ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2326   May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA<br /><br />083 Phil 924

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2326. May 31, 1949.]

    FERNANDO ALEJO ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

    Diosdado V. Salamanca and Godofredo V. Salamanca for Appellants.

    Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Jaime de los Angeles for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; EXECUTIVE DECISION; CONCLUSIVENESS ON QUESTION OF LAW. — Any action of the Director of Lands which is based upon a misconstruction of the law can be corrected by the courts.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ON QUESTION OF FACT. — While the law declares that the decision of the Director of Lands in the disposition of public lands when approved by the head of the department is conclusive as to question of fact, the rule only holds in the absence of a showing that such a decision was rendered in consequences of fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the value of effect of evidence. It certainly was not intended by the legislative body to remove from the jurisdiction of courts all right to review decisions of the Director of the Bureau of Lands, for to do so would be to attempt something could not be done legally.

    3. TRIAL; REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE DECISION BY COURTS; RIGHT TO PRESENT PROOF. — If a petition to have administrative decisions set aside on the ground of fraud, grave abuse of discretion, lack of factual basis or proper hearing could defeated by the mere presentation of copies of such decision, unaccompanied by supporting papers or record, before the petitioner has presented proof establish those grounds, then the courts might as well close their doors to cases of this kind.

    4. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; TIME WITHIN WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY BE BROUGHT TO COURTS FOR REVIEW. — The recourse to the courts may be availed of within a reasonable time. But what is a reasonable time in any given case depends upon the circumstances of that case, of which proof must be adduced if they are not admitted.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:


    This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, dismissing appellants’ petition for certiorari to review and set aside the decision of the Director of Lands and the confirmatory decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on a land dispute between homesteaders.

    Complaining against said decision, petitioners alleged that the same was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction, being contrary to the findings in the investigations conducted for the purpose and in which the parties were duly heard, and based on false assumptions and inferences from another investigation alleged to have been made at an earlier date of which no record exists and of which petitioners were not even notified, the decision being furthermore the consequence of a fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated by the opposing party.

    The respondents denied the allegation of fraud and grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction and attached to their answer a copy of each of the challenged decisions.

    Without receiving any evidence and merely upon motion of the Solicitor General, the lower court dismissed the petition on the theory that the decision of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is conclusive upon the courts.

    The appeal involves a point of procedure and presents the question of whether or not a case of this nature could be dismissed without giving plaintiff an opportunity to prove those allegations of his complaint which would justify judicial review of an executive’s decision.

    This Court has already held that "any action of the Director of Lands which is based upon a misconstruction of the law can be corrected by the courts." (Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, 59, Phil., 440.) And while the law declares that the decision of that officer in the disposition of public lands when approved by the head of the department is conclusive "as to questions of fact" (section 4, Commonwealth Act No. 141), the rule only holds "in the absence of a showing that such a decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of evidence." (Ortua v. Singson Encarnacion, supra.) "It certainly was not intended," said this Court in that case, "by the legislative body to remove from the jurisdiction of courts all right to review decisions of the Director of the Bureau of Lands, for to do so would be to attempt something which could not be done legally." Also to the point is the following pronouncement in an earlier decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is incumbent upon the courts of justice to examine and declare at the instance of the interested party, whether in the enforcement of any statute there has been any violation of its provisions in order to prevent, in the use of the discretion commended to the public official authorized to apply the law the commission of abuses detrimental to the citizen whose rights are expressly insured by the exact fulfillment of the law." (Rojas v. Director of Lands, 35 Phil., 196.)

    To bring their case within the orbit of judicial review, petitioners allege that the decision of the Director of Lands as well as that of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources "was a consequence of fraud and misrepresentation of respondents Francisco Pagaduan and Miguel Alfonso in that in their homestead applications they included the portions which have already been occupied by petitioners and made it appear that the land applied for was unoccupied when in fact said land was occupied by petitioners;" that the said Secretary made an erroneous application of section 95 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 in not giving petitioners, as actual occupants of the land, priority in the acquisition thereof; that he exceeded his jurisdiction and gravely abused his discretion "in deciding the case on inferences from an alleged investigation in 1934 and on inferences from a mythical survey in 1937, no records of which exist," thus adjudicating petitioners’ case "not on the facts of the inquiry in which they were heard and upon which they have relied for decision;" that notwithstanding investigations "duly conducted and of record and in which the parties were duly heard and represented, the Director of Lands on February 5, 1947, with grave abuse of discretion, decided adversely against the petitioners by dismissing their claims and adjudicating the case on inferences from an investigation allegedly conducted by Public Lands Inspector Miguel Tuason in 1934, no records of which exist and in which the petitioners were not even notified nor were they made parties, and also on inferences regarding an alleged survey in 1937 no records of which exist and which in turn is falsely assumed from a blueprint plan copied from an index map of Sto. Domingo Cadastre."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Briefly stated, petitioners’ complaint is that the decisions sought to be reviewed were the consequence of fraud and misrepresentation and rendered with grave abuse of discretion in that they were based upon fictitious facts or mere inferences from an alleged investigation in which they were not heard and of which there is no record, and contrary to findings made in other investigations to which they were parties. These charges, if proved, would, we think, justify judicial intervention. But petitioners were not given an opportunity to prove them, the lower court, as already stated, having dismissed the petition upon mere motion of the opposing party. This is clear judicial error which must be corrected.

    The lower court held that the decisions sought to be reviewed, copies of which were attached to the answer, are conclusive so that there is nothing for it to review. It does not appear that petitioners agreed to a judgment on the pleadings or waived their right to present proof. If a petition to have such decisions set aside on the ground of fraud, grave abuse of discretion, lack of factual basis or proper hearing could be defeated by the mere presentation of copies of such decisions, unaccompanied by supporting papers or record, before the petitioner has presented proof to establish those grounds, then the courts might as well close their doors to cases of this kind.

    The brief for the respondents charges unreasonable delay (120 days) in taking the matter to the courts after final decision in the executive branch of the Government. The law, however, does not fix any period for that purpose, and in such case the rule is that the recourse to the courts may be availed of within a reasonable time. But what is a reasonable time in any given case depends upon the circumstances of that case, of which proof must be adduced if they are not admitted. There being no such proof or admission, the plea of laches or unreasonable delay cannot as yet be decided.

    In view of the foregoing, the order dismissing the petition for certiorari is revoked and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

    Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    REYES, J.:


    I hereby certify that Mr. Justice Paras reserved his vote, Mr. Justice Briones did not take part and Chief Justice Moran voted in favor of this decision.

    G.R. No. L-2326   May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA<br /><br />083 Phil 924


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED