GR 168561; (September, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168561 September 26, 2008
Tacloban II Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. Office of the President, et al.
FACTS
Petitioner Tacloban II Neighborhood Association, Inc. protested the issuance of free patents and Original Certificates of Title over a 15-hectare lot in Mariveles, Bataan, to private respondents. The DENR Regional Executive Director (RED) found fraud and misrepresentation in the issuance, noting petitioner’s members were the actual occupants, and recommended cancellation and reversion to the OSG. Private respondents appealed this decision to the DENR Secretary. The DENR Secretary reversed the RED’s finding, dismissing the protests. Petitioner then appealed to the Office of the President (OP).
The OP dismissed petitioner’s appeal, ruling it was filed one day late. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, attaching a postal certification to prove timely filing. The OP denied the motion, stating the certification was insufficient as it was not the official registry return card and did not conclusively prove receipt by the OP. The Court of Appeals affirmed the OP’s findings, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the President committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time.
RULING
No, the Office of the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that a certification from the postmaster, while admissible, is not the best evidence to prove the date of receipt by the addressee. The best evidence is the registry return card itself, which is a written official document. The postal certification presented by petitioner merely showed the date of mailing and dispatch, not the actual date of receipt by the OP. Since the burden of proof rests on the party alleging timely filing, and petitioner failed to present the registry return card or other conclusive proof of the OP’s receipt within the reglementary period, the OP’s factual finding of late filing must be respected. The Court found no capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of judgment in the OP’s evaluation of the evidence. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which petitioner failed to establish, the OP’s decision stands. The petition was denied.