REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

UNO B. ONE and DOS A. TWO,

Petitioner,

-versus- S.C. G.R. No. 1234567

For: Petition for

Certiorari

NATULID HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION II, INC.,
represented by its Vice
President RODY D. GOMEZ,

Honorable Commissioners
TRES L. THREE, DENNIS B.
DIZON and RICA B. MATIAS of
the HLURB Board of
Commissioners Second Division

Honorable Housing and Land

Use Arbiter GIAN I. OSNAN of
the HLURB Expanded National
Capital Region Field Office
Respondents.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

NOW COMES the Petitioner, BY THEMSELVES, in the above-entitled

case, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully avers THAT:

This is a Petition for Certiorari asking the Most Honorable Court to SET
ASIDE the 27 December 2019 Writ of Execution issued by the Honorable
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and the 21 March 2018 2 nd Notice
to Vacate issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of
Davao City, including preceding orders, decisions and resolutions issued by
the same court, the HLURB Board of Commissioners and HLURB Arbiter and
the Honorable Court of Appeals being repugnant to the fair and orderly
administration of justice by not adhering to the “doctrine of prospective
application of law” and to the gross negligence of counsel that results to
outright deprivation of petitioners’ property.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES AND

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

1. On 20 March 2018, petitioners received a photocopy of a 2 nd Notice

to Vacate issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of
Davao City based on the Writ of Execution dated 27 January 2017 issued by
the Hon. GIAN I. OSNAN, Housing and Land Use Arbiter of the HLURB
Expanded National Capital Region Office. Said notice is just giving herein
petitioners ten (10) days to voluntarily vacate and peacefully turn
over/surrender possession of our respective occupied premises embraced
and described in TCT NO. PT 13412 to respondent, NATULID Homeowners
Association II, Inc.

2. This petition is an offshoot of a complaint filed by the private

respondent on 24 January 2007 seeking judicial confirmation of herein
petitioner from membership to respondent association and from
enjoyment of the premises they are now occupying by means of eviction.

3. Petitioners, being not fully lettered with the intricacies and

technicalities of the law, gave so much trust and confidence to their former
counsel. The case treaded various courses without petitioners knowing the
possible outcomes but resulted into gaining unfavorable judgment.

4. Petitioners, on the above-cited date, received the 2nd Notice to

Vacate that prompted them to revisit all available documents on hand only
to find out that the controversy was determined on technicalities
attributable to the gross negligence of the counsel.

Petitioners can no longer afford to engage the services of a counsel who is a

member of the bar and they submitted for consideration of the Most
Honorable Court that they are litigating the instant case “BY THEMSELVES.
Again, herein petitioners most respectfully submit to the Most Honorable
Court to consider that the absence of a counsel on record should not affect
their assertion of enforcing them legal rights.
5. There is no appeal or any plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary
course of law that could resolve this very important matter. Except, to
beseech the Most Honorable Court to use its expansive powers to review
cases and controversies, including the duty to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.

6. Under Rule 65, petitioners have sixty (60) days from 21 March 2017
within which to file this petition. The 60th day falls on 21 May 2017 to
consider that petitioner filed the same on time. Petitioner will pay the
docket and other lawful fees simultaneous with the filing of this petition.

PARTIES

7. Petitioners UNO B. ONE and DOS A. TWO are residents of

NATULID, Cabantian, Davao City but for facility of serving pleadings,
notices, orders and decisions of the Most Honorable Court, these processes
can be forwarded to 1522 Monggo St., NATULID, Cabantian, Davao City c/o
DIEGO S. CRUZ.

8. Respondent NAHA II, represented by its Vice President RODY

GOMEZ, is an organization formed and existing under the Philippine law
with principal address at 437 Chico St., Cabantian, Davao City, and it may be
served with pleadings, notices, orders and other processes at the said
address.

9. The public respondents are the following public officials:

Honorable Commissioners TRES L. THREE, DENNIS B. DIZON and RICA B.
MATIAS, Housing and Land Use Arbiter GIAN I. OSNAN are being sued in
their capacity as the officials that will implement the resolution of the
Honorable Court of Appeals Third Division. They may be served with
notices, orders and resolutions at Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board,
Quimpo Avenue cor. Mayaman St., Ecoland, Davao City.

