Case Digest (G.R. No. 165821)
Facts:
Heirs of Agapito T. Olarte and Angela A. Olarte, namely, Armando Olarte, Norma Olarte‑Dineros, Yolanda Olarte‑Montecer, and Renato A. Olarte v. Office of the President of the Philippines, National Housing Authority (NHA), Mariano M. Pineda, Eduardo Timbang, and Demetrio Ocampo, G.R. No. 165821, June 21, 2005, First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are heirs of Agapito and Angelina Olarte, who in 1943 occupied Lot 12, Block 2 of the Tramo‑Singalong ZIP Project (a parcel originally owned by the Philippine National Railways and later turned over to the NHA) under a lease and constructed a family dwelling. The family house was declared for taxation in Agapito Olarte’s name in 1985. A 1965 Certificate of Priority issued by the Office of the President acknowledged continuous occupancy of a portion of what is now Lot 12, Block 2.
In the 1980s portions of the house were leased to private respondents Demetrio Ocampo and Eduardo Timbang. Following a 1987 NHA census/tagging operation, Ocampo and Timbang listed themselves as census renters; Ocampo was later judicially ejected for nonpayment of rent. On April 30, 1997 the NHA resolved to award Lot 12 to Ocampo and Timbang in equal shares, disqualifying petitioners Norma, Yolanda and Armando as beneficiaries because they were not census residents, while allowing reimbursement for lawful construction expenses. The NHA’s resolution advised that an appeal to the Office of the President was available.
Petitioners appealed administratively to the Office of the President, invoking P.D. No. 1517, as amended by P.D. No. 2016, urging their right of first refusal and long occupancy (claimed 44 years). The Office of the President dismissed their appeal as filed out of time and denied reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition on September 19, 2003 on two grounds: (1) the certification against forum shopping was signed by only two of the four petitioners; and (2) the petition improperly invoked Rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the petition for certiorari because the certification against forum shopping was signed by only two of the four petitioners?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the petition for invoking Rule 65 instead of pursuing an appeal under Rule 43?
- Should the case be remanded for determination on the merits, given the factual...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)