Republic of the
Supreme Court
ROSITO BAGUNU,
Petitioner, - versus - SPOUSES FRANCISCO AGGABAO & ROSENDA ACERIT, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 186487
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
PERALTA,* BERSAMIN,** and SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated: August 15, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
R E S O L U T I O N
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We resolve
the motion for reconsideration[1]
filed by Rosito Bagunu (petitioner) to reverse our
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
R.L.O. Claim No. 937/DENR Case No. 5177
The present
controversy stemmed from a protest filed by the spouses Francisco Aggabao and
Rosenda Acerit (respondents) against the petitioners free patent
application over a parcel of unregistered land located in Caniogan, Sto. Tomas,
Isabela (subject land), pending before the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Region II, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan (DENR Regional Office).
The subject
land was previously owned by Marcos Binag, who later sold it (first sale)
to Felicisimo Bautista (Bautista). In 1959, Bautista, in turn, sