Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Besaga V Sps. Acosta GR No. 194061

    Caricato da

    Adfat Pandan
    459 visualizzazioni2 pagine
    This case involved competing applications for a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) over the same properties. The Regional Executive Director initially decided in favor of Besaga. The Spouses Acosta filed an appeal, but incorrectly filed an Appeal Memorandum with the DENR Secretary instead of a Notice of Appeal, and paid the appeal fee late. The issue was whether these procedural errors warranted dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights, especially in quasi-judicial settings where due process was present. Though mistakes were made, the intent to appeal was clear and the fee was ultimately paid; dismissing over minor errors would violate due process. The Court affirmed the decision in favor of the Spouses Acost

    Descrizione originale:

    digest

    Titolo originale

    Besaga v Sps. Acosta Gr No. 194061

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    This case involved competing applications for a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) over the same properties. The Regional Executive Director initially decided in favor of Besaga. The Spouses Acosta filed an appeal, but incorrectly filed an Appeal Memorandum with the DENR Secretary instead of a Notice of Appeal, and paid the appeal fee late. The issue was whether these procedural errors warranted dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights, especially in quasi-judicial settings where due process was present. Though mistakes were made, the intent to appeal was clear and the fee was ultimately paid; dismissing over minor errors would violate due process. The Court affirmed the decision in favor of the Spouses Acost

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    459 visualizzazioni2 pagine

    Besaga V Sps. Acosta GR No. 194061

    Caricato da

    Adfat Pandan
    This case involved competing applications for a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) over the same properties. The Regional Executive Director initially decided in favor of Besaga. The Spouses Acosta filed an appeal, but incorrectly filed an Appeal Memorandum with the DENR Secretary instead of a Notice of Appeal, and paid the appeal fee late. The issue was whether these procedural errors warranted dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights, especially in quasi-judicial settings where due process was present. Though mistakes were made, the intent to appeal was clear and the fee was ultimately paid; dismissing over minor errors would violate due process. The Court affirmed the decision in favor of the Spouses Acost

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 2

    Pandan 1

    CASE NAME: Besaga v Sps. Acosta


    GR Number/ Case Date: GR 194061/ Apr 20, 2015
    Ponente: Justice Brion
    Petitioners: EMELIE L. BESAGA
    Respondents:
    SPOUSES
    FELIPE
    ACOSTA
    and
    LUZVIMINDA ACOSTA and DIGNA MATALANG COCHING
    Rule of Law:
    Sec1(a) of DAO No. 87 requiring the filing of
    Notice of Appeal and the payment of Appeal Fee within
    the reglementary period.

    Doctrine:

    RED issues orders to be final and executory for


    Sps. Acostas failure to file a Notice of
    Apppeal.
    Aug 6, 2006, DENR Secretary reversed RED
    decision, giving in favor of the Sps. Acosta.
    Oct 17, 2006, DENR Secretary reversed its Aug
    6 decision, stating that Sps. Acosta failed to file
    Notice of Appeal and has been late in paying the
    Appeal Fee.
    The President reversed DENR Secretarys
    decision and giving in favor of the Sps. Acosta.
    CA affirmed the decision of court of Appeals.

    Issue and Holding:


    Facts:

    Feb 11, 2003, Besaga applied for Special Land


    Use Permit for Lands 4512, 4513, and 4514, all
    belonging to her father, Arturo Besaga Jr. under
    Tax Declaration No. 048.
    Feb 13, 2003 Sps. Acosta also applied for SLUP
    for Lands 4512 and 4514. Claiming Land 4512
    through waiver of rights by Rogelio Maraon and
    Land 4514 through joint waiver of rights by
    Arturo Besaga Jr. and DIgna Matalang Coching,
    all of which are registered survey claimants.
    Dec 1, 2003, Regional Executive Director (RED)
    of DENR decided in favor of Besaga.
    July 26, 2004, Release of the decision
    Aug 16, 2004, Sps. Acosta filed an Appeal
    Memorandum to the DENR Secretary.
    Sep 10, 2004, Appeal Fee was paid by the Sps.
    Acosta.

    1. WON the error in filing an Appeal Memorandum


    instead of Notice of Appeal to the DENR Secretary
    instead of the RED, and late payment of Appeal Fee be
    grounds for the dismissal of the whole case.
    It cannot be grounds for dismissal. It is wellsettled that the procedures are mere tools aimed
    at facilitating the attainment of justice.
    Technicalities should never be used to defeat the
    substantive rights of the other party. This is
    especially true with quasi-judicial and
    administrative body. Strict application of the
    procedure may violate the right to due process
    as it would result to denial of their right to
    appeal. The respondents appealed within the
    prescribed 15-day period and the procedural
    lapse showed intent to raise the appeal to a
    higher body. It is also good to point out that the
    respondents paid, although late, in full the
    Appeal Fee.

    Pandan 2
    Ruling: This court affirm the decision of CA affirming
    the decision of the President.
    Note:

    The liberality of the procedure in administrative


    actions is subject to limitations imposed by
    requirement of due process. Where due process is
    present the administrative decision is generally
    sustained.

    Potrebbero piacerti anche