Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > September 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 42782 September 29, 1989 - FIGURADO O. PLAZA v. JUAN C. TUVERA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 42782. September 29, 1989.]

FIGURADO O. PLAZA, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, HON. JOSE J. LEIDO, JR., HON. RAMON N. CASANOVA, and ERNESTO C. REYES, Respondents.

[G.R. No. 47936. September 29, 1989.]

FIGURADO O. PLAZA, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO C. REYES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Froilan R. Montalban, Sr. for Petitioner.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC LAND ACT; PUBLIC LANDS; ADMINISTRATION, DISPOSITION AND ALIENATION, ULTIMATELY LODGED WITH THE PRESIDENT. — The land in question is public land. Its administration, disposition and alienation is lodged in the Director of Lands subject to the control of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as alter ego of the President (Secs. 3, 4 and 5, Commonwealth Act 141). The President, through the Executive Secretary, may review, affirm, reverse, or modify the orders and decisions of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Extensive Enterprises Corp. v. Sarbio & Co., Inc., Et Al., 17 SCRA 41).

2. ID.; ID.; DISPOSITION THEREOF, AN EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; NOT BARRED BY JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. — The disposition of public land is an executive, not a judicial, function. The decision of the Court of First Instance in the action for recovery of possession filed by Plaza against Reyes did not bind nor bar the Office of the President from exercising its power as the final authority in the disposition of lands of the public domain.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REASONS. — For one thing, the decision of the Court of First Instance was not yet final when the Office of the President decided the miscellaneous sales applications of Reyes and Plaza. Furthermore, the administrative case was instituted ahead of Civil Case No. 1128. Reyes filed his Miscellaneous Sales Application No. 460-A on September 28,1966 while Civil Case 1128 was filed by Plaza on November 18, 1966 only. Plaza should have exhausted his administrative remedies before going to court. Having failed to do so, his recourse to the courts was premature. The dismissal of his complaint by the Court of Appeals was proper (Cruz v. Del Rosario, 9 SCRA 755; Gonzales v. Secretary of Education, 5 SCRA 657).


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


These two cases involve a 900 sq. m. parcel of public land which the petitioner had purchased from Luis Peggy on September 14, 1966 (thinking it belonged to the latter) but which the actual occupant, respondent Ernesto Reyes, had applied to purchase from the Government under a miscellaneous sales application filed by him in the Bureau of Lands in September, 1966.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

On November 18, 1966, Plaza filed an action (Civil Case No. 1128 of the Court of First Instance of Agusan Del Norte in Butuan City) to recover the land from Reyes. The trial court rendered judgment on December 5, 1973, ordering Reyes to vacate the land, to pay Plaza P300 as monthly rental beginning October 1966 with legal interest, until the property is actually vacated, plus P5,000 as moral damages, and P5,000 as attorneys fees.

However, in the administrative proceedings in the Bureau of Lands, where Plaza opposed Reyes’ miscellaneous sales application ("Ernesto C. Reyes, applicant-appellant v. Figurado O. Plaza, claimant-appellee [MSA {VII-a} 171]; DANR Case No. 3546"), the Regional Land Officer of Region No. VII, the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources unanimously found that the subject land is public land; and that Reyes was only a tenant of the petitioner whose preferential right to purchase said land the aforementioned officials recognized.

However, upon Reyes’ appeal to the Office of the President, the latter reversed on February 11, 1975 (OP Decision No. 1328, s. 1975), the ruling of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources that Reyes was a mere tenant of the land.

Plaza filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in this Court (G.R. No. L-42782) to annul the decision of the Office of the President for grave abuse of discretion in totally disregarding the decision of the Court of First Instance of Agusan Del Norte in Civil Case No. 1128 finding Reyes to be a mere lessee of the land in question.

On the other hand, Reyes appealed the decision in Civil Case No. 1128 of the Court of First Instance of Agusan Del Norte to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 56694-R, entitled "Figurado O. Plaza, plaintiff-appellee versus Ernesto C. Reyes, Defendant-Appellant"). The Court of Appeals deferred to the presidential decision in favor of Reyes in the administrative case and dismissed Plaza’s action. The dispositive part of its decision dated September 6, 1977 reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW WHEREOF, this Court is constrained to sustain Error 5, and to declare that by failure of appellee to institute proceedings to annul the administrative decision in favor of Reyes, and that administrative decision having acquired the character of finality binding upon Plaza, — his present case must have to be as it is hereby declared moot and academic, and is hereby dismissed, no more pronouncement as to costs." (pp. 29-30, Rollo, G.R. No. L-47936.).

The Court of Appeals made the following observations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . be it noted that Reyes has annexed to his brief copies of the decision and the resolution denying reconsideration and declaring the administrative decision already final: — Now, if this be the case, yes, the point of Plaza assailing that administrative decision, page[s] 4041, brief of appellee, — in the mind of this court, — absent any certiorari which has not been filed to annul it, admitted the fact that administrative decision has become final, — must mean that Plaza is already bound by that result, it was binding against him, the question of who of the protagonists was entitled to the sale of the land from the government has been settled, it was not appellee, Plaza, but appellant Reyes, and the necessary implication must have to be that Reyes should not be disturbed in his possession, — this being the true situation, this present case has become academic; if only to add something more, this Court might as well mention that the position of Plaza had been that the land he bought was described in his purchase as Lot 423, a private land, but the land that he claimed now, and sought to prove was what he had bought was not Lot 423 but Lot 460, a clearly public land." (p. 29, Rollo, Ibid.)

In due time, Plaza filed a petition for review in this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (G.R. No. L-47936). As the subject matter, the private parties, and the issues in this petition for review are the same as those in the certiorari case (G.R. No. L-42782), the two cases were consolidated.

The legal question presented by this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (G.R. No. L-42782) is whether the Office of the President may modify, revoke or totally disregard the decision of the Court of First Instance in the accion publiciana filed by Plaza against Reyes (Civil Case No. 1128) which was already pending appeal in the Court of Appeals when the Office of the President issued its assailed decision in favor of Reyes.

Petitioner argues that the Office of the President has no authority to reverse, set aside, or nullify a decision of a Court of First Instance on a matter that is within the court’s jurisdiction, or to render moot and academic an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals.

That contention is not well taken.

The land in question is public land. Its administration, disposition and alienation is lodged in the Director of Lands subject to the control of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as alter ego of the President (Secs. 3, 4 and 5, Commonwealth Act 141). The President, through the Executive Secretary, may review, affirm, reverse, or modify the orders and decisions of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Extensive Enterprises Corp. v. Sarbio & Co., Inc., Et Al., 17 SCRA 41).

The disposition of public land is an executive, not a judicial, function. The decision of the Court of First Instance in the action for recovery of possession filed by Plaza against Reyes did not bind nor bar the Office of the President from exercising its power as the final authority in the disposition of lands of the public domain. For one thing, the decision of the Court of First Instance was not yet final when the Office of the President decided the miscellaneous sales applications of Reyes and Plaza. Furthermore, the administrative case was instituted ahead of Civil Case No. 1128. Reyes filed his Miscellaneous Sales Application No. 460-A on September 28,1966 while Civil Case 1128 was filed by Plaza on November 18, 1966 only. Plaza should have exhausted his administrative remedies before going to court. Having failed to do so, his recourse to the courts was premature. The dismissal of his complaint by the Court of Appeals was proper (Cruz v. Del Rosario, 9 SCRA 755; Gonzales v. Secretary of Education, 5 SCRA 657).cralawnad

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, both petitions are dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner in both instances.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.




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






September-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-39215 September 1, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. UTILITY ASSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 63118 September 1, 1989 - JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73642 September 1, 1989 - RESTITUTO PALMA GIL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 84960 September 1, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN M. ASIO

  • G.R. No. 83216 September 4, 1989 - TERESITA QUINTOS-DELES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71681 September 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO S. MARILAO

