Rosete v. Briones
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a 152-square meter lot owned by the National Housing Authority (NHA) located at 1014 Estrada Street, Malate, Manila. Following a census survey in 1987, the NHA initially awarded the entire lot to petitioner Teodorico P. Rosete. However, respondents Felix and Marietta Briones, Jose and Remedios Rosete, and Neorimse and Felicitas Corpuz objected to this award. Subsequently, the NHA issued a Letter-Decision on August 5, 1994, cancelling the original award and ordering the subdivision and reallocation of the lot: 62 square meters to Teodorico, 40 to the Brioneses, 25 to the Rosetes, 15 to the Corpuzes, and 10 for an easement. Teodorico was informed that his excess payments would be applied to his co-awardees' amortizations, who would then reimburse him. Procedural History: Teodorico protested the NHA's August 5, 1994 Letter-Decision, seeking reconsideration and reimbursement for property taxes paid. Meanwhile, the Rosetes and Corpuzes appealed the NHA's decision to the Office of the President (OP) in O.P. Case No. 5902. Teodorico also submitted a letter to the OP, expressing satisfaction with his 62-square meter allocation but requesting a fixed period for reimbursement from his co-awardees. The OP dismissed the Rosetes' and Corpuzes' appeal on November 19, 1997, for being filed out of time, a decision that became final and executory. Teodorico later sought reconsideration of this OP decision, arguing that the NHA's original award was void. The OP denied this motion on September 8, 2003, stating it lacked jurisdiction as the case was already final and executory. Teodorico and his wife, along with the Rosetes and Corpuzes, then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the OP's denial. The CA denied their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners, Spouses Teodorico and Pacita Rosete, filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA erred in ruling that Teodorico did not file an appeal from the NHA's decision and that the OP's decision in O.P. Case No. 5902 binds him, despite him not being a party appellant. Petitioners contend that Teodorico's October 18, 1994 letter to the NHA should have been treated as a timely appeal to the OP. They further argue that the NHA erred in subdividing the lot without proper survey, leading to potential destruction of structures, and that respondents should reimburse Teodorico for his overpayments and property tax advances to prevent unjust enrichment. They pray for the subdivision of the lot on an "as is, where is" basis, reimbursement from respondents, and the transfer of title.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner Teodorico Rosete did not file an appeal from the decision of the National Housing Authority. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the decision of the Office of the President against the appeal of Remedios Rosete and Felicitas Corpuz binds petitioner Teodorico Rosete. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to look into the merits of petitioner Teodorico Rosete’s claim over the subject lot.
Ruling
The Court denies the Petition. The assailed October 30, 2006 Decision and December 22, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79400 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Teodorico Rosete filed an appeal from the NHA decision: The Court ruled that Teodorico's October 18, 1994 letter to the NHA was a motion for reconsideration, not an appeal to the Office of the President (OP). The NHA's November 12, 1999 Letter-Reply, which denied his motion for reconsideration, constituted a final agency action. Teodorico's subsequent actions, including further letters to the NHA and a letter-motion to the OP in 2003, did not constitute a timely appeal of the NHA's August 5, 1994 Letter-Decision or its November 12, 1999 denial. Therefore, the NHA's August 5, 1994 Letter-Decision became final and executory as against Teodorico and the petitioners. On whether the OP's decision binds Teodorico Rosete: The Court held that Teodorico had no legal personality to intervene in O.P. Case No. 5902, as he was not a party to the appeal filed by the Rosetes and the Corpuzes. His undated letter and his May 7, 2003 letter-motion for reconsideration in that case were improperly filed. Consequently, he could not impugn the correctness of a judgment not appealed by him, nor could he assign errors to have it modified. The OP correctly denied his motion for reconsideration, and the CA correctly affirmed this denial. On whether the CA erred in failing to look into the merits of Teodorico Rosete’s claim: The Court found that petitioners did not dispute Teodorico's 62 square meter award, which he had expressed satisfaction with. They also deliberately did not question the respondents' right to be potential beneficiaries, prioritizing community peace. Regarding reimbursement for overpayments, the Court could not order a refund because Teodorico never sought reimbursement from the NHA, the recipient of the overpayment. Furthermore, the specific amount of overpayment was not determinable from the record, and the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. While acknowledging the principle of solutio indebiti and Article 1236 of the Civil Code, the Court could not grant the relief due to the procedural and factual deficiencies presented.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed with the agency that rendered the questioned decision does not preclude the filing of an appeal to the Office of the President within the prescribed period, and the time during which the motion for reconsideration has been pending shall be deducted from the period for appeal. Failure to timely appeal an agency's decision, and instead pursuing various erroneous courses of action, renders the agency's decision final and executory.