Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > July 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4851 July 31, 1953 - ELLOY MIGUEL, ET AL. v. ANA CLETA M. VDA. DE REYES, ET AL.

093 Phil 542:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4851. July 31, 1953.]

ELLOY MIGUEL, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANA CLETA M. VDA. DE REYES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Silvestre Bello for Appellants.

Juan Bigornia and Nemensio Fortunato for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION; ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. — Plaintiffs were aggrieved by the action or decision of the Director of Lands, their remedy was to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Having failed to do so, and having failed to exhaust their remedy in the administrative branch of the Government, plaintiffs cannot seek relief in the court of justice.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


On February 17, 1951, Eloy Miguel and his son Demetrio Miguel brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Isabela against Anacleta M. Vda. de Reyes, the Director of Lands, and the Register of Deeds of said province alleging that the first, that is, Eloy Miguel, had on March 10, 1932 filed with the Bureau of Lands a homestead application for a parcel of public land of about nine hectares situated in the municipality of Angadanan of the same province; that the other plaintiff, Demetrio Miguel, had some time that same year declared for taxation purposes another parcel of land in the same municipality with an area of about fourteen hectares and had since then been in actual, open, peaceful, and continuous possession of the same under a claim of ownership; that having been informed in January, 1950, that the defendant Anacleta M. Vda. de Reyes had included both of the above-mentioned parcels of land in a sales application filed by her with the Bureau of Lands, plaintiff’s, on February 16, 1950, filed their protest with the said Bureau, whereupon the Director of Lands ordered an investigation and a hearing was set and was to take place on February 10, 1951, but that, pending hearing, plaintiffs were informed on January 30 or 31, 1951, that the defendant Anacleta M. Vda. de Reyes had, thru "fraudulent machinations and false representations" been issued a sales patent (No. B-522) by the Director of Lands on the tenth of that month and an original certificate of title (T-1433) by the defendant Register of Deeds of Isabela on the twenty-second. Plaintiffs therefore prayed for judgment voiding the said sales patent and cancelling said original certificate of title and ordering defendant to pay damages.

Answering the complaint, defendants Anacleta M. Vda. de Reyes and the Director of Lands alleged facts showing compliance with the Public Land Law in the issuance of said sales patent No. B-522 and original certificate of title No. T-1433 and set up the defense that plaintiffs had no right to bring the action and that their complaint did not state a cause of action. The answer was later followed by a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Anacleta M. Vda. de Reyes on the grounds already stated in her defense.

Holding that the complaint stated no cause of action, the court ordered the same dismissed, whereupon plaintiffs brought the case here on appeal.

Brushing aside the contention that the motion to dismiss was not in order after the movant had already admitted in her answer that plaintiffs had legal personality to sue and that their complaint stated a sufficient cause of action — a contention which is without basis because it appears that, far from admitting such facts, the movant asserts precisely the contrary as a matter of defense in her answer — we find that the real question for determination is whether or not plaintiffs can maintain this action in court.

There is no clear averment that the lands claimed by plaintiffs are private property. On the contrary, it may be deduced from the allegations of the complaint that those lands were public lands, the disposition of which is vested in the Director of Lands, subject, in case of appeal, to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. If plaintiffs were aggrieved by the action or decision of the Director of Lands, their remedy was to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. But it does not appear that they have done so. It does not even appear that they have pursued their protest to its conclusion in the Bureau of Lands itself. Having failed to exhaust their remedy in the administrative branch of the Government, plaintiffs cannot now seek relief in the courts of justice.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal is affirmed with costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






July-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 98 July 13, 1953 - IN RE: FELIX P. DAVID

    093 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-6097 July 13, 1953 - GERONIMO MIRAFLOR v. ELADIO R. LEAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. L-6482 July 17, 1953 - MANUEL A. CONCORDIA v. ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-4555 July 23, 1953 - SOFRONIO G. ALCANTARA, ET AL. v. PATRICIO SURRO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4929 July 23, 1953 - ANTONIO MIRASOL v. PORFIRIO G. GEROCHI, ET AL.

    093 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. L-5794 July 23, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO DE LA CRUZ

    093 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-6782 July 25, 1953 - DOMINADOR JOVER v. JUAN BORRA

    093 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. L-4702 July 27, 1953 - CRISPULO F. ARNALDO, ET AL. v. JOSE BERNABE

    093 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-5110 July 29, 1953 - HERNANDO PABILONIA, ET AL. v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-4570 July 31, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO PACHECO

    093 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-4811 July 31, 1953 - CHARLES F. WOODHOUSE v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-4851 July 31, 1953 - ELLOY MIGUEL, ET AL. v. ANA CLETA M. VDA. DE REYES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-5021 July 31, 1953 - ISIDORO DE MORA v. LA INSULAR CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

    093 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-5057 July 31, 1953 - JACINTO R. BOHOL v. MAURO ROSARIO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-5432 July 31, 1953 - JOSE P. DANS, ETC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    093 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. L-5520 July 31, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO SABILUL

    093 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-5563 July 31, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO MENDOZA

    093 Phil 581

  • G.R. Nos. L-5791 & L-5792 July 31, 1953 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ

    093 Phil 584