G.R. No. 191531 - Republic vs. Heirs of Cuizon

In September 2001, counsel for the Cuizon heirs (descendants of Cecilio and Moises Cuizon) wrote to PEZA Director General Lilia B. De Lima, offering the agency a right of first refusal to purchase Lot Nos. 4522 and 4525 of the Opon Cadastre, a property with an aggregate area of 12,124 square meters.
The subject lots, though now situated within the Mactan Economic Zone (MEZ), were originally registered in the names of the predecessors-in-interest (the spouses Pedro and Eugenia Tunacao) under Original Certificate of Title Nos. RO-2428 and RO-2429.

Through a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale executed on 11 June 1975, the property was transferred to the Cuizon heirs, and later formatted under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 42755 and 50430.
On 17 October 2001, PEZA, in a letter, declined the offer based on the claim that the lots had been sold by Eugenia Tunacao in 1958 to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA)—the predecessor of BAT and MCIAA. PEZA argued that although the titles were reported lost or destroyed, the sale had been registered under Act 3344, as amended.

The Cuizon heirs countered PEZA’s position in an 8 November 2001 reply, asserting that BAT had abandoned its opposition to reconstituting the lost OCTs. On the strength of an LRA opinion (Consulta No. 2887), the sale to the Cuizon heirs was registered, which later formed the basis for the issuance of TCT Nos. 42755 and 50430.
Frustrated by PEZA’s insistence on claiming government ownership and denying just compensation for the use of the land, the Cuizon heirs elevated the matter by appealing to the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industries (DTI) and the Office of the Ombudsman. Their appeal eventually reached the Office of the President.

On 14 October 2008, the Office of the President rendered a decision (O.P. Case No. 07-C-081) directing PEZA to recognize the heirs’ rights and negotiate just compensation for the said land.
PEZA’s motion for reconsideration of this decision was denied by a 9 March 2009 Resolution.

On 1 April 2009, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion for an extension of time (15 days) for PEZA to file a petition for review under Rule 43. However, on 16 April 2009, lawyers from PEZA’s Legal Affairs Group instead filed the petition, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 108085 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
Respondents (the Cuizon heirs) objected to this petition on the grounds that PEZA’s lawyers did not state the necessary material dates and lacked proper authorization from the OSG as the principal law officer representing the government.
The CA, in a 30 October 2009 decision, dismissed the petition on the ground that PEZA’s lawyers failed to secure authorization under the PEZA Charter (Republic Act No. 7916) or proper deputization from the OSG, asserting that only the OSG (or those expressly deputized by it) can represent the government.

PEZA filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the respondents.
On 18 January 2010, the OSG submitted a manifestation clarifying that while it was in substance agreement with PEZA’s position, it believed that an administrative clarification—not a Rule 43 petition for review—was the appropriate remedy since the decision from the Office of the President was rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions.
The CA, in a 4 March 2010 Resolution, denied PEZA’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the filing of the present petition for review which challenges the CA’s dismissal on the ground of lack of proper representation.

Whether the petition for review filed by lawyers from PEZA’s Legal Affairs Group was properly authorized, given that under the PEZA Charter and the mandate of the OSG, only the OSG or its duly deputized legal officers may represent the government in litigation.
Whether the change in representation—from the OSG’s initial motion for extension to PEZA’s own filing by its Legal Affairs Group—constitutes a valid exercise of authority or if it violates the mandatory requirement of having the OSG represent the government.
Whether the filing of the petition for review without proper authorization should necessitate its dismissal, even if such dismissal was made without prejudice, allowing for re-filing under proper authorization and procedural compliance.