G.R. No. 176474 - HEIRS OF ARTURO REYES, REPRESENTED BY EVELYN R. SAN BUENAVENTURA, VS. ELENA SOCCO-BELTRAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 15, 1999 Order is hereby SET ASIDE and a new Order is hereby issued APPROVING the application to purchase Lot [No.] 6-B of Elena Socco-Beltran. [14] Petitioners sought remedy from the Office of the President by appealing the 9 November 2001 Decision of the DAR Secretary. Their appeal was docketed as O.P. Case No. 02-A-007. On 30 June 2003, the Office of the President rendered its Decision denying petitioners' appeal and affirming the DAR Secretary's Decision. [15] The fallo of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED and the instant appeal DISMISSED . [16] Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the Office of the President in a Resolution dated 30 September 2004. [17] In the said Resolution, the Office of the President noted that petitioners failed to allege in their motion the date when they received the Decision dated 30 June 2003. Such date was material considering that the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on 14 April 2004, or almost nine months after the promulgation of the decision sought to be reconsidered. Thus, it ruled that petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, filed beyond fifteen days from receipt of the decision to be reconsidered, rendered the said decision final and executory. Consequently, petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87066. Pending the resolution of this case, the DAR already issued on 8 July 2005 a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) over the subject property in favor of the respondent's niece and representative, Myrna Socco-Beltran. [18] Respondent passed away on 21 March 2001, [19] but the records do not ascertain the identity of her legal heirs and her legatees. Acting on CA-G.R. SP No. 87066, the Court of Appeals subsequently promulgated its Decision, dated 31 January 2006, affirming the Decision dated 30 June 2003 of the Office of the President. It held that petitioners could not have been actual occupants of the subject property, since actual occupancy requires the positive act of occupying and tilling the land, not just the introduction of an unfinished skeletal structure thereon. The Contract to Sell on which petitioners based their claim over the subject property was executed by Miguel Socco, who was not the owner of the said property and, therefore, had no right to transfer the same. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed respondent's right over the subject property, which was derived form the original allocatees thereof. [20] The fallo of the said Decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant PETITION FOR REVIEW is DISMISSED . Accordingly, the Decision dated 30 June 2003 and the Resolution dated 30 December 2004 both issued by the Office of the President are hereby AFFIRMED in toto . [21] The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision in a Resolution dated 16 Augus