G.R. No. 177995 - Heirs of Spouses Olarte vs. Office of the President of the Philippines

The subject property is Lot 12, Block 2 of the Tramo-Singalong Zonal Improvement Project (ZIP) located at 2131 F. MuAoz St., San Andres, Malate, Manila.
Originally owned by the Philippine National Railways (PNR), the property was later turned over to the National Housing Authority (NHA).
Petitioners, the heirs of Agapito T. Olarte and Angela A. Olarte, asserted that their parents began occupying the property in 1943 under a lease contract with the PNR and constructed a two-storey residential house thereon.

On November 3, 1965, the Board of Liquidators under the Office of the President awarded a Certificate of Priority to Agapito Olarte, certifying his continuous occupancy since 1945 and granting him priority to acquire a portion of the property.
The certificate declared the right as non-transferable and invalid if transferred, emphasizing its nature as recognition of possession.
After the demise of Agapito (1981) and Angela (1984), Norma Olarte-Dineros was designated administratrix of the house and lot.
In 1985, the residential house was declared in the name of Agapito for taxation purposes, and subsequently, a portion of the house was leased out to Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo.
Later, other family members adjusted their residence; Yolanda left for Saudi Arabia while Norma resided in Pangarap Village, Caloocan City.

In 1987, the NHA conducted a Census Tagging Operation in the area encompassing the subject property.
Findings from the census indicated that:

Norma Olarte-Dineros was listed as the absentee structure owner.
The property had current occupants including Eduardo Timbang (renter), Armando Olarte (occupier of a portion vacated by a previous occupant), and Yolanda Olarte-Montecer (occupier of a portion vacated by Demetrio Ocampo).
Demetrio Ocampo had been judicially ejected in 1988 for nonpayment of rentals.

On April 30, 1997, the NHA issued a Resolution resolving the conflict of claims among petitioners and respondents:

The resolution confirmed that Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo, as censused renters, are the only qualified beneficiaries for the subject lot.
It disqualified Norma, Armando, and Yolanda Olarte on the ground that they were not census-listed residents within the project site.
It further provided for negotiation or dismantling of the structure if negotiations with petitioners did not succeed within 60 days.

Petitioners received the resolution on June 25, 1997 and filed an Appeal on July 21, 1997 with four enumerated grounds, notably alleging:

Grave abuse of authority by the NHA and its General Manager.
A serious irregularity and corruption in the Census Tagging Operations that favored the renters.
Violation of due process and denial of their rightful claim to the property as inherited from their parents.

On November 29, 2002, the Office of the President (OP), through Deputy Executive Secretary Arthur P. Autea, dismissed petitioners’ appeal for being filed out of time and lacking merit, citing Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344.
Petitioners argued that the NHA’s erroneous notation of a 30-day appeal period misled them, leading to their late filing.
The OP later ruled against petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on June 27, 2003.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed for forum shopping and improper remedy under Rule 65 instead of Rule 43.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 165821) and remanded to the CA for further proceedings after a June 21, 2005 decision.
On remand, the CA again dismissed petitioners’ petition, prompting the present review on certiorari.

Whether petitioners should be penalized for filing their appeal beyond the 15‑day period prescribed by P.D. No. 1344 on the basis that they relied on the erroneous 30‑day period indicated in the NHA Resolution.

Whether petitioners are disqualified from being awarded Lot 12, Block 2 because they did not meet the census residency requirement.
Whether the Certificate of Priority awarded to their parents grants them a right to the property despite evidence that they did not occupy the premises at the time of the Census Tagging Operation.

Whether petitioners were deprived of due process due to alleged deficiencies in the conduct of the Census Tagging Operation and the opportunity to present evidence before the awarding of the lot.
Whether the reliance on census findings and the subsequent administrative resolution deprived them of the opportunity to fully litigate their claims.