SUSAN ENRIQUEZ AND ALMA RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. WENEFREDO PARREÑO, RONNIE CUEVAS AND JOSEPH DENAMARCA, RESPONDENTS.

Before Us is a Petition for Review filed by petitioners Susan Enriquez and Alma Rodriguez pursuant to Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision rendered on 30 September 2008 by the Office of the President in OP Case No. 07-H-323 (DENR Case No. 5884), as well as the Resolution promulgated on 25 March 2009 denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereof.

The Facts

On 13 July 1998, respondents Wenefredo Parreño (Parreño), Ronnie Cuevas (Cuevas) and Joseph Denamarca (Denamarca) filed a protest with the DENR Regional Office against the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) Nos. 14391 and 14188 by the Register of Deeds of Rizal covering Lot 4, Block 78 and Lot Nos. 32 and 36, Block 99, both situated at Signal Village, Taguig City, Metro Manila, in the names of herein petitioners Susan Enriquez (Enriquez) and Alma Rodriguez (Rodriguez), respectively.

In their protest, respondents alleged that, sometime in 1984, Parreño occupied Lot 4, Block 78 (Plan Psd-13-002057) located in Signal Village, Taguig City. Likewise, on the same year, respondents Cuevas and Denamarca established their occupancy on portions of Lot 32 and Lot 36, respectively, of Block 99, also of Signal Village, Taguig City. Respondents alleged that they immediately constructed thereon their houses built of semi-concrete materials where they have continuously resided. However, without their knowledge, their houses had been tagged in the names of petitioners Enriquez and Rodriquez in connivance with sister Malou San Gabriel, Zone Leader Adelfa Fernandez, Surveyor Evelyn Celzo and Land Investigator Raul Bacares of South CENRO. Respondents claimed that petitioners never occupied or resided on the subject lots or in the community where the lots are located. Thus, respondents were surprised to learn that petitioners had claimed ownership over said parcels of land by virtue of TCT No. 14391^[1] issued by the Register of Deeds in favor of petitioner Enriquez covering Lot 4, Block 78; and TCT No. 14188^[2] issued by the Register of Deeds in favor of petitioner Rodriguez covering Lots 32 and 36, Block 99 of Signal Village, Taguig City.

Petitioners, on the other hand, countered that they complied with all the requirements prescribed in the guidelines of Proclamation No. 172, as implemented by Memorandum Order No. 119^[3]. They claimed that House Tag Nos. 2952 and 3940 were issued by the Brgy. Signal Village, Taguig City, in the names of petitioners Enriquez and Rodriguez, respectively. According to them, they have proved prior physical possession of the subject lots since they have been occupying the houses erected on the said premises. They further claimed that the subject lots were actually surveyed^[4] to determine the specific location and boundaries thereof, and that the verified survey plan was subsequently approved by the Land Management Services on 18 April 1996. Petitioners also averred that they religiously paid real estate taxes on the subject lots^[5].

Respondents further narrated that, on 09 October 1990, the DENR-Land Management Bureau of Manila issued a notice^[6] indicating the names of all residents of Taguig City who applied for the purchase of public land for residential purposes without public auction in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 730, in relation to Chapter IX of the Public Land Act, and Act No. 3038 covering lots within Subdivision Survey Psd-13-002057 of which petitioners were among the applicants. Thereafter, the Director of Lands executed the corresponding Deeds of Sale dated 16 May 1991^[7] and 13 March 1991^[8] in favor of respondents Enriquez and Rodriguez, respectively. On 28 December 1990, Certificates of Award^[9] were issued in favor of petitioners, and, consequently, TCT No. 14391^[10] was issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal in favor of petitioner Enriquez, while TCT No. 14188^[11] was issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal in favor of petitioner Rodriguez.

On 26 October 1999, the Officer-in-Charge at the Office of the Regional Executive Director of the DENR- NCR rendered a Decision^[12] dismissing respondents’ protest. In her decision, the Officer-in-Charge Corazon C. Davis declared that respondents failed to present convincing evidence to justify their allegations of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of petitioners in procuring the questioned TCTs. Hence, she held that TCT Nos. 14391 and 14188 issued in the names of petitioners Enriquez and Rodriguez, respectively, are valid for having been duly issued pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations on the matter.