BACKGROUNDS

10. The controversy started when NAHA II filed an initiatory pleading

on 21 January 2017, when the governing law on homeowners association
was then covered by Section 26 of the Republic Act 8763, otherwise known
as the Home Guaranty Corporation Act of 2000". But when the case was
being heard by the Honorable Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and
the Honorable Court of Appeals, Republic Act 9904 (Magna Carta for
Homeowners and Homeowners Associations) was already in effect.

11. Gross negligence of the petitioners’ counsel is evident in the review

of the records that no board resolution expelling the petitioners (together
with other respondents) from the said association. No board resolution
naming the person who will represent the association in the case filed
against the petitioners and other respondents in the expulsion case,
including authority of the representative to sign the verification.

12. Instead of considering that Republic 9904 was already the governing
law of homeowners and homeowners association when the controversy
was being determined by the Honorable HLURB Board of Commissioners,
specifically on matters of delisting members, the Honorable HLURB Board
of Commissioners instead affirmed the decision of Honorable Gian I. Osnan
on judicial confirmation of expulsion and eviction, which by its nature is an
action for Ejectment.

13. There was an oversight when both the Honorable Arbiter and the
Board of Commissioners rendered their respective decisions in not applying
the provision of RA 9904 pertain Resolutions Delisting or Expelling
Association Members in Land Tenurial Projects, which is the most
applicable section of the IRR of RA 9904, including the issuance of the Writ
of Execution.

14. Arguments and counter-arguments were put forth by the parties and
the case passed through the various procedures until elevated to the
Honorable Court of Appeals for the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, and then to the Second Division of the Most Honorable
Court.

15. On 22 September 2018, the Second Division of the Most Honorable

Court issued a Resolution CLOSING AND TERMINATING GR No. 23567.

16. On 22 March 2018, Hon. Gian I. Osnan issued an Order directing the
petitioners to file comments/opposition on private respondent’s Motion for
Special Order, which herein petitioners complied and filed said comments
and opposition on 21 May 2017. Copy of said order is attached as Annex
“C”.

17. In seeking petitioners’ comments, the Hon. Gian I. Osnan opened the
door for assailing whatever proceedings transpired. Petitioners did not
change the course of their arguments in their Comments and Opposition
but asserting that RA 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners) is already in
effect and should be applied. Photocopy of the petitioners’ Comments and
Opposition is attached as Annex “D”.

18. The instant petition may be sufficiently important to merit the

Most Honorable Court review due to the impact of the agency a quo’s and
the lower court’s decision extends beyond the narrow interests of the
petitioner to affect the entire Community Mortgage Program or a large
segment of the population.

19. The decisions that disregarded the provisions of the operative law,
Republic Act 9904 or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners
Associations and the “non-application of the dictum of prospectively of law”
is a serious invalidation of statutes not on constitutional grounds are
ordinarily of sufficient importance to warrant review. Hence, the instant
petition.

LOCUS STANDI OF PETITIONER

20. Petitioners as respondents in the case filed with the HLURB and
being an appellant to the Honorable Court of Appeals has a legal standing
to file the instant petition. Settled in our jurisprudence that locus standi
means personal and substantial interest in the case such that party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the act complained of.
Petitioners are proper parties because they have sustained or is in
immediate danger of sustaining injury as concomitant result of the act
being assailed.

For a party to assert legal standing he needs only to prove injury to his right
or interest as first requisite, and the reasonably perceptible causal
connection between the asserted injury and the assailed conduct.

21. Pertains the first requisite, petitioners sustained and will be

sustaining direct injury by losing their respective family’s abode and may be
held to exist when the administrative ruling will be implemented. About the
second requisite, it is complied with showing that the relief being sought
will redress the asserted injury. Petitioners stand to suffer directly from the
non-application of the operative law that governs the instant case, and the
same act can be applied to other members and non-members of CMP and
other land tenurial programs of the government.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

22. Petitioner contends and most respectfully submits that the
decisions and resolutions rendered by the Honorable Housing and Land Use
Arbiter, the Honorable HLURB Board of Commissioners and the Honorable
Court of Appeals is in direct conflict with the decisions of the Most
Honorable Court in the long line of cases applying the operative law and the
“dictum of prospective application of law in absence of retroactive
provision.”

23. Definitely, a lower court or a quasi-judicial body cannot expressly

reject a Supreme Court decision. However, there are instances when an
operative law or dictum was overlooked, disregarded or misapplied,
consciously or unconsciously, that give rise to chances that the quasi-
judicial body or lower court’s decision is in tension with a decision of the
Supreme Court.

24. In their respective decisions, the Honorable Housing and Land Use
Arbiter and the Honorable HLURB Board of Commissioners applied Section
26 of Republic Act 580, as amended by Executive Order 535, transferring
the powers, authorities and responsibilities of the Home Insurance
Guaranty Corporation to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board,
instead of applying the provisions Republic Act 9904, which was already
signed into law and the governing law with respect to supervision of
homeowners associations when the judicial confirmation and eviction case
filed by NAHA II against the herein petitioners was in the stage of hearing
and on appeal.

25. Public respondents probably become accustomed to adherence to

applying the principle of law applicable to a certain state of facts is
applicable to future cases having substantially similar facts although the
parties may be different.

Although there may be an existence of similarity in the state of facts but

when factual variant is introduced, especially when a new law was passed
and operative, application of said principle would be inappropriate. The
confusion of the agency a quo and the Honorable Court of Appeals on
what law should be applied signaled that the issue is ripe for
reexamination and possible overruling or limitation.

26. The controversy is amply ripe for the Most Honorable Court’s
adjudication. The rule of ripeness found its basis on the doctrine that in
order for the court to act, there must be an actual controversy involving
disagreement of legal rights and assertion conflicting claims susceptible of
judicial settlement. Under the same principle, the issue is not ripe when it is
prematurely lodged. Although there is no rigid or fast rule in determining
the ripeness of a controversy, the principle gives emphasis that the court
would find it difficult to weigh up the realistic qualities of each party when
the controversy becomes concrete and required attention.

27. The requirement of ripeness is satisfied when a party will sustain

immediate injury and such injury will be remedied by the relief sought.
Respondents’ act has been achieved or imminently to be accomplished to
the injury of the petitioners and large number of population having the
same plaint.

28. The instant petition involves petitioners who questioned the

manner respondents ignored requirements laid down by law and
established jurisprudence, which would result in the unfair administration
of justice, satisfied the existence of justifiable controversy.

29. The instant petition involves matters of public interest and

transcendental importance that warrant brushing aside technicalities of
procedure, if any. Indeed, the primordial policy is a faithful observance of
the Rules of Court, and their relaxation or suspension should only be for
persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases, to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed. (Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 386
Phil. 412, 417 (2000). The emerging trend of jurisprudence is more inclined
to the liberal and flexible application of the Rules of Court. However, we
have not been remiss in reminding the bench and the bar that zealous
compliance with the rules is still the general course of action. Rules of
procedure are in place to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy dispensation
of cases; (Heirs of Cesar Marasigan v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 156078, March
14, 2008, 548 SCRA 409). To this end, inflexibility or liberality must be
weighed. The relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption
of a case from their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or
when the purpose of justice requires it. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (formerly Southern Energy Quezon,
Inc.), G.R. No. 159593, October 16, 2006, 504 SCRA 484, 496.)

30. The instant petition might be touching some issues of Constitutional

concern like doctrine of equal protection and due process, which are of
public interest and transcendental importance; nevertheless, herein
petitioner is exerting all efforts in delimiting on a solitary issue of non –
application of dictum of prospectively of law absence a retroactive
provision. Thus, as the issue raised herein is of public interest, petitioners
most respectfully beg that procedural barriers, if any, in taking cognizance
of this petition be brushed aside.
31. Glimpsing back at the stage of formulation of Republic Act 9904 and
during plenary deliberation of Senate Bill 3061, Senator Miguel Zubiri
pointed out, “ x x x "homeownership is not necessarily dependent on full
and actual ownership, as even those with beneficial ownership can be
entitled to the rights granted to homeowners."

He said "provided that lessees in government socialized housing projects or

urban estates and those in communities of underprivileged and homeless
citizens covered under the term under Section 3 (1) of this Act, will be
considered as homeowners for the purpose of qualifying as a member of a
homeowners' association without need of such written consent or
authorization."

