., pp. 52-54.
14 Benjamin C. Hao; id., p. 55.
15 Records, Vol. II, pp. 364-367.
16 G.R. NO. 143976; Rollo, pp. 59-60.
17 Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-32.
18 Dated June 29, 2000; Records, Vol. III, pp. 64-65.
500

Badillo vs. Tayag
Rulings of the RTC
The NHA was able to perfect its appeal on time despite its
non-payment of appellate docket fees, according to the
ruling of RTC Branch 79. The NHA as a government-owned
corporation was presumed to be always solvent and thus
exempt from filing a supersedeas bond, which would stay
the immediate execution of a forcible entry case. With the
perfection of the appeal, the MTC lost jurisdiction to issue
and enforce the Writ of Execution.
Partly affirming the MTC, RTC Branch 11 held that
petitioners were entitled to the right of possession of the
property and to the award of damages, but that the grant of
rental was baseless. 19
Hence, this recourse.
Issues
Petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration:
“Whether or not the Order of Respondent Judge Gabo deleting the

payment of rentals for the use and occupation of the lot in
question is 20in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence on
the matter”
II
“Whether or not NHA perfected its appeal to the RTC Bulacan

despite failure to pay the docket/appeal fee within the 15 day
period provided for in Section 5, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure
III
“Whether or not the NHA being a government corporation is

exempt from the posting of the supersedeas bond to stay execution
as provided for in Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure
_______________
19 This case was deemed submitted for decision on December 18, 2001,
upon receipt by this Court of respondents’ Memorandum signed by Mario
P. Escobar, Ma. Magdalena T. de Leon-Siacon and Jose M. Manuel Jr. of
the Legal Department of the NHA. Petitioners’ Memorandum, signed by
Walter T. Young, was received by this Court on November 26, 2001.
20 See Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 5; G.R. No. 145846; Rollo, p. 116.
Original in upper case.
501
VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 501

Badillo vs. Tayag
IV
“Whether or not RTC Bulacan was correct in annulling the Order

dated May 23, 2000; the Writ of Execution
21
and the Notice of
Garnishment issued by MTC, Bulacan”
These issues can be more clearly restated thus:
(1) Is the failure of the NHA to pay the appellate

docket fee within the fifteen-day reglementary
period a ground to dismiss its appeal?
(2) Is the NHA exempt from filing the supersedeas
bond in order to stay the execution of the MTC
judgment?
(3) Was it proper for RTC Branch 11 to delete the

rentals awarded by the MTC?
Ruling of the Court
The Petitions are unmeritorious.
First Issue:
Payment of Appellate Docket Fees
22
Created by virtue of PD No. 757, the NHA is a
government-owned and controlled corporation with an
original charter. As a general rule, however, such
corporations—with or without independent charters—are
required to pay legal fees under Section 21 of Rule 141 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
“SEC. 21. Government Exempt.—The Republic of the Philippines,

its agencies and instrumentalities, are exempt from paying the
legal fees provided in this rule. Local governments and
government-owned or controlled corporations with or without23
independent charters are not exempt from paying such fees.”
_______________
21 See Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp. 6-7; G.R. No. 143976; Rollo, pp.
131-132. Original in upper case.
22 Entitled “Creating the National Housing Authority and Dissolving
the Existing Housing Agencies, Defining Its Powers and Functions,
Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes”; dated July 31, 1975.
23 Resolution Amending Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court,
issued in AM NO. 00-2-01-SC.
502

Badillo vs. Tayag
On the other hand, the NHA contends that it is exempt

from paying all kinds of fees and charges, because it
performs governmental 24
functions. It cites Public Estates
Authority v. Yujuico, which holds that the Public Estates
Authority (PEA), a government-owned and controlled
corporation, is exempt from paying docket fees whenever it
files a suit in relation to its governmental functions.
We agree. People’s Homesite25 and Housing Corporation v.

Court of Industrial Relations declares that the provision
of mass housing is a governmental function:
“Coming now to the case at bar, We note that since 1941 when the
National Housing Commission (predecessor of PHHC, which is
now known as the National Housing Authority [NHA] was
created, the Philippine government has pursued a mass housing
and resettlement program to meet the needs of Filipinos for
decent housing. The agency tasked with implementing such
governmental program was the PHHC. These can be gleaned from
the provisions of Commonwealth Act 648, the charter of said
agency.
“We rule that the PHHC is a governmental institution
performing governmental functions.
“This is not the first time We are ruling on the proper
characterization of housing as an activity of the government. In
the 1985 case of National Housing Corporation v. Juco and the
NLRC (No. L-64313, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 172), We ruled
that housing is a governmental function.”
While it has not always been easy to distinguish

governmental from proprietary functions, the Court’s
declaration in the Decision quoted above is not without
basis. Indeed, the characterization of governmental
functions has veered away from the traditional constituent-
ministrant
26
classification that has become unrealistic, if not
obsolete. Justice Isagani A. Cruz avers: “[I]t is now 27
obligatory upon the State itself to promote social justice,
to provide ade-
_______________
24 351 SCRA 280, February 6, 2001.

25 150 SCRA 296, May 29, 1987, per Cortes, J.
26 People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Court of Industrial
Relations, 150 SCRA 296, May 29, 1987.
27 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 10. “The State shall promote social justice
in all phases of national development.”
503
VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 503

Badillo vs. Tayag
quate 28social services to promote a rising standard of

living, to afford protection to labor to formulate and
implement urban and agrarian reform programs, and to
adopt other measures intended to ensure the dignity,

welfare and security of its citizens. x x x. These functions,
while traditionally regarded as merely ministrant and
optional, have29
been made compulsory by the
Constitution.”
In addition, the NHA is mandated by PD No. 757 to
develop and implement
30
a comprehensive, integrated 31
housing program for the greatest number of people.
Thus, to be able to perform its governmental functions, the
housing agency is vested with sovereign powers. Such
powers include, among others, the exercise of the right of
eminent domain or the right to acquire by purchase pri-
_______________
28 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 9. “The State shall promote a just and
dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of
the nation, free the people from poverty through policies that provide
adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of
living, and an improved quality of life for all.”
29 I. Cruz, Philippine Political Law (1998), pp. 21-22.
30 “SECTION 1. Housing Program.—Pursuant to the mandate of the
New Constitution, there shall be developed a comprehensive and
integrated housing program which shall embrace, among others, housing
development and resettlement, sources and schemes of financing, and
delineation of government and private sector participation x x x.”
“SEC. 2. Creation of the National Housing Authority.—There is hereby
created a government corporation to be known as the National Housing
Authority, hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority,’ to develop and implement
the housing program above-mentioned, x x x.”
31 “SEC. 3. Purposes and Objectives.—The Authority shall have the
following purposes and objectives:
(a) To provide and maintain adequate housing for the greatest

possible number of people;
(b) To undertake housing, development, resettlement or other
activities as would enhance the provision of housing to every
Filipino;
(c) To harness and promote private participation in housing ventures
in terms of capital expenditures, land expertise, financing and
other facilities for the sustained growth of the housing industry.”
504

Badillo vs. Tayag
vately owned lands for purposes of housing development,

32
resettlement, and related services and facilities.
Furthermore, under the Urban Development and
Housing Act of 1992, the NHA, in cooperation with other
government units and agencies, is mandated to identify
and acquire lands for socialized 33
housing for the
underprivileged and the homeless.
Notably, it was in its performance of this governmental
function to provide mass housing that the NHA was sued
by petitioners.
Perfection of the Appeal

We agree with the RTC that, insofar as appeals from the
MTC to the RTC are concerned, the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure do not mandate the dismissal of an appeal as a
consequence of the non-payment of the
34
required fee.
Martinez v. Court of Appeals holds that in such
appeals, “the failure to pay the appellate docket fees does
not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal, the
dismissal being discretionary on the part of the appellate
35
court.”
36
While that case was governed by Sections 20 and
23 of the Interim Rules and Guide-
_______________
32 “SEC. 6. Powers and Functions of the Authority.—The Authority

shall have the following powers and functions to be exercised by the Board
in accordance with the established national human settlements plan
prepared by the Human Settlements Commission:
x x x x x x x x x
(d) Exercise the right of eminent domain or acquire by purchase privately

owned lands for purposes of housing development, resettlement and
related services and facilities; x x x.”
33 See Sections 8, 9 and 12 of RA No. 7279.

34 358 SCRA 38, May 21, 2001, per Mendoza, J., citing Fontanar v.
Bonsubre, 145 SCRA 663, November 25, 1986; and Del Rosario & Sons
Logging Enterprises, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 136
SCRA 669, May 31, 1985.
35 “SEC. 20. Procedure for taking appeal.—An appeal from the
metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts or municipal circuit trial
courts to the regional trial courts, and from the regional trial courts to the
Intermediate Appellate Court in actions or proceedings originally filed in
the former shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that
rendered the judgment or order appealed from.”
36 “SEC. 23. Perfection of appeal.—In cases where appeal is taken, the
perfection of the appeal shall be upon the expiration of the last day to
appeal by any party.”
505
VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 505

Badillo vs. Tayag
lines issued by the Court on January 11, 1983 to

implement the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981 (BP
Blg. 129), the present Rules lead to a similar conclusion.
Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, parties perfect
an appeal from the judgment of the MTC to the RTC by
filing a notice of appeal within the fifteen day reglementary
period, as provided under Section 4 of Rule 40 and Section
9 of Rule 41:
Rule 40—
“SEC. 4. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof.—The perfection of the

appeal and the effect thereof shall be governed by the provisions
of Section 9, Rule 41: Rule 41—
“SEC. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof.—A party’s appeal
by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon filing of
the notice of appeal in due time.
xxx xxx xxx
“In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over
the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and
the expiration of the time to appeal of the other party.”
37
Fontanar v. Bonsubre is a case in point. It holds that in
appeals from the MTC to the RTC, failure to pay the
appellate docket fee within the fifteen-day reglementary
period bestows on the appellate court a directory, not a
mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal. The Court
ratiocinated as follows:
“x x x [T]his Court restated the importance and real purpose of

the remedy of appeal as an essential part of our judicial system
and advised the courts to proceed with caution so as not to
deprive a party of a right to appeal with the instruction that every
party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the
proper and just disposition if his cause, freed from the constraints
of technicalities. Rightly so, for the payment of the appellate
docket fee is not a requirement for the protection of the prevailing
party, and non-compliance therewith within the time prescribed
causes no substantial prejudice to anyone.”
On the other hand, the cases cited by petitioners involve

appeals—not from the MTC to the RTC—but from the RTC
to the CA
_______________
37 Supra.
506

Badillo vs. Tayag
and from the CA to the SC, for which the payment of 38

appellate fees is indeed mandatory according
39
to the Rules.
We quote Manalili v. Arsenio De Leon:
“Appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory privilege. Corollary to

this principle is that the appeal must be exercised strictly in
accordance with provisions set by law. x x x
“x x x [T]he payment of the appellate docket fee is not a mere
technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement,
without which the decision or final order appealed from40 would
become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all.”
In the instant cases, when the NHA filed a Notice of Appeal

on February 22, 2000—two days before the appeal period
lapsed—it perfected its appeal and the MTC thereby lost
its jurisdiction. The MTC therefore acted without
jurisdiction in issuing the May 23, 2000 Order and the May
30, 2000 Writ of Execution.
Second Issue:
The Filing of a Supersedeas Bond
There is a rationale for requiring a losing party to file a

supersedeas bond in order to stay the immediate execution
of a judgment in an ejectment case. Such bond is required
to assure the payment of damages to the winning party in
case the appeal is found frivolous.
In the present cases, the posting of a supersedeas bond
is not necessary to stay the execution of the MTC Order.
When a case involves provable rents or damages incurred
by a government-owned or controlled corporation, the real
party in interest is the Republic of the Philippines. When
the State litigates, it is not required to put up a bond for
damages or even an appeal bond—
_______________
38 The payment of appellate fees within the 15-day reglementary period

is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal to the CA from a decision of
the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under

Section 8, Rule 42; an appeal from the CA to the Supreme Court is
governed by Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
39 G.R. No. 140858, November 27, 2001, 370 SCRA 625.
40 Id., pp. 6-7, per Panganiban, J.
507
VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 507

Badillo vs. Tayag
either directly or indirectly through its authorized

41
officers
—because it is presumed to be always solvent.
Thus, it would be unnecessary to ask the NHA to file a
bond because to do so would be to indirectly require the
government to submit the bond. And the State is not
required to file a bond for the 42obvious reason that it is
capable of paying its obligation. In any event, the NHA
has already paid the appellate docket fees and filed the
supersedeas bond as ordered by the RTC, albeit late.
Third Issue:
The Award of Rentals
43
Citing Sia v. Court of Appeals, petitioners argue that the
MTC may take judicial notice of the reasonable rental or
the general price increase of land in order to determine the
amount of rent that may be awarded to them. In that case,
however, this Court relied on the CA’s factual findings,
which were based on the evidence presented before the
trial court. In determining reasonable rent, the RTC
therein took account of the following factors: 1) the realty
assessment of the land, 2) the increase in realty taxes, and
3) the prevailing rate of rentals in the vicinity. Clearly, the
trial court relied, not on mere judicial notice, but on the
evidence presented before it.
Indeed, courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent for
the use and occupation of a disputed property. However,
petitioners herein erred in assuming that courts, in
determining the amount of rent, could simply rely on their
own appreciation of land values without considering any
evidence. As we have said earlier, a court may fix the
reasonable amount of rent, but it must still base its action
on the evidence adduced 44
by the parties.
In Herrera v. Bollos, the trial court awarded rent to the
defendants in a forcible entry case. Reversing the RTC, this
Court declared that the reasonable amount of rent could be
determined not by mere judicial notice, but by supporting

evidence:
_______________
41 Araneta v. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328, April 30, 1957.

42 Ibid.
43 212 SCRA 141, May 5, 1997.
44 G.R. No. 138258, January 18, 2002, 374 SCRA 107.
508

Badillo vs. Tayag
“x x x. A court cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in

controversy. The court may take judicial notice of matters of
public knowledge, or which are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions. Before taking such judicial notice, the court
must ‘allow the parties to be heard thereon.’ Hence, there can be
no judicial notice on the rental
45
value of the premises in question
without supporting evidence.
In the instant cases, the RTC has already declared that

there is no evidence on record to support the MTC’s award
of rent. We find no cogent reason to disturb this
pronouncement.
Finally, the belated prayer of the NHA for the dismissal
of the forcible entry case cannot be granted, because it
appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, not to this Court. As
a mere respondent in these appealed cases, the NHA is not
entitled to any affirmative relief. Besides, we would not
want to preempt the CA’s action on the said appeal.
WHEREFORE, the Petitions are hereby DENIED. Costs
against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and

Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Note.—The filing of the supersedeas bond and monthly

rental deposits is not conclusive of the appellants’ intent to
pursue their appeal—the purpose of the supersedeas bond
and the monthly rental deposit is to stay the execution of
the judgment and does not have any relevance whatsoever
to the appeal. (Vda. de Cochingyan vs. Court of Appeals,

360 SCRA 379 [2001])
——o0o——
_______________
45 Id., p. 8; per Pardo, J.
509
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Badillo v. Tayag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Badillo v. Tayag

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Badillo v. Tayag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/6/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 400

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Spouses OSCAR and HAYDEE BADILLO, petitioners, vs.

Spouses OSCAR and HAYDEE BADILLO, petitioners, vs.

Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Appeals; Docket Fees;

VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 495

Badillo vs. Tayag

a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal. The

essential part of our judicial system and advised the courts to

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Badillo vs. Tayag

Same; Same; Same; The reasonable amount of rent could be

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The National Housing Authority (NHA), a government-

Before us are two (2) consolidated Petitions for Review

VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 497

“WHEREFORE, the [O]rder of the [t]rial [c]ourt dated May 23,

“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED

Petitioners are plaintiffs in a forcible entry/ejectment case

Corporation and National 9

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NHA to vacate the disputed land; to return possession

Motion for the immediate

“For failure of the National Housing Authority to comply with the

10 Records, Vol. II, pp. 280-281.

VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 499

ment rendered in this case has become a ministerial duty of the

12 G.R. No. 143976; Rollo, p. 51.

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rulings of the RTC

Petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration:

“Whether or not the Order of Respondent Judge Gabo deleting the

“Whether or not NHA perfected its appeal to the RTC Bulacan

“Whether or not the NHA being a government corporation is

VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 501

“Whether or not RTC Bulacan was correct in annulling the Order

These issues can be more clearly restated thus:

(1) Is the failure of the NHA to pay the appellate

(3) Was it proper for RTC Branch 11 to delete the

Ruling of the Court

The Petitions are unmeritorious.

“SEC. 21. Government Exempt.—The Republic of the Philippines,

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On the other hand, the NHA contends that it is exempt

We agree. People’s Homesite25 and Housing Corporation v.

While it has not always been easy to distinguish

24 351 SCRA 280, February 6, 2001.

VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 503

quate 28social services to promote a rising standard of

adopt other measures intended to ensure the dignity,

(a) To provide and maintain adequate housing for the greatest

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

vately owned lands for purposes of housing development,

Perfection of the Appeal

32 “SEC. 6. Powers and Functions of the Authority.—The Authority

(d) Exercise the right of eminent domain or acquire by purchase privately

33 See Sections 8, 9 and 12 of RA No. 7279.

appeal by any party.”

VOL. 400, APRIL 3, 2003 505