04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly “New squatter” refers to individual groups who occupy land without the express consent of the landowner after March 28, 1992. Their structures shall be dismantled and appropriate charges shall be filed against them by the proper authorities if they refuse to vacate the premises.[37] “Professional squatters” refers to individuals or groups who occupy lands without the express consent of the landowner and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing. The term shall also apply to persons who have previously been awarded homelots or housing units by the Government but who sold, leased or transferred the same to settle illegally in the same place or in another urban area, and non-bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. The term shall not apply to individuals or groups who simply rent land and housing from professional squatters or squatting syndicates.[38] “Squatting syndicates” refers to groups of persons engaged in the business of squatter housing for profit or gain.[39] In this case, petitioners cannot be considered as new squatters, since, although their structures were built after March 28, 1992, they or their predecessors-in-interest had occupied, and were claimants of the subject property long before the said date.Neither have they been identified by the LGU as professional squatters nor members of a squatting syndicate. Thus, since petitioners do not fall under the coverage of the said IRR, the issuance of DO No. 05 had no legal basis at the onset. More significantly, none of the three (3) situations enumerated under Section 28, Article VII of RA 7279 as above-cited, when eviction or demolition is allowed, have been shown to be present in the case at bar. Specifically, it was not shown that the structures are in danger areas or public areas, such as a sidewalk, road, park, or playground; that a government infrastructure project is about to be implemented; and that there is a court order for demolition or eviction. Therefore, the issuance by the City Mayor of an order for the summary demolition of petitioners’ structures finds no basis in the said law permitting summary demolition or eviction. While respondents make much ado of petitioners’ lack of building permits, it should be underscored that under Presidential Decree No. 1096,[40] otherwise known as the “National Building Code of the Philippines” (NBCP), the mere fact that a structure is constructed without a building permit, as well as non-compliance with work stoppage order, without more, will not call for a summary demolition, but subjects the violator to an administrative fine under Section 212,[41] Chapter II of the NBCP, or a criminal case under Section 213[42] of the same law. Indeed, while Section 301, Chapter III of the NBCP states that “[n]o person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building is located or the building work is to be done,” the remedy of summary abatement against the bare absence of a building permit was not provided for. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60932 6/13