The Majority Leader also clarified that "all homeowners can become
members of the homeowners' association and at the same time allows
homeowners not to engage or member in any homeowners association as
indicated in Article III, sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution, stating "membership
in homeowner's association is generally voluntary, subject only to a few
exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court through various decisions on
the matter."

He said that while the law recognized that membership in any association is
voluntary unless it is stipulated in the contract or annotated in the title.

The proposed act likewise recognized two classes of homeowners exist,

non-member homeowners and the homeowner members.

"The rights of both classes are enumerated in the proposed legislation,

subject to any additional benefits which they may receive by virtue of the
homeowners' association by-laws," Zubiri said.

"A non-member homeowner has the duty to pay the costs and expenses
incurred by the association for the payment of basic community services."

"On grounds of equity alone, a non-member homeowner should contribute

in the community expenses that redound to his or her benefit.”

Nothing in the sponsorship speech touches about eviction mainly on reason

that the intention of the law is to provide every Filipino an abode of his
own.

32. Petitioners beg the Most Honorable Court to consider Section 47

of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9904 as applicable and
the most appropriate in the resolution of the case NAHA II filed against the
petitioner, which reads:

Section 47. Resolutions Delisting or Expelling

 Association Members in Land Tenurial
Projects. – In cases of CMP, GLAD and other
similar land tenurial projects/arrangements,
the resolution delisting/expelling members
from the association, and the corresponding
substitutions, if any, shall be submitted to the
HLURB, within thirty (30) days from its
adoption. Otherwise, the delisting or
expulsion of members shall not be
enforceable.

It is an accepted tenet that when the law is applied to strictly and

mechanically, the law cannot keep pace with social developments. Equally,
a return to the policies outlining the basic supposition supporting
potentially relevant rules of law and the best guidelines for resolving the
dispute, if there is completely new situation.

33. Petitioners and their respective families are in the verge of losing
their abode due to non-application of an existing law. Jurisprudence has
consistently summoned that a statute, whether original or amendatory,
should prospectively apply to avoid inequity and social injustice. Former
Chief Justice Andres Narvasa penned in Co vs. Court of Appeals, et al, (227
SCRA 444,  448-455 (1993) this Court, thru Chief Justice Andres Narvasa,
held: “The principle of prospectivity of statutes, original or amendatory, has
been applied in many cases. These include: Buyco v. PNB, 961, (sic) 2 SCRA
682 (June 30, 1961), holding that Republic Act No. 1576 which divested the
Philippine National Bank of authority to accept back pay certificates in
payment of loans, does not apply to an offer of payment made before
effectivity of the act; Lagardo v. Masaganda, et al., 5 SCRA 522 (June 30,
1962), ruling that RA 2613, as amended by RA 3090 on June, 1961, granting
to inferior courts jurisdiction over guardianship cases, could not be given
retroactive effect, in the absence of a saving clause; Larga v. Ranada, Jr., 64
SCRA 18, to the effect that Sections 9 and 10 of Executive Order No. 90,
amending Section 4 of PD 1752, could have no retroactive application;
People v. Que Po Lay, 94 SCRA 640, holding that a person cannot be
convicted of violating Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank, when the alleged
violation occurred before publication of the Circular in the Official Gazette;
Baltazar v. CA, 104 SCRA 619, denying retroactive application to P.D. No. 27
decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, and
P.D. No. 316 prohibiting ejectment of tenants from rice and corn farm
holdings, pending the promulgation of rules and regulations implementing
P.D. No. 27; Nilo v. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 519, adjudging that RA 6389
which removed ‘personal cultivation’ as a ground for the ejectment of a
tenant cannot be given retroactive effect in the absence of a statutory
statement for retroactivity; Tac-An v. CA, 129 SCRA 319, ruling that the
repeal of the old Administrative Code by RA 4252 could not be accorded
retroactive effect; Ballardo v. Borromeo, 161 SCRA 500, holding that RA
6389 should have only prospective application; (see also Bonifacio v. Dizon,
177 SCRA 294 and Balatbat v. CA, 205 SCRA 419).  chanrobles virtual law
library
The prospectivity principle has also been made to apply to administrative
rulings and circulars, to wit: ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. CTA,
October 12, 1981, 108 SCRA 142, holding that a circular or ruling of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue may not be given retroactive effect
adversely to a taxpayer; Sanchez v. COMELEC, 193 SCRA 317, ruling that
Resolution No. 90-0590 of the Commission on Elections, which directed the
holding of recall proceedings, had no retroactive application; Romualdez v.
CSC, 197 SCRA 168, where it was ruled that CSC Memorandum Circular No.
29, s. 1989 cannot be given retrospective effect so as to entitle to
permanent appointment an employee whose temporary appointment had
expired before the Circular was issued.

