G.R. No. 177995 ; June 15, 2011
HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE AND ANGELA A. OLARTE, NAMELY NORMA OLARTE-DINEROS, ARMANDO A. OLARTE, YOLANDA OLARTE-MONTECER and RENATO A. OLARTE, Petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), MARIANO M. PINEDA, AS GENERAL MANAGER, THE MANAGER, DISTRICT I, NCR, EDUARDO TIMBANG and DEMETRIO OCAMPO, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land, Lot 12, Block 2 of the Tramo-Singalong Zonal Improvement Project (ZIP) in Manila, originally owned by the Philippine National Railways (PNR) and later turned over to the National Housing Authority (NHA). Petitioners, the heirs of Agapito and Angela Olarte, claim their parents began occupying the property in 1943 under a lease contract with PNR and built a two-storey residential house. On November 3, 1965, the Board of Liquidators under the Office of the President awarded a Certificate of Priority to Agapito Olarte for the acquisition of the property. After their parents’ deaths, petitioner Norma Olarte-Dineros acted as administratrix. In 1985, the house was declared in Agapito’s name for taxation, and petitioners leased a portion to respondents Eduardo Timbang and Demetrio Ocampo. In 1987, the NHA conducted a Census Tagging Operation. In 1988, petitioners judicially ejected Ocampo for nonpayment of rentals, a decision which became final and executory on December 14, 1990.
On April 30, 1997, the NHA issued a Resolution resolving the conflict over the property. The NHA found that Timbang and Ocampo were the only qualified beneficiaries for having been censused as renters. It disqualified petitioners Norma, Armando, and Yolanda Olarte for not being census residents within the project site, noting Armando and Yolanda occupied portions only after the census closure. The NHA ruled that petitioners were only entitled to reimbursement for the structure, and awarded the lot to Timbang and Ocampo in equal share. Petitioners received the Resolution on June 25, 1997, and filed an appeal with the Office of the President on July 21, 1997 (26 days later). On November 29, 2002, the OP dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time and for lack of merit, citing Section 2 of P.D. No. 1344 which requires an appeal within 15 days from receipt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the OP’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’ appeal from the NHA Resolution for being filed out of time and for lack of merit.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the petitioners’ appeal to the OP was filed out of time. Under Section 2 of P.D. No. 1344, an appeal from an NHA decision must be made within fifteen (15) days from receipt. Petitioners received the NHA Resolution on June 25, 1997, but filed their appeal only on July 21, 1997, which was 26 days later, thereby making the NHA Resolution final and executory. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the 15-day period should be reckoned from July 10, 1997 (the date they claimed to have received a copy of the Resolution from the NHA Legal Department), as the reckoning date is the receipt of the decision itself, not any other communication.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NHA’s award of the lot to respondents Timbang and Ocampo. The NHA correctly applied its governing policies, particularly NHA Circular No. 13, which defines a “beneficiary” for lot awards in ZIP areas as a bona fide resident who is an actual occupant of the structure and was listed/censused during the census tagging operations. The census records showed Timbang and Ocampo as censused renters, qualifying them as beneficiaries. Petitioners Norma (an absentee structure owner), Armando, and Yolanda were disqualified as they were not censused residents; Armando and Yolanda occupied the premises only in 1988 and 1994, respectively, after the official closure of the census in 1987. The Certificate of Priority issued in 1965 did not vest absolute ownership and could not override the subsequent NHA rules and the factual findings from the census. The prior ejectment case against Ocampo only settled possessory rights over the structure, not the issue of who is the rightful beneficiary of the lot award. The NHA’s determination of beneficiary status, being factual, is accorded respect and finality.