Title
Heirs of Spouses Olarte vs. Office of the President of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 177995
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2011
Heirs of Olarte contested NHA's property award to Timbang and Ocampo, citing a Certificate of Priority. SC ruled appeal timely but upheld disqualification due to non-residency during census, affirming NHA's decision.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2011-07-SC)

Claim to Property and Historical Background

The petitioners claim that their parents began leasing the property from the Philippine National Railways (PNR) in 1943, where they constructed a two-story residential house. Over the years, the family occupied the property continuously until Agapito passed away in 1981 and Angela in 1984. In 1965, the Board of Liquidators awarded Agapito a Certificate of Priority, recognizing his rights to purchase the property, which he allegedly occupied since before 1945. Following the deaths of their parents, petitioners maintained involvement with the property, including leasing part of their residential house to respondents Timbang and Ocampo.

Administrative Proceedings and NHA Resolution

In 1997, the NHA issued a resolution resolving a conflict over the property, stating that petitioners were disqualified from being legitimate beneficiaries due to their absentee status during a census tagging operation. The NHA's findings indicated that the current occupants were considered renters and that the Olartes had ceased to be residents of the property as they had been absent during the census. The resolution eventually awarded the contested lot to Timbang and Ocampo.

Appeals and Dismissals

Following the NHA's resolution, the petitioners filed an appeal with the Office of the President (OP) on July 21, 1997, but their appeal was dismissed on November 29, 2002, on grounds of being filed late—specifically noting that appeals must adhere to a 15-day window for filing, as stipulated in Presidential Decree No. 1344, rather than the 30 days indicated in the NHA resolution. The OP ruled that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion by the NHA, thus their findings were upheld.

Legal Arguments Presented

The petitioners contended that they were denied due process and argued several grounds, including reliance on erroneous information from the NHA regarding appeal timelines, and claimed that their prior occupancy and the Certificate of Priority granted to their parents conferred rightful ownership. They insisted the census operations were faulty and biased against them, rendering their disqualification unjust.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Court addressed two main issues: whether the petitioners could rightly claim a timely appeal based on the erroneous NHA pronouncement, and whether they qualified as beneficiaries for the property. The Court determined that while the appeal’s timing was influenced by inc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.