34. The RA 9904, including its implementing rules and regulation, is the
controlling law governing in the case filed by private respondent against
petitioners. Thus, the non-consideration of the previously mentioned
Section 47 of the IRR of RA 9904 and other related provisions of the same
law defeats the compelling purpose of the legislature and the intention of
Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations.

35. Republic Act 9904 expands the duties and responsibilities of the
HLURB, in addition to the powers, authorities and responsibilities vested in
it by Republic Act No. 8763, Presidential Decree No. 902 - A, Batas
Pambansa Big. 68 and Executive Order No. 535, Series of 1981,

It is settled that, “Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary
is provided," (Article 4 of the Civil Code); thus, petitioners sees no reason
why Magna Carta for Homeowners was not resorted to during the stage of
hearing and appeal of the case filed by private respondent against the
petitioners.

36. The heart-breaking result of the present controversy emanated from

the gross negligence of the petitioners’ counsel applying the doctrine
“negligence of the counsel is negligence of the client.” However, herein
petitioners believe that their present plight is an exception to the doctrine.
The Most Honorable Court, in the long line of cases decided admitted
exceptions to the general rule when: (1) the client is deprived of due
process, (2) the application of the general rule will result in outright
deprivation of client’s liberty or property, and (3) where the interest of
justice so requires, and accord relief to client who suffered by reason of
lawyers gross negligence.
37. being poor and unlettered to the law, petitioners cannot be faulted
in reposing so much trust and confidence to their counsel. Herein
petitioners believed that their counsel would amply protect their interest
and expected that the counsel will make good her representation and take
the necessary steps to defend the case.

38. Petitioners’ case is analogous to the case of Escudero vs. Dulay, G.R.
No.L-60578, 23 February 1988 where the Most Honorable Court held that
the counsel’s blunder is an exception to the rule that the client is bound by
the mistakes of counsel, and the Most Honorable Court made this
pronouncement:

“Petitioners contend, through their new counsel,

that judgments rendered against them by the
respondent court are null and void, because they
were therein do their day in court and divested of
their property, without due process of law,
through the gross ignorance, mistake and
negligence of their previous counsel. They
acknowledge that, while as a rule, clients are
bound by the mistake of their counsel, the rule
should not be applied automatically to their case,
as the trial counsel’s blunder in procedure and
gross ignorance of existing jurisprudence changed
their cause of action and violated their substantial
rights.

We are impressed with petitioner’s contention.

x x x Ordinarily, a special civil action under rule 65

of the Rules of Court will not be a substitute or
cure for failure to file timely petition for review
on certiorari (appeal) under Rule 45 of the Rules.
Where, however, the application of the rule will
result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of
justice, the rule may be relaxed. x x x

While this Court is cognizant of the rule that,

generally, a client will suffer the consequences of
negligence, mistake or lack of competence of his
counsel, in the interest of justice and equity,
exception may be made to such rule, in
accordance with the facts and circumstances of
each case. Adherence to the general rule would,
 in the instant case, result in the outright
deprivation of their property through a
technicality.”

39. The Most Honorable Court is advancing effective mechanism in

dispensing justice like in the case of People’s Homesite and Housing
Corporation vs. Tiongco and Escasa, G.R. No. L-18891, 28 November 1964, it
enunciated as follows:

“Procedural technicality should not be made a

bar to the vindication of a legitimate grievance.
When such technicality deserts from being an
aid to justice, the courts are justified in
excepting from its operation a particular case.
Where there were something fishy and
suspicious about the actuations of the former
counsel of petitioner in the case at bar, in that
he did not given any significance at all to the
processes of the court, which has proven
prejudicial to the rights of said clients, under a
lame and flimsy explanation that the court’s
processes just escaped his attention, it is said
that said lawyer deprived his clients of their day
in court, thus entitling said clients to petition for
relief from judgment despite the lapse of the
reglementary period for filing said petition.”

