G.R. No. 109216 October 27, 1994
PACITA TING, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA TANALEON, EPIFANIA GOMILLA, ELIZA SUBALDO, and ROBERTO/SHIRLEY YEBRA, respondents.

FACTS

Sometime in 1965, spouses Jose and Pacita Ting purchased a house standing on a 212-square meter lot (Lot 10, Block 17, West Crame ZIP) bought by the government under P.D. No. 1517 (Urban Land Reform Act) for disposition to qualified beneficiaries. Jose Ting was listed as a structure owner in the 1978 census. After a fire on February 8, 1981, Pacita Ting allegedly allowed private respondents to occupy portions of the lot. On June 17, 1986, private respondents applied for individual lot allocations with the NHA. The Awards and Arbitration Committee (AAC) of West Crame denied their applications for disqualification. Upon appeal, the NHA reversed the AAC and awarded the lots occupied by private respondents’ structures inside Lot 10. Pacita Ting’s motions for reconsideration were denied by the NHA. She appealed to the Office of the President, which affirmed the NHA’s ruling, noting that no formal award or Conditional Contract to Sell had been issued to petitioner, the AAC’s decision was merely recommendatory, and the award to multiple occupants was in line with the NHA’s “one structure, one lot” policy under NHA Circular No. 13 and the government’s housing policy under P.D. 757. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition for review was filed, treated by the Supreme Court as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NHA had jurisdiction to entertain the private respondents’ appeal from the AAC’s decision and whether such appeal was filed on time.
2. Whether the NHA’s construction of P.D. 757 and its award of the lot to private respondents violated NHA Circular No. 13 and was arbitrary or unfair.
3. Whether the private respondents’ failure to file a comment/answer in the Court of Appeals constituted an admission of petitioner’s allegations.

RULING

1. The NHA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Under paragraph V(7) of NHA Circular No. 13, all decisions of the AAC are subject to review and approval by the NHA General Manager, among others. The NHA was acting within its statutory authority when it reversed the AAC’s decision. The claim that the appeal was filed out of time is untenable, as the circular does not provide a specific period for such intra-agency appeals, and the 15-day period for appeals to the Court of Appeals does not apply.
2. The NHA’s decision is entitled to great respect and should be accorded great weight, as an administrative agency charged with implementing the law. Its findings, supported by substantial evidence and in line with its expertise, are conclusive and not subject to review absent a showing of unfairness or arbitrariness amounting to abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. The award to the actual occupants, based on the “one structure, one lot” policy and the mandate to provide adequate housing, was not arbitrary.
3. The non-filing of a comment/answer by private respondents in the Court of Appeals cannot be interpreted as an admission of the petition’s allegations. Under Section 8, Rule 65, the court may hear the case and render judgment based on the truth of the allegations, not on mere failure to file an answer.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.