G.R. No. 168561 - TACLOBAN II NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ERICKSON M. MALIG, ROLANDO V. MIRANDA, RENEDEL B. MENDOZA, DANTE R. MANALAYSAY, ROMULO R. DEL ROSARIO, JR., AND BAYANI M. TORRES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly recommended the cancellation of the subject free patents by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), thus: In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 91 of C.A. 141, it is respectfully recommended that an action for reversion be instituted leading to the cancellation of free patents and the corresponding original certificate of titles issued and registered to the [herein private respondents]. Thus, we are forwarding the complete records of the case consisting of 277 pages together with the draft of the complaint for your review and approval. [12] The OSG received a copy of DENR-RED Serrano's letter-decision, together with the records of the case, on 23 July 1997. Private respondents appealed DENR-RED Serrano's letter-decision to the Office of the DENR Secretary. However, it appears that petitioner was not furnished a copy of said appeal, nor was it notified of any re-investigation which was conducted by the Office of the DENR Secretary in connection therewith, much less required to file any comment, answer or opposition thereto. Apparently, petitioner only learned of the appeal when it followed up with the OSG the status of the recommendation for cancellation and reversion of private respondents' free patents made in the letter-decision of DENR-RED Serrano. At the OSG, petitioner saw a letter dated 4 February 1999, written by Atty. S. F. Rodriguez, Director, Legal Service of the DENR Central Office, requesting the OSG to forward the records of the case to the DENR so that the latter could act on the appeal. Acting on Atty. Rodriguez's request, Assistant Solicitor General Nestor J. Ballacillo forwarded the case records to the DENR Central Office, appropriately covered by a transmittal letter dated 9 February 1999. Based on the claim that the appeal was filed before the Office of the DENR Secretary only several months after receipt by private respondents of a copy of DENR-RED Serrano's letter-decision and was, thus, filed beyond the reglementary period of 15 days for appeal, petitioner's counsel wrote Atty. Rodriguez on 25 August 2000, [13] imploring the DENR to "uncover and investigate the person behind the move to resurrect the instant case which had long acquired the stamp of finality," and requested that "the records of the case be returned to the Office of the Solicitor General." There is nothing on record, however, to indicate when private respondents actually received a notice of the appealed letter-decision. On 13 July 2001, petitioner's counsel went to the Legal Service Division of the DENR Central Office to inquire about the status of private respondents' appeal. To his surprise, he was informed by the personnel therein that an Order [14] reversing the findings of DENR-RED Serrano was issued by DENR Secretary Antonio H. Cerilles (Cerilles) as early as 8 January 2001, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the undated letter of the then Regional Executive Director Ricardo