40. One specific point that petitioners beg the Most Honorable Court to
consider is the claim of ownership by the respondent on the premises
occupied by the petitioners, which is a patent misrepresentation. There is
nothing in the Complaint that alleged herein respondent is the absolute
owner of the property being an essential requisite of mortgage and it has
the free disposal of the property.

41. Even assuming that the land may subsequently be acquired or owned
by the respondent or by the program beneficiaries, the complaint did not
allege any contractual lien or a right was given to respondent to secure loan
subjecting the property claimed in favor of certain creditor.

42. Respondent concealed some other documents like the Deed of Sale
between the respondent and Metro Manila Development Authority, its
alleged predecessor-in-interest, the Deed of Mortgage between the
respondent and the National Housing Authority. The non-presentation of
said document will give rise to presumption that the transfer certificates of
title respondent presented are spurious.

43. This presumption could be fully established by the evidence

discovered after the trial. If these were produced and admitted at the
trial, the judgment will be altered due to its materiality and weight. This
evidence is the reply, dated 21 March 2018, of the DENR National Capital
Region signed by certain Roberto C. Ignas Jr.., Chief of the Regional
Survey Division, to the request of certain Johny S. Alonzo of 223Kaimito
Extension, NATULID, Davao City. Second paragraph of the said reply
states:

Please be informed that per verification made and

based on records on file in the Land Records
Section, Surveys and Mapping Division of this
Office, Bgy. Caimito of Davao City has not yet
been cadastral surveyed, hence your request
cannot be granted. (Emphasized supplied)

Photocopy of said letter-reply is attached as Annex “E”. Petitioners

procured a certified true copy of the said reply but the office of origin did
not issue one; nevertheless, Freddi D. Aguilar is willing to testify on this
matter once called by the Most Honorable Court.

44. The “concept of cadastre” is either unfamiliar or not clear to the

population at large. This, however, is a vital tool used by specialists involved
in land and land related dealings. In plain, a cadastre is an official register
showing details of ownership, boundaries, and value of real property in a
district, made for taxation purposes (Collins English Dictionary 1979). A
cadastral map displays how boundaries subdivide land into units of
ownership. The cadastre is used as the foundation for dealings in: land
valuation and taxation land registration and land transfers, land use
planning, determination of sustainable development, applicable modes of
environmental protection, mapping management of leases and licenses,
determination of political territories and electoral boundaries, and other
land based administrative purposes. Although in the present time, it is
digitized by computer to deliver maps showing the digital coordinates of
land parcels and supplementary information related to the land.

45. The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Court of Appeals Sixth
Division and the Honorable Chairman and Members of the Most Honorable
Supreme Court Third Division were not named public respondent due to the
fact that they are also victims of the respondent who places the
administration of justice in mockery.
46. The active and material misrepresentation of the respondent, the
failure of the Honorable Arbiter and the Honorable HLURB Commissioners
to notice substantial and material facts of the case, and the gross
negligence of petitioners former counsels resulting to the outright
deprivation of property warrants nullification of the HLURB ENCRFO 21
January 2017 Decision and to forestall 23 January 2018 Writ of Execution.

In closing, a final and executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any

of the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest
court of the land.

However, the Most Honorable Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve
substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property,
(b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of
the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of
the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing
that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other
party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (APO Fruits Corporation and
Hijo Plantation, Inc. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
164195,October 12, 2010).

Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to

facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court
reflects this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be
as pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had
already declared to be final. (Barnes v. Padilla 482 Phil. 903 (2004)
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner most respectfully prays of

the Most Honorable Court the following:

1. That this Petition be given due course;

2. That after notice and hearing, a final order be issued: SETTING ASIDE
AND OVERRULING HLURB ENCRFO 21 January 2017 Decision and to
forestall 23 January 2018 Writ of Execution.

Other reliefs and remedies, which are just and equitable, are likewise
prayed for.

Davao City for City of Davao; January 29, 2020

Respectfully Submitted:

UNO B. ONE DOS A. TWO

Petitioner Petitioner

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF DAVAO ) S.S.