  • G.R. No. 75206 September 5, 1989 - TOMAS GALGALA, ET AL. v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79416 September 5, 1989 - ROSALINA BONIFACIO, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46064 September 7, 1989 - MIGUELA MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51632 September 7, 1989 - PEPSICO, INCORPORATED vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 73465 September 7, 1989 - LEONIDA CUREG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76883 September 7, 1989 - VASSAR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78975 September 7, 1989 - IGNACIO V. SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82458 September 7, 1989 - CONCRETE AGGREGATES CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82478 September 7, 1989 - JUANITO DE ASIS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84578 September 7, 1989 - JOSE VICENTE SANTIAGO, IV v. BONIER DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85468 September 7, 1989 - QUINTIN S. DOROMAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87140 September 7, 1989 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88637 September 7, 1989 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74978 September 8, 1989 - MARKET DEVELOPERS, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75819 September 8, 1989 - FERMIN ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81861 September 8, 1989 - BERNABE QUE, ET AL. v. RODRIGO V. COSICO

  • G.R. No. 82696 September 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOELITO MANZANARES

  • A.M. No. MTJ-89-251 September 8, 1989 - CONRADO SANTOS v. OSCAR I. LUMANG

  • G.R. No. 68203 September 13, 1989 - METUROGAN L. SAREP v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 69251 September 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO GOLE CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 83907 September 13, 1989 - NAPOLEON GEGARE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87014-16 September 13, 1989 - SALIC B. DUMARPA, ET AL. v. JAMIL DIMAPORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76216 September 14, 1989 - GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76573 September 14, 1989 - MARUBENI CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989 - NORBERTO SORIANO v. OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35453 September 15, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63996 September 15, 1989 - EUSEBIO FRANCISCO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL,

  • G.R. No. 67880 September 15, 1989 - FELIX ESMALIN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72355-59 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN P. DAVID

  • G.R. No. 73053 September 15, 1989 - CARMELITA U. CRUZ v. GUILLERMO C. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74060 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESTITO HERMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989 - MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75693 September 15, 1989 - MARCELO BONDOC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80599 September 15, 1989 - ERNESTINA CRISOLOGO-JOSE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81949 September 15, 1989 - METERIO GUZMAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82670 September 15, 1989 - DOMETILA M. ANDRES v. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER & TRUST CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82703 September 15, 1989 - MAURO DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82971 September 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82973 September 15, 1989 - MARIO CARTAGENAS, ET AL. v. ROMAGO ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83695 September 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROY ALZAGA

  • G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS, ET AL. v. RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71116 September 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO HORTILLANO

  • G.R. No. 81231 September 19, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65418 September 25, 1989 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43810 September 26, 1989 - TOMAS CHIA v. ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75305 September 26, 1989 - MICHAEL PEÑALOSA, ET AL. v. CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78412 September 26, 1989 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78519 September 26, 1989 - VICTORIA YAU CHU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80719 September 26, 1989 - HILDA RALLA ALMINE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82325 September 26, 1989 - ESPIRITU SANTO PAROCHIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83250 September 26, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47206 September 27, 1989 - GLORIA M. DE ERQUIAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-86-11 September 27, 1989 - DAVID G. OMPOC v. NORITO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 39507 September 28, 1989 - IN RE: FRANCISCO SIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 46454 September 28, 1989 - NICETAS C. RODRIGUEZ v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 54472-77 September 28, 1989 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35652 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMINIO TAACA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 42782 September 29, 1989 - FIGURADO O. PLAZA v. JUAN C. TUVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48603 September 29, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. 50702 September 29, 1989 - ALFREDO CABRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57079 September 29, 1989 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61272 September 29, 1989 - BAGONG BAYAN CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69190 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO NIEBRES

  • G.R. No. 73006 September 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO PERIODICA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75009 September 29, 1989 - FRANCISCO M. ANGELES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 September 29, 1989 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

  • G.R. No. 76612 September 29, 1989 - ROMELITO ZAGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78339 September 29, 1989 - WENCESLAO D. MONSERRATE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79622 September 29, 1989 - ENRIQUETO F. TEJADA v. HOMESTEAD PROPERTY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80352 September 29, 1989 - BENJAMIN G. INDINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80892 September 29, 1989 - ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82508 September 29, 1989 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83751 September 29, 1989 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83946 September 29, 1989 - NENITA E. BABIDA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 - RICARDO C. VALMONTE, ET AL. v. RENATO DE VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85879 September 29, 1989 - NG SOON v. 0ALOYSIUS ALDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86105-06 September 29, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.