G.R. No. 205573 August 17, 2016
HELEN LORENZO CUNANAN, Petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Ninth Division, TEOFILO Q. INOCENCIO, Regional Director, Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office No. III, and YOLANDA MERCADO, Respondents

FACTS

On January 27, 2009, respondent Yolanda Mercado filed a petition for reallocation of a home lot originally awarded to Alejandro Lorenzo, petitioner Helen Lorenzo Cunanan’s father, with the DAR Regional Office No. III (DAR-R03). The DAR-R03 initially dismissed Mercado’s petition on April 8, 2010. However, upon Mercado’s motion for reconsideration, the DAR-R03 issued an Order on October 13, 2010, setting aside its previous order and recommending the cancellation of Cunanan’s title (TCT No. 288509) over the 800-square-meter property, finding that Lorenzo and his heirs were absentee landlords. An Order of Finality was issued on December 1, 2010.
Cunanan claimed she only learned of these proceedings in April 2011 when she inquired with the DAR Provincial Office. She asserted she was never notified of the proceedings or furnished copies of pleadings, thus depriving her of due process. On May 13, 2011, she filed a Motion to Quash Order of Finality and Other Orders with the DAR-R03. On June 13, 2011, without waiting for its resolution, she filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment. A day later, on June 14, 2011, she filed a Petition for Injunction and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 120083). This petition was dismissed by the CA on September 26, 2011, for procedural non-compliance (failure to pay deficient docket fees, indicate MCLE compliance date, and submit affidavit of service). An Entry of Judgment was issued on January 17, 2012, declaring the dismissal final.
Subsequently, the DAR-R03, having been furnished a copy of the CA’s final resolution, issued an Order on March 9, 2012, dismissing Cunanan’s motion to quash and petition for relief as moot and academic. Her motion for reconsideration was denied on April 9, 2012.
Aggrieved, Cunanan filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 125543), assailing the DAR-R03’s March 9, 2012 and April 9, 2012 Orders for grave abuse of discretion, arguing the proceedings violated her right to due process. The CA dismissed this petition in its July 31, 2012 Resolution, ruling that the proper mode of appeal from the DAR-R03’s quasi-judicial order was a petition for review under Rule 43, which was filed out of time, and that the Rule 65 petition was also filed late. Her motion for reconsideration was denied on November 26, 2012. Hence, Cunanan elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the assailed July 31, 2012 and November 26, 2012 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing Cunanan’s petition for certiorari are null and void for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and in denial of due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It REVERSED and SET ASIDE the challenged CA Resolutions. The Court held that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Cunanan’s petition for certiorari on mere procedural grounds. The Court emphasized that the core issue was the denial of due process, as Cunanan was never notified of the DAR proceedings that led to the cancellation of her title. Denial of due process renders the resulting judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. A void judgment can be assailed at any time, and the appropriate remedy against it is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal under Rule 43. The Court ruled that the CA should have resolved the petition on its substantive merits concerning the violation of constitutional due process rather than dismissing it on procedural technicalities. The Court vacated and set aside all proceedings and orders of the DAR-R03 in the reallocation case for being void and ordered the records remanded to the DAR-R03 for appropriate proceedings, with the directive that due process must be accorded to Cunanan at all times.