On appeal, the DENR Secretary reversed the findings of the Officer-in-Charge at the Office of the Regional Executive Director of the DENR-NCR. In his Decision^[13] rendered on 25 January 2007, the DENR Secretary found irregularities in the issuance of the subject TCTs in favor of petitioners. He ruled that petitioners failed to comply with the residency requirement for the purchase of lands which have been declared open to disposition pursuant to Proclamation No. 172, since, after an ocular inspection and thorough scrutiny of the records of the case, the following were discovered: (1) petitioners are not residents of Signal Village, Taguig City, where the contested lots are situated. Instead, petitioner Enriquez is a resident of 753 Old Balara, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, while petitioner Rodriguez is a resident of 1561 4th St., Fabie State Subdivision, Paco, Manila; (2) the residents surrounding the subject lots do not know the petitioners; (3) the petitioners, in their Appeal Memorandum and other pleadings, did not state the year of their alleged occupancy of the disputed lots and its duration; and (4) the Order issued on 20 July 2001 by Branch 74 of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Taguig affirmed the fact that the petitioners are not residents of Signal Village in Taguig. Instead, the DENR Secretary held that it is the respondents who established through clear and convincing evidence that they are the residents of the subject lots, as shown by their residence certificate, barangay resident’s card, voter’s affidavit issued by Taguig City, application for electrical installation approved by Meralco, and tax declarations covering the subject lots; as opposed to the petitioners who merely presented house tags to prove their alleged occupation of the subject premises. Moreover, the DENR Secretary observed that the survey plan approved on 18 April 1996 by the Land Management Services of the DENR-NCR for petitioners Enriquez and Rodriguez contains no verification survey number. Thus, the DENR Secretary concluded that petitioners fraudulently misrepresented themselves as residents of Signal Village in Taguig City where the subject lots are situated, and therefore do not qualify as applicants of Insular Government Property Sales. The dispositive portion^[14] of the said Decision reads as follows, viz:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Regional Executive Director, DENR-NCR, Araneta Avenue, Quezon City (now Ermita, Manila), dated October 26, 1999, is hereby SET ASIDE. Upon finality of this Decision, this case shall be referred to the Office of the Solicitor General to initiate the cancellation proceedings in the proper court.

 

SO ORDERED.” 

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration^[15] from the said Decision, which was denied by the DENR Secretary in an Order^[16] issued on 31 July 2007.

Not satisfied, petitioners elevated the case to the Office of the President^[17], arguing that the DENR Secretary gravely abused his discretion in setting aside the Decision of the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Regional Executive Director of the DENR-NCR Region, as they insist that their right to the subject lots can no longer be impugned, since TCTs were already issued in their names. Corollary thereto, they contended that the DENR Secretary erred in not recognizing the presumption of regularity of official functions with regard to the issuance of the TCTs in their favor.

In the assailed Decision^[18] dated 30 September 2008, the Office of the President denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed in toto the 25 January 2007 Decision of the DENR Secretary.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration^[19] of the said Decision, which was denied by the Office of the President in the assailed Resolution^[20] issued on 25 March 2009.

Undaunted, petitioners filed on 22 June 2009 the instant petition^[21] raising the following issues^[22] to be resolved by Us, viz:

 

I. 

 

WHETHER OR NOT RES JUDICATA HAS SET IN; 

 

II. 

 

WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS COMPLIANCE WITH PROCLAMATION NO. 172; and 

 

III. 

 

WHETHER OR NOT THE INITIAL FACTUAL FINDINGS CAN BE REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. 

Our Ruling

We find no merit to the petition.

We first address the procedural issue raised.

Petitioners argue that their right to procedural due process was violated when respondents failed to furnish them a copy of their Notice of Appeal from the Decision of the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Regional Executive Director of the DENR-NCR dated 26 October 1999. Consequently, for respondents’ failure to serve them a copy of their Notice of Appeal, petitioners posit that res judicata has already set in and the said 26 October 1999 Decision had already attained finality.

We find no merit to said contentions, as We find that petitioners were not denied due process. In administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.^[23] In this case, while the records are unclear if respondents had indeed furnished a copy of their Notice of Appeal to petitioners, the latter, however, were required by the DENR Secretary to file an Answer/Comment to respondents’ Memorandum of Appeal^[24], and petitioners, in fact, seasonably filed their Answer^[25] to the said memorandum and participated before the proceedings with the DENR Secretary. Indeed, in arriving at the Decision^[26] dated 25 January 2007, the DENR Secretary considered all pleadings filed by both parties and the available records of the case at the DENR-NCR Office. Moreover, petitioners likewise appealed the 25 January 2007 Decision of the DENR Secretary to the Office of the President. Jurisprudence is settled that any seeming defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard thereon.^[27] Likewise, in Autencio vs. City Administrator Mañara and the City of Cotabato^[28], the Court ruled that where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.

Assuming, without admitting, that there were technical procedural lapses committed by the respondents, public interest and the interest of substantial justice require a resolution on the merits of the case instead of a mere dismissal thereof based on alleged technical grounds. It bears stressing that the findings of the OIC of the Office of the Regional Executive Director of DENR-NCR were in direct conflict with that of the DENR Secretary: while the former ruled in favor of petitioners and found that respondents failed to present convincing evidence to justify their allegations of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of petitioners in procuring the questioned TCTs, the DENR Secretary found in favor of the respondents, and concluded that the issuance of the TCTs in favor of petitioners was tainted with numerous irregularities. More importantly, the present controversy involved respondents’ sacrosanct right to property, which is protected by the Constitution. No person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.^[29]

While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and while the swift unclogging of the dockets of the courts is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.^[30]

The Court has allowed some meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent procedural defects and lapses. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and that strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided.^[31] It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.^[32]

Moreover, it is important to reiterate that administrative agencies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law. It is well-settled that rules of procedure are construed liberally in proceedings before administrative bodies and are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner, as these are used only to help secure and not to override substantial justice.^[33]

As regards the merits of the case, both the DENR Secretary and the Office of the President are in agreement that the issuance of TCT Nos. 14391 and 14188 by the Register of Deeds of Rizal was tainted with irregularities, as the same were issued in the names of petitioners without fully complying with the requirements prescribed by law governing the disposition of the subject lots pursuant to Proclamation No. 172 and Memorandum Order No. 119, particularly the requirement that the applicant applying to purchase the land must be a bona fide resident of the land being applied for. Petitioners indicated in their public land applications that they are residents of Signal Village, Taguig, Metro Manila, when in fact, they do not reside on the subject premises. The DENR Secretary, therefore, held that petitioners are not qualified applicants of Insular Government Property Sales, not being residents of the proclaimed areas. Instead, the DENR Secretary found that it was the respondents who had established through clear and convincing evidence their residency on the subject lots, as shown by their residence certificate, barangay resident’s card, voter’s affidavit issued by Taguig City, application for electrical installation approved by Meralco, and tax declarations, among others.

Hence, absent palpable error by both the DENR Secretary and Office of the President, of which this Court finds none, their determination as to the irregularities in the issuance of the TCTs in favor of petitioners is controlling. This Court, therefore, is constrained to accord respect to such findings. It is a time-honored principle that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence,^[34] a situation that obtains in the case at bench.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the assailed Decision dated 30 September 2008 and Resolution dated 25 March 2009 rendered by the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 07-H-323 (DENR Case No. 5884) are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Dimaampao, (Chairperson), and Sadang, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo, p. 196.

^[2] Ibid., p. 197.

^[3] Ibid., pp. 384-396.

^[4] Ibid., pp. 382-383.

^[5] Ibid., p. 181.

^[6] Ibid., pp. 183-184.

^[7] Ibid., pp. 185-186.

^[8] Ibid., pp. 194-195.

^[9] Ibid., p. 187.

^[10] Supra on note 1.

^[11] Supra on note 2.

^[12] Rollo, pp. 213-216.

^[13] Ibid., pp. 232-240.

^[14] Ibid., p. 240.

^[15] Ibid., pp. 241-250.

^[16] Ibid., pp. 253-254.

^[17] Ibid., pp. 255-266.

^[18] Ibid., pp. 22-25.

^[19] Ibid., pp. 169-174.

^[20] Ibid., pp. 7-8.

^[21] Ibid., pp. 145-164.

^[22] Ibid., p. 151.

^[23] Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Samson et al., G.R. Nos. 161910 and 161930, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 500.

^[24] Rollo., pp. 217-222.

^[25] Ibid., pp. 224-231.

^[26] Supra on note 13.

^[27] Gonzales vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 156253, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 741.

^[28] G.R. No. 152752, January 19, 2005, 449 SCRA 46.

^[29] 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 1.

^[30] Tacloban II Neighborhood Association, Inc. vs. Office of the President et al., G.R. No. 168561, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 493.

^[31] Ibid.

^[32] Ibid.

^[33] Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Samson et al., supra.

^[34] Ibid.