Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > May 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25446 May 22, 1969 - AMBROSIO SALUD v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25446. May 22, 1969.]

AMBROSIO SALUD, Petitioner, v. THE HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT, ET AL., Respondents.

Castrillo & Cusi for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; VENUE FOR REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS. — Where upon reversal by the Executive Secretary of the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources recognizing the right of herein petitioner over the land in question located in Quintana, Tanza, Cavite, said petitioner instituted an action for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to review said decision of the Executive Secretary, the decision of said court dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the action should have been commenced and tried in the province where the property lies, should be set aside, it being the rule that the jurisdiction of the judicial tribunal in such cases is determined by the place where the executive official whose decision is sought to be assailed holds office.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The crucial issue in this appeal from a decision of October 19, 1965, rendered by the then Judge Agustin P. Montesa of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing an action for certiorari and mandamus is, to paraphrase the brief for Respondents-Appellees , whether or not a petition for review of an administrative decision is to be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the officer who rendered the decision holds office or where the real property subject of the litigation is located? It was the view of former Judge Montesa that as the action was one "affecting title to, or for recovery of possession of real property," it should be commenced and tried in the province where it lies. Hence, his order of dismissal, now on appeal. It is our view that the answer thus given does not reflect the settled law on the subject. Accordingly, we reverse.

The land, which is the subject matter of this litigation, is located in Quintana, Tanza, Cavite. Petitioner-appellant Salud, alleging that he was the successor in the interest of the original applicant, who paid the first installment of the purchase price of such parcel of land of the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Friar Land Estate situated in Tanza, Cavite, sought a recognition of his right from the Director of Lands. He was successful, the decision in his favor being confirmed by the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Upon appeal to the Executive Secretary, however, his fate was otherwise it being the holding of such official, now respondent-appellee, that the land was open for public sale to the highest bidder. Not satisfied, he instituted a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, with the lower court, as noted, dismissing such a suit on the ground that as the parcel of land was located in Tanza, Cavite, the Court of First Instance of Manila was without jurisdiction.

To repeat what was stated at the outset, the lower court was far from responsive to what has been so categorically announced by this Court time and time again. The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila to decide the matter on the merits far from being dubious is quite clear. So we have held not once but repeatedly.

Thus, in Dizon v. Bayona, 1 the matter in dispute was an application for fishpond permit, covering two parcels of land in Calatagan, Batangas, with the action taken by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources being challenged in a suit filed with the Manila Court of First Instance. We did rule that "respondent court has jurisdiction . . ." In Sarabia v. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2 a petition for certiorari to review and set aside or annul the order of respondent was instituted in the Manila Court of First Instance. What was in issue was a fishpond permit issued by such official for a parcel of land in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. There was no doubt entertained as to jurisdiction of the lower court, outside the province where the land was located.

In Suarez v. Reyes, 3 the right to a timber concession located in Labason, Zamboanga del Norte, was inquired into in a suit before respondent Judge Reyes of the Rizal Court of First Instance. So it was in Uichanco v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4 dealing with a sales application of petitioner with the Bureau of Lands for the purchase of a parcel of public land situated in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. Due to a protest, such an application was cancelled by the Director of Lands. While respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reinstated it, a portion thereof was excluded. Petitioner not satisfied brought certiorari proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila. There was no question that such a tribunal was possessed of jurisdiction.

The recent case of Extensive Corp. v. Sarbro and Co., Inc., 5 reaffirms the doctrine thus consistently announced. Here the controversy centered on which entity would be given the opportunity of exploiting a tract of public forest with an approximate area of 29,000 hectares situated in Compostela, Province of Davao. There was a public bidding and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued an award in favor of respondent Sarbro and Co., Inc. On appeal to the office of the President, the then Acting Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, rendered on December 29, 1959, a decision dividing the area in question between Extensive and Sarbro based on his opinion that both corporations appeared to be well qualified to operate the logging area, and, as a result, he revoked the temporary permit granted to Sarbro for the logging of the entire area, causing it to file a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila. It would thus test the validity of the order of the Acting Executive Secretary. No doubt whatsoever was entertained as to the power and competence of the Court of First Instance of Manila to pass on the matter. 6

It would thus appear that such a doctrine concerning the jurisdiction of the judicial tribunal where the executive official whose decision is sought to be assailed holds office is applied with an undeviating rigidity. No misgivings ought to have been entertained by the then Judge Montesa then as to his jurisdiction to decide the action before him. Either through inadvertence or insufficient awareness of the principle consistently adhered to by this Court, he dismissed the suit precisely on a ground where he was least vulnerable. His order of dismissal as already stated cannot stand.

