Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83633:57640&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:01:09+00:00

Document:
CARMEN T. GAHOL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, RICARDO T. GAHOL, MARIA ESTER GAHOL PEREZ, JOSE MARI T. GAHOL, LUISITO T. GAHOL AND ALCREJ CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. ESPERANZA COBARRUBIAS, Respondent.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to annul the Decision1 dated October 6, 2008 and the Resolution2 dated March 4, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96144.
Carmen M. Tionko-Gahol (Carmen), petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, was the registered owner of a parcel of residential lot denominated as Lot 27-B-1 of LRC Psd-36727, situated in Residential Section “H,” Baguio City, with an area of 243 sq. meters, covered by TCT No. T-24457,3 The lot has a two storey residential house. On May 2, 1997, Carmen filed a Townsite Sales Application (TSA)4 with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Baguio City, for a 101 sq. meter land adjacent to her titled property with the purpose of using the land solely for additional and protection purposes.
The DENR-CAR also found that Carmen's handwritten request for an increase from 101 sq. meters as appearing in the sketch plan attached on her TSA to 161 sq. meters cannot be given due course at this stage of the proceedings. but the matter can be tackled during the execution of the final survey to rectify any error.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. which the DENR-CAR denied in its Order10 dated October 9, 2000. Respondent appealed the Order to the DENR proper.
The DENR found that respondent's application did not meet the area requirements under Resolution Nos. 93-1 and 93-2; and that respondent intended to use the subject lot for residential/commercial purposes when the above-cited Resolutions require that the same could be used for greenbelt purposes only. Thus, the DENR held that it was but reasonable to give due course to Carmen's TSA because the subject lot is narrow, fronts Carmen's property, and is to be used only for the purposes stated in the TSA.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order13 dated July 15, 2005. Dissatisfied, respondent filed an appeal to the Office of the President (OP).
In an Order14 dated May 16, 2006, the OP dismissed the appeal, and reiterated the disquisitions made by the DENR-CAR and the DENR. It also denied respondent's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution15 dated August 17, 2006.
Respondent filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 seeking to set aside the OP decision. Carmen filed her Comment thereto and respondent her Reply.
In so ruling, the CA found that Carmen was a titled owner of a piece of land; thus, in accomplishing and filing her TSA form which carried the undertaking that she was not a lot owner, there was already a basis to have such application rejected. Moreover, the area applied for by Carmen was way below the minimum required area of 200 sq. meters set forth in Resolution Nos. 93-1 and 93-2 issued by A.O. 504 Clearing Committee of the DENR-CAR; and that she also stated in her TSA that the lot she was applying for “contains no improvements or indication of occupation or settlement except rip-rapping, plants with economic values” when the truth was that structures had been put by respondent's mother as early as 1974. Despite all these, the DENR-CAR, the DENR, and the OP did not discuss these matters of Carmen's disqualification and/or lack of certain qualifications. The CA found it surprising that the restrictions laid down in Resolution Nos. 93-1 and 93-2 of AO 504 Clearing Committee of the DENR-CAR were applied against respondent but not to Carmen when both were essentially applying for the same lot. The CA also found that contrary to the DENR's appreciation, the subject lot applied for was not fronting Carmen's property but located at its side.
The CA, however, ruled that it was precluded from resolving respondent's own TSA as the administrative agencies only resolved the denial of respondent's protest and the adjunct granting or giving due course to Carmen's TSA; and that the discussions of respondent's alleged disentitlement was merely for that purpose and no other.
In a Manifestation17 dated October 29, 2008 and motion for reconsideration, notice was given of Carmen's death in 2007, and that she was being substituted by her children and the family-owned corporation, ALCREJ Corporation, now the registered owner of Carmen's property in Baguio, as petitioners. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated January 14, 2009.
(2) it misapplied the laws or erred in not applying the applicable laws.
Petitioners raise both procedural and substantive issues.
Anent the procedural issue, petitioners point out that personal service to her counsel was the most practical mode of service as both counsels of respondent and petitioners reside and have their law offices in Baguio City, instead of mailing the copy for petitioner's counsel in Malacanang Post Office, Manila on October 4, 2006. Thus, the CA should not have given due course to the petition for violating Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
Here, both counsels for the parties have their law offices in Baguio City, thus, personal service to petitioner's counsel would have been more practicable than mailing the copy of the petition for petitioner's counsel in Manila. It appears, however, that the petition for review was filed in the CA, Manila by personal service, and the copies of the petition for the OP and DENR whose offices are located in Manila and Quezon City, respectively, were also personally served to them. The copy for petitioner's counsel was thus sent by registered mail from Manila on the same day the copies for the other agencies were served personally, thus a written explanation stating that the pleading was sent by registered mail due to time and distance constraints, as well as lack of office personnel. Based on such explanation, the CA can exercise its discretion on its plausibility which is ought to be guided by the principle that substantial justice far outweighs rules of procedure.22 Thus, the CA accepted the petition taking into consideration the prima facie merit of the case sought to be expunged for violation of the rule.
As to the merits of the case, we find no error committed by the CA in granting the petition.
Petitioner Gahol applied for TSA over the 101 sq. meter lot located at Residential Section “H”, Baguio City. One of the requirements for the issuance of a TSA form is a certificate of no homelot, but Carmen had not submitted any and was issued a TSA.
I have been upon and examined the land applied for and it contains no improvement or indication of occupation or settlement, except as follows: rip-rapping, plants with economic values and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is neither timber nor mineral land and contains no valuable deposit of guano, coal or salt.
I understand that any applicant who willfully and knowingly submit false statements or executes affidavit in connection with his application shall be deemed guilty of perjury and punished accordingly, and that any person who, not being qualified to apply for public land, files an application or induces or permits another to file in his behalf shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, and in addition thereto, his application shall be rejected or canceled and all amounts paid on account thereof forfeited to the Government, and he shall not be entitled to apply for any public land in the Philippines.
We arrived at the place at exactly 9:15 in the morning in the presence of the applicant-protestee Carmen Gahol and Atty. Maita Andres and the applicant-protestant Esperanza Cascolan. We observed a big narra tree standing at the north-east edge of the subject lot. Likewise, we could see two small structures where one serves also as a residence, which the protestee claimed to have been introduced by the protestant and the predecessor-in-interest. At the middle of the subject lot is an alley which traverse the subject lot measuring one and one half meters more or less.
Carmen had also filed complaints for violations of PD 1096, National Building Code of the Philippines, and PD 772, anti-squatting and other similar acts, against Camilo Coscolan and Rolando Clemente with the end in view of evicting them from the subject lot which are indications of occupation of the subject lot.
Policy: After providing for the required road of way (r.o.w.), minimum area must not be less than 200 sq. m.; and its minimum depth, measured perpendicularly from edge of r.o.w. to titled property lot-line should not be less than 15 meters, otherwise, the subject area is reserved for greenbelt purposes.
RESOLVED FINALLY, that any or all land applications, Town Site or Miscellaneous Sales, that fail to satisfy the prescribed requirements, hereinabove specified be returned unacted/unrecorded to the applicant/s concerned and such land shall be appropriated and reserved for greenbelt purposes and/or conservation of both natural and boundaries and legal easements.
The DENR-CAR and DENR denied respondent's TSA based on said Resolution No. 93-1. The DENR concluded that respondent's application did not meet the area requirements and failed to show how it arrived at such conclusion. On the other hand, the area applied for by Carmen was only 101 sq. meters which was less than the minimum area required of the resolution, which was 200 sq. meters. She had also stated untruthful statements in her TSA. Thus, her TSA should have been rejected in the first place instead of giving due course to it.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Decision dated October 6, 2008 and the Resolution dated March 4, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 96144 are hereby AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 89-100.
6 CA rollo, pp. 119-120.
7Rollo, pp. 41-43; Per Atty. Roquesa E. de Castro.
11 Id. at 47-50; Docketed as DENR Case No. 5300; Per Secretary Elisea G.. Gozun.
13 Id. at 51-53; Per Secretary Michael T. Defensor.
14 Id. at 54-59; Docketed as O.P. Case No. 05-H-278; Per Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Manuel B. Gaite.
17 CA rollo, pp. 513-530.
19Maceda v. Vda. de Macatangay, 516 Phil. 755, 764 (2006); Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort, 355 Phil. 404, 413-414 (1998).
20 See Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort, supra note 19, at 414; Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169122, February 2, 2010, 611 SCRA 353, 364.
21Pagadora v. Ilao, G.R. No. 165769, December 12, 2011, 662 SCRA 14, 28, citing Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort, supra note 19, at 414; Domingo v. Court of Appeals, supra.
22Pagadora v. Ilao, supra 21, at 28-29.
24 CA rollo, p. 125.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.