Title
Heirs of Olarte vs. Office of the President of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 165821
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2005
Heirs of Olarte contested NHA's lot award to tenants, claiming right of first refusal under P.D. 1517. SC remanded case to CA, citing substantial compliance with rules and prioritizing justice over technicalities.
parcel of land
census renters
voluntary sale

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165821)

Factual Background

Petitioners alleged that in 1943, their parents Agapito and Angelina Olarte occupied the subject lot by virtue of a Lease Contract with the PNR and constructed a two-storey residential house thereon. They stated that the house was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Agapito Olarte under Tax Declaration No. 01109 in 1985.

Petitioners further claimed that on November 3, 1965, the Office of the President, through the Board of Liquidators, awarded a Certificate of Priority to Agapito Olarte in recognition of his continuous occupancy of what was then identified as a portion of lot No. 7, later denominated as Lot 12, Block 2 of the Tramo-Singalong ZIP Project.

After the demise of petitioners’ parents, petitioners asserted that on September 1, 1985, they leased the second floor of the house to Demetrio Ocampo, and on July 16, 1987, the ground-floor portion of the house was rented to Eduardo Timbang. Petitioners maintained that the remaining portion of the house was occupied by petitioner Armando Olarte, described as deaf and able to communicate through sign language, and by Renato Olarte, who allegedly stayed in Caloocan City for work and returned home only on weekends.

Petitioners alleged that in 1987, the NHA conducted a Census Tagging Operation in the area and that Ocampo and Timbang took advantage of that process by listing themselves as census renters of the premises. In 1988, petitioners allegedly succeeded in having Ocampo judicially ejected for non-payment of rentals.

NHA Resolution Awarding the Lot

On April 30, 1997, petitioners averred that the NHA resolved to award the subject lot to private respondents in equal share. The NHA disqualified petitioners Norma Olarte Dineros, Yolanda Olarte Montecer, and Armando Olarte as beneficiaries because they were allegedly not census residents of the project site. The NHA, however, reportedly allowed them reimbursement for lawful expenses incurred in constructing the existing structure on the controverted lot.

The NHA resolution further directed that Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo negotiate with Norma Olarte-Dineros for the voluntary sale of the structure or, failing negotiations within sixty (60) days, the Authority would cause the dismantling of the structure. It also declared that Armando Olarte was not qualified because he was not included in the census or was not a bonafide resident as defined by the relevant code of policies, due to his occupancy being allegedly one year after the official closure of the tagging operation. Lastly, the resolution declared the award final and advised that any aggrieved party could appeal to the Office of the President within thirty (30) days pursuant to Administrative Order No. 18, series of 1987.

Proceedings Before the Office of the President

Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President. They invoked P.D. No. 1517, as amended by P.D. No. 2016, contending that because the Tramo-Singalong ZIP Project was proclaimed as an Area for Priority Development and Land Reform Zone, they were entitled to a right of first refusal and should not be dispossessed, since they were legitimate tenants who allegedly built their home and resided thereon for forty-four (44) years, far beyond the ten (10)-year occupancy requirement mandated by law.

The Office of the President dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Office of the President denied it.

Court of Appeals Dismissal on Procedural Grounds

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, challenging the Office of the President’s action. The Court of Appeals denied the petition outright. It cited two procedural defects: first, that the certification on non-forum shopping was signed by only two of the four petitioners; and second, that petitioners erroneously availed of a **petition for certiorari under Rule 65 rather than an appeal under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it in its subsequent resolution.

The Parties’ Contentions in the Present Petition

In their petition for review before the Court, petitioners challenged the Court of Appeals’ refusal to rule on the merits. They contended, in effect, that the Court of Appeals should have resolved their substantive claims rather than dismiss the case for procedural lapses that could be considered matters of substantial compliance and correctable technicality.

The Court’s discussion focused on two procedural issues: the validity of the certification against forum shopping where not all petitioners signed it, and whether the dismissal was proper given the alleged erroneous choice of remedy.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court recognized the general rule that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case, and that a signature by only one petitioner is ordinarily insufficient. The Court, however, stressed that rules on forum shopping are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice and must not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert their ultimate objective.

Citing established doctrine, the Court explained that the rule allowing substantial compliance extends to the contents of the certification, and that the strict compliance requirement regarding the certification’s provisions is mandatory but not necessarily jurisdictional. Under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring submission of the certification because, although obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.

The Court invoked HLC Construction and Development Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association, where it held that the signature of only one petitioner substantially complied with the rules when all petitioners shared a common interest and invoked a common cause of action or defense. It also referenced Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, where the Court applied leniency because the lone petitioner who executed the certification was a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners and shared a common interest. The Court reasoned that where petitioners collectively raise a unified stance and a common defense, the requirement of all signatures should not defeat adjudication of the merits.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioners shared a common interest and defense. Petitioners collectively claimed a right not to be dispossessed of the controverted lot based on their and their deceased parents’ alleged construction of a family home and their purported occupation for more than ten years. In that setting, the Court held that the petitioners’ commonality authorized those who signed to inform the Court of Appeals, on behalf of the group, that they had not commenced actions involving the same issues in another court and that no such action or claim was pending elsewhere. Hence, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals should have given due course and disregarded the technical deficiency in the interest of substantial justice.

The Court further held that the Court of Appeals also erred in outrightly dismissing the petition for petitioners’ failure to choose the proper remedy under Rule 43. The Court stated that the ends of justice would better be served by addressing substantial issues, particularly where either side stands t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms