NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA) V.

HEIRS OF GUIVELONDO
PETs: National Housing Authority (NHA)
RESPO:
Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo (owner of Cadastral Lot No. 1613-D located at Carreta, Mabolo, Cebu City)
Pascual Y. Abordo (Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Cebu City)
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Principle involved: Express consent - Incorporation of GOCCs

Petitioner, on July 16, 2001, filed with the trial court a Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-
23386, complaint for eminent domain, alleging that the implementation of its socialized housing project
was rendered impossible by the unconscionable value of the land sought to be expropriated, which the
intended beneficiaries can not afford. The Motion was denied on September 17, 2001, on the ground that
the Partial Judgment, which adopted the recommendation of the Commissioners and fixing the just
compensation of the lands of respondent Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo at P11,200.00 per square meter, had
already become final and executory and there was no just and equitable reason to warrant the dismissal
of the case.
Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, praying for the annulment of
the Order of the trial court denying its Motion to Dismiss and its Motion for Reconsideration, which was
dismissed by the CA. A Notice of Levy pursuant to the Writ of Execution was then served to the PET to
enforce the Partial Judgment.
On May 27, 2002, respondent sheriff served on the Landbank of the Philippines a Notice of Third
Garnishment against the deposits, moneys and interests of petitioner therein. Subsequently, respondent
sheriff levied on funds and personal properties of petitioner.
Hence, petitioner filed this petition for review,

Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT WRITS OF EXECUTION AND GARNISHMENT MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST THE
STATE IN AN EXPROPRIATION WHEREIN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
WILL NOT SERVE PUBLIC USE OR PURPOSE

Held:
Yes. If the funds belong to a public corporation or a government-owned or controlled corporation
which is clothed with a personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of the government, then its
funds are not exempt from garnishment. This is so because when the government enters into commercial
business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.
In the case of petitioner NHA, the matter of whether its funds and properties are exempt from
garnishment has already been resolved squarely against its predecessor, the Peoples Homesite and
Housing Corporation (PHHC), to wit:
The premise that the funds cold be spoken of as public in character may be accepted in
the sense that the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation was a government-owned
entity. It does not follow though that they were exempt from garnishment.

This was reiterated in the subsequent case of Philippine Rock Industries, Inc. v. Board of Liquidators:
Having a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, the funds of
such government-owned and controlled corporations and non-corporate agency, although
considered public in character, are not exempt from garnishment.

Hence, it is clear that the funds of petitioner NHA are not exempt from garnishment or execution.