VERIFICATION WITH DECLARATION

OF NON- FORUM SHOPPING

We, UNO B. ONE and DOS A TWO, both Filipinos and of legal age,
and presently residing in NATULID, Cabantian, Davao City, after having been
duly sworn on oath, hereby deposes and states THAT:

1. We are the Petitioners in the above-entitled petition;

2. We caused the preparation and filing of the above Petition for

Certiorari With Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction and all the allegations thereon were read by us and we
found them to be true and correct of my personal knowledge and
based on authentic records;

3. That we have not previously filed a similar complaint, petition or

any other action before the Honorable Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Regional Trial Court or any other office or tribunal, and if
such complaint, petition, action or proceedings will be discovered
by us in the future, we undertake to report the same to this
Honorable Office within five (5) days from discovery thereof.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 26 th day of

March 2019 here at the City of Davao, Philippines.

UNO B. ONE DOS A. TWO

Affiant Affiant
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of January,
2020 here at the City of Davao, Philippines. Affiants exhibiting to me his
Voter are Identification Card bearing Number 1234567 as evidence
establishing his identity, personally signed the foregoing and acknowledged
that they executed the same.

GRIDLIN A. MATILAC
Notary Public for Davao City
Commission Serial No. 2020-
Doc. No. 0379-2022
Page No. Until December 31, 2021
Book No. Attorney’s Roll No. 10772
Series of 2020 PTR No. 7862245 B; 01-02-
20; Davao City
IBP O.R. No. 024454; 01-02-
20; Davao City

Copy furnished:

NATULAD Homeowners Registry Receipt No.

Association II, Inc. as Gian I. Osnan
represented by Roseller Fortich Post Office
437 Chico St., NATULAD, January 29, 2020
Cabantian, Davao City

Atty. Gregor H. Ferrer Registry Receipt No. 123456

HLURB Arbiter 12345 Post Office
Housing and Land Use January 29, 2020
Regulatory Board-ENCRFO
Kalayaan Avenue cor Mayaman
St., Diliman, Quezon City

Board of Commissioners Registry Receipt No.

Housing and Land Use Manila Post Office
Regulatory Board January 29, 202
Kalayaan Ave. cor Mayaman St.
Diliman, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

It is most respectfully explained that personal service cannot be

made because the undersigned has no facility and personnel to cause such
a personal service; hence, served through registered mail. It is prayed that
this explanation be considered sufficient.

UNO B. ONE MARIANA B. ACOSTA

1522 Monggo St., NATULID, 1522 Monggo St., NATULID,
Mangahan, Davao City c/o Diego Mangahan, Davao City c/o Diego
Diaz Diaz

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Bernard B. Santos, Filipino, of legal age and presently residing in NATULID,
Cabantian, Davao City, after being duly sworn on oath, depose and state:

1. I am the special messenger of the petitioners.

2. I served copies of the Verified Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for
the Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction filed before the Most
Honorable Supreme Court on the following parties at their respective
addresses and on the dates indicated below:

Date of Mode of
Name Address
Service Service

HOUSING AND LAND Kalayaan Ave. cor

USE Mayaman St. Registered
REGULATORY BOARD Diliman 1101, Mail
Quezon City

NATULID
Homeowners 437 Chico St., Registered
Association II, Inc. as NATULID, Cabantian,
Mail
represented by Gian I. Davao City
Osnan

Housing and Land

Atty. Nelson V. Use Regulatory
Gomez Board-ENCRFO Registered
HLURB Arbiter Kalayaan Avenue cor Mail
Mayaman St.,
Diliman, Quezon Cit
by delivering personally a copy of the Complaint – Affidavit on each of the
above persons or duly authorized representative and/or by leaving a copy
of the same at his residence or office, with a person of sufficient age and
discretion or by depositing a copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope,
plainly addressed to the addressee at his residence or office, with postage
fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 29 th day

of January, 2020 in the City of Davao.

NELSON V. GOMEZ

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of January 2020

in the City of Davao, affiant exhibiting to me his PRC ID No.
123456778 issued on Tagum City, as competent proof of her identity,
personally signed the foregoing affidavit and acknowledged that she
executed the same.

GRIDLIN A. MATILAC
Notary Public for Davao City
Commission Serial No. 2020-0379-2022
Doc. No. Until December 31, 2021
Page No. Attorney’s Roll No. 10772
Book No. PTR No. 7862245 B; 01-02-20; Davao City
Series of 2020 IBP O.R. No. 024454; 01-02-20; Davao City