Helen Lorenzo Cunanan vs. Court of Appeals, Teofilo Q. Inocencio, and Yolanda Mercado

Posted Aug 17, 2016

By Anonymous

7 min read

Case Title and Citation

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.
G.R. No. 205573, 2016-08-17
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza

Facts

January 27, 2009: Yolanda Mercado filed a petition for reallocation of an 800-square-meter home lot originally awarded to Alejandro Lorenzo with DAR-Regional Office No. III (DAR-R03).
April 8, 2010: DAR-R03 issued an Order dismissing Mercado’s petition.
May 13, 2010: Mercado filed a motion for reconsideration with DAR-R03.
October 13, 2010: DAR-R03 issued an Order granting Mercado’s motion for reconsideration and recommending cancellation of TCT No. 288509 (issued in the name of petitioner Helen Lorenzo) covering the subject 800 sq. m. The Order reserved the right to cancel or revoke in case of misrepresentation or violation of DAR rules.
December 1, 2010: DAR-R03 issued an Order of Finality declaring the October 13, 2010 Order final and executory.
April 2011: Petitioner Cunanan learned of the DAR order of finality and asserted she had not been notified or furnished copies of pleadings or notices in the DAR proceedings.
May 13, 2011: Cunanan filed with DAR-R03 a Motion to Quash Order of Finality and Other Orders asserting want of notice and lack of jurisdiction over her person.
June 13, 2011: Cunanan filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with DAR-R03 alleging lack of notice, existence of a defense, and request to present evidence.
June 14, 2011: Cunanan filed a Petition for Injunction and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 120083, seeking to enjoin cancellation and transfer of her TCT.
September 26, 2011: CA dismissed Cunanan’s petition for injunction and prohibition for failure to comply with procedural requirements; Entry of Judgment certifying finality was issued January 17, 2012.
March 9, 2012: DAR-R03 dismissed Cunanan’s Motion to Quash Order of Finality and Petition for Relief from Judgment as moot and academic; motion for reconsideration denied April 9, 2012.
Cunanan filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 125543) challenging the DAR-R03 March 9, 2012 and April 19, 2012 orders as issued with grave abuse of discretion for denial of due process.
July 31, 2012: CA dismissed Cunanan’s petition for certiorari as an improper mode of relief and untimely; CA held an appeal under Rule 43/Rule 45 was the appropriate remedy and the period had lapsed.
August 31, 2012: Cunanan filed a motion for reconsideration asserting timely filing; November 26, 2012: CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
Cunanan elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65; the Supreme Court rendered decision on August 17, 2016.

Issues

Whether the July 31, 2012 Resolution and November 26, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the 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?
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge the DAR-R03 orders cancelling the petitioner’s title, or whether an appeal was the proper remedy?

Ruling

Yes - The Court held the CA resolutions were null and void for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion because the petitioner was deprived of property without due process; the CA’s dismissal on procedural grounds could not validate proceedings that denied notice and opportunity to be heard.
No - Generally, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy where an adequate appeal exists; the proper remedy would ordinarily be an appeal (petition for review under Rule 45 or Rule 43). However, the Court suspended the rules in the interest of substantial justice and granted relief because of the fundamental due process violation.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Court recognized the general rule that certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correction of jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion and is available only when no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists (citing De Guzman v. Filinvest Dev. Corp., Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, Lee v. People, Visca v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources).
The CA correctly stated the ordinary rule that where statutes or rules prescribe a particular remedy (appeal), that remedy must be availed of. A petitioner must allege and establish that alternative remedies are inadequate or unavailing.
On the facts, the DAR-R03 and the CA did not address Cunanan’s core allegation that she was never notified and thus was denied due process; neither administrative nor appellate forums established that she had been served or furnished copies of pleadings or orders.
Cancellation of a registered title and deprivation of property without notice and opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of constitutional due process and renders the proceedings void; therefore the DAR orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The Court invoked its authority to relax or suspend procedural rules where their strict application would frustrate substantial justice (citing Nala v. Judge Barroso; Dela Cruz v. CA; Barnes v. Padilla) and concluded that technical procedural grounds should not preclude remedy for a gross deprivation of constitutional rights.
On balance, substantive due process concerns outweighed the procedural technicalities relied upon by the DAR-R03 and the CA; accordingly, the Court reversed and set aside the CA resolutions and vacated the DAR orders, and remanded the records to DAR-R03 for proceedings that afford due process to the petitioner.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is available only for jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion and when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists; where an adequate appeal exists, that remedy must ordinarily be pursued.
Deprivation of property without notice and opportunity to be heard violates constitutional due process and renders the administrative proceedings void.
Courts may relax or suspend procedural rules when their strict application would result in frustration of justice and denial of substantive rights.
Technical compliance with procedural rules cannot justify perpetuating a deprivation of constitutional rights.

Disposition

The petition is GRANTED.
The July 31, 2012 and November 26, 2012 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125543 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
All proceedings and orders of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Regional Office No. III, in Docket No. A-0306-MR-0522-09 (A.R. Case No. LSD-0167-10) are VACATED and SET ASIDE for being void.
The records are REMANDED to DAR-Regional Office No. III for appropriate proceedings in which due process shall be accorded to petitioner Helen Lorenzo Cunanan.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

The resolution was authored by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza.
The opinion was concurred in by Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson, Second Division), Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (on leave), Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
No dissenting opinion is indicated in the source.

Significance / Notes

Reinforces that administrative bodies must observe constitutional due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) before canceling or reallocating registered land titles.
Clarifies limits of procedural remedies: while appeals remain the ordinary remedy, courts may entertain extraordinary writs or relax procedural rules when strict application would permit a manifest denial of constitutional rights.
Emphasizes that substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities; legal counsel’s alleged ignorance or failure to comply with procedural requirements cannot validate proceedings that deprived a party of property without notice.
Practically, case requires DAR to conduct further proceedings with proper notice to affected registered owners before any cancellation or reallocation of titles.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.