Case Digest (G.R. No. 177995)
Facts:
Heirs of Agapito T. Olarte and Angela A. Olarte, G.R. No. 177995, June 15, 2011, the Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are four siblings who claim succession to a residential house and the parcel of land known as Lot 12, Block 2, Tramo‑Singalong Zonal Improvement Project (ZIP), Manila; respondents are the Office of the President (OP), the National Housing Authority (NHA) (represented by its General Manager Mariano M. Pineda), and private occupants Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo.The subject property was originally owned by the Philippine National Railways and later turned over to the NHA. Petitioners allege their parents occupied the lot since 1943 under a lease from PNR and that, in 1965, the Board of Liquidators (Office of the President) issued a Certificate of Priority in favor of Agapito Olarte. The parents died in 1981 and 1984; petitioners subsequently managed, and in 1985 had the house declared in Agapito’s name for taxation. In 1985 petitioners leased part of the house to respondents Timbang and Ocampo.
An NHA ZIP census/tagging was conducted in 1987. In 1988 petitioners filed an ejectment against Ocampo; the ejectment was ultimately sustained by this Court (G.R. No. 95206, Oct. 15, 1990), resulting in Ocampo’s judicial ejection in 1993. Sometime thereafter the factual record shows the NHA resolved a conflict over Lot 12 by issuing an April 30, 1997 Resolution finding petitioners were absentee or uncensused structure owners and awarding the lot in equal shares to Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo; the NHA letter nevertheless advised that parties could appeal to the Office of the President within thirty (30) days.
The April 30, 1997 Resolution was received on June 25, 1997; petitioners filed an appeal with the OP on July 21, 1997. On November 29, 2002 the OP dismissed the appeal as filed out of time and as deemed affirmed under Section 2 of P.D. No. 1344; a motion for reconsideration was denied June 27, 2003. Petitioners then filed a Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 15, 2003; the CA dismissed the petition outright on September 19, 2003 (for a defective certification against forum shopping and for invoking certiorari instead of an appeal), and denied reconsideration on August 3, 2004.
This Court, however, reversed the CA on June 21, 2005 in G.R. No. 165821 and remanded for further proceedings so that the substantial factual issues would be addressed. On remand the CA again dismissed the petition (Decision Feb. 23, 2007; Resolution May 22, 2007). Petitioners elevated the matter to this Court by a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 177995), presenting principally: (...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should petitioners be blamed for filing their appeal late because they relied on the NHA’s pronouncement that they had thirty (30) days to appeal instead of the fifteen (15) days mandated by law?
- Are petitioners disqualified from being awardees for Lot 12, Block 2, Tramo‑Si...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)