WHEREFORE, the decision of Judge Montesa of October 19, 1965 dismissing the case for certiorari and mandamus is set aside and the case remanded to the lower court to be determined on its merits. Without pronouncement as to cost.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., did not take part.

Concepcion, C.J. and Castro, J., are on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. 98 Phil. 942 (1956).

2. 104 Phil. 151 (1958).

3. 7 SCRA 461 (1963).

4. 7 SCRA 547 (1963).

5. 17 SCRA 41 (1966).

6. Cf. Bonilla v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 19 SCRA 836 (1967).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19884 May 8, 1969 - ZAMBALES ACADEMY, INC. v. CIRIACO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-20611 May 8, 1969 - AURELIO BALBIN, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOCOS SUR

  • G.R. No. L-23563 May 8, 1969 - CRISTINA SOTTO v. HERNANI MIJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24023 May 8, 1969 - IN RE: PESSUMAL BHROJRAJ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25623 May 8, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. L-26982 May 8, 1969 - ROSALINDA MATIAS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29661 May 13, 1969 - BASILIO M. PINEDA v. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26449 May 15, 1969 - LUZON STEEL CORPORATION v. JOSE O. SIA

  • G.R. No. L-26700 May 15, 1969 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-4974-78 May 16, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LAVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23788 May 16, 1969 - UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. DY HIAN TAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27463, 27503 & 27504 May 16, 1969 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23303 May 20, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOCADIO B. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-26491 May 20, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASTOR TAPAC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28666 May 20, 1969 - ESPERANZA SOLIDUM v. FELIX V. MACALALAG

  • G.R. No. L-18690 May 21, 1969 - RODOLFO V. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19375 May 21, 1969 - DY PEH, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19890 May 21, 1969 - SOSTENES CAMPILLO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22351 May 21, 1969 - ESTEBAN GARANCIANG, ET AL. v. CATALINO GARANCIANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22487 May 21, 1969 - ASUNCION ATILANO, ET AL. v. LADISLAO ATILANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22490 May 21, 1969 - GAN TION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22581 May 21, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. JUAN GO TIENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23138 May 21, 1969 - ARMANDO LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26241 May 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VICENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26454 May 21, 1969 - BASILIO ASIROT, ET AL. v. DOLORES LIM VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29784 May 21, 1969 - SILVESTRE MASA v. JUAN A. BAES

  • G.R. No. L-23966 May 22, 1969 - BENJAMIN A. GRAY v. JACOBO S. DE VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24739 May 22, 1969 - ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25446 May 22, 1969 - AMBROSIO SALUD v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25665 May 22, 1969 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25949 May 22, 1969 - BERNARDO O. SALAZAR v. EMILIANA LIBRES DE CASTRODES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27235 May 22, 1969 - BONIFACIO BALMES v. FORTUNATO SUSON

  • G.R. No. L-27907 May 22, 1969 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25483 May 23, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIA TAN

  • G.R. No. L-26808 May 23, 1969 - LUCIO V. GARCIA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23315 May 26, 1969 - DESIDERIO S. RALLON v. PACIFICO RUIZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25018 May 26, 1969 - ARSENIO PASCUAL, JR. v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25721 May 26, 1969 - MISAEL VERA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18840 May 29, 1969 - KUENZLE & STREIFF, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23275 May 29, 1969 - VICENTE CARBAJAL, ET AL. v. PONCIANA DIOLOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26056 May 29, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-26979 May 29, 1969 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27267 May 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO DE ATRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20571 May 30, 1969 - CARMEN YTURRALDE, ET AL. v. MARIANO VAGILIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22158 May 30, 1969 - NENITA YTURRALDE v. RAYMUNDO AZURIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24819 May 30, 1969 - ANDRES PASCUAL v. PEDRO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27234 May 30, 1969 - LEONORA T. ROXAS v. PEDRO DINGLASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27692 May 30, 1969 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25815 May 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22761 May 31, 1969 - ROSE BUSH MALIG, ET AL. v. MARIA SANTOS BUSH