G.R. No. 202830 - Spouses Salise vs. Salcedo, Jr.

A consolidated petition involves 47 individual petitioners, mostly farmer-beneficiaries owning Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) over a 30‐hectare property in the upper lands of Lomboy, Indahag, Cagayan de Oro City.
The petitioners include various spouses and individual landholders such as Spouses Adriano Salise and Natividad Pagudar, Spouses Teodoro Virtudazo and Necitas Salise, Jerome G. Diolanto, among others.
Respondent Ricardo Gacula initiated the proceedings by seeking the cancellation of the petitioners’ CLOAs.

On January 17, 1996, Gacula filed a petition to cancel the CLOAs issued to the petitioners.
On October 23, 1996, Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Leandricia Monsanto dismissed Gacula’s petition without prejudice due to a pending exemption application under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Gacula appealed this dismissal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Central Office.

On January 14, 1998, DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao granted Gacula’s application to exempt the subject land from CARP.
Jerome G. Diolanto, one of the petitioners, filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the exemption.
On March 4, 1999, DAR Secretary Horacio “Boy” Morales granted Diolanto’s motion, declaring the subject land not exempt from CARP.
Subsequently, on December 1, 1999, Acting DAR Secretary Conrado Navarro reversed Morales’ ruling, thereby upholding Garilao’s order that exempted the land from CARP.
On October 15, 2001, DARAB Director Delfin B. Samson issued an Order of Finality affirming Navarro’s December 1, 1999 order.

Despite the prior dismissal of his cancellation petition on January 12, 2001, Gacula, on March 10, 2003, filed a Manifestation stating he was no longer interested in pursuing his appeal and requested the implementation of Navarro’s order.
Acting Adjudicator Abeto Salcedo, Jr. of DARAB Region X, acting on Gacula’s manifestation, issued an order on November 27, 2003, cancelling the petitioners’ CLOAs and placing Gacula in possession of the 30-hectare property.
On December 1, 2003, Adjudicator Salcedo issued a Writ of Execution to enforce the cancellation order.
The petitioners contended that the order was issued without proper notice and without affording them a hearing.

New counsel for the petitioners filed an entry of appearance and a notice of appeal against the November 27, 2003 order.
A motion for reconsideration was also filed by Atty. Antonio Zoilo Velez; however, this motion was denied on December 18, 2003, on the grounds of:

On December 30, 2003, the petitioners filed an Urgent Motion with the DARAB Central Office to restrain further execution of Salcedo’s orders.
On April 26, 2011, the DARAB dismissed the petitioners’ urgent motion on jurisdictional grounds, characterizing it as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, over which DARAB lacked jurisdiction.
After the DARAB also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration (August 1, 2011), the petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Section 1, Rule XV of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure.

On September 9, 2011, the CA partially dismissed the petition for review against sixteen of the petitioners for not complying with the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping requirements.
The remaining petitioners were ordered to cure procedural defects:

To furnish a copy of their petition to the DARAB Central Office.
To properly allege the dates of receipt of the CA resolution and the filing of their motion for reconsideration.

On September 22, 2011, the petitioners complied by filing joint affidavits of merit explaining the deficiencies in the verification and certification.
A CA resolution dated May 4, 2012 noted that despite this compliance, there were additional defects concerning the submission of competent evidence of identity required for notarization.

The petitioners were directed to provide the necessary proof within ten days from receipt of the resolution (i.e., by May 31, 2012).

On May 25, 2012, petitioners sought an extension of twenty days or until June 15, 2012, to supply the required evidence.
Their subsequent compliance was filed on June 7, 2012; however, the CA denied the compliance on July 12, 2012, holding that:

The filing was seven days late.
There were noticeable variations in the signatures on the verification and certification documents.

The petitioners argued that the CA dismissed their petition for review purely on technical grounds.
They contended that the verification and certification substantially complied with the rules in light of the common cause of action and shared interests among them.
The petitioners sought a liberal application of the Rules of Procedure to allow a full review on the merits.

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petitioners’ petition for review solely on a technical basis regarding the submission of defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

The issue centers on whether the failure to comply strictly with procedural formalities should preclude the review of the substantive merits of the case.

Whether the late compliance of the petitioners with the CA’s directive (filed on June 7, 2012) should be excused in light of the overarching goal of achieving substantive justice.
Whether Adjudicator Salcedo’s actions in cancelling the petitioners’ CLOAs, based on Gacula’s mere Manifestation, deprived the petitioners of their due process rights.

Specifically, whether the cancellation order was issued without proper notice and hearing.

The proper interpretation and application of the verification and certification requirements on non-forum shopping in cases where petitioners share a common cause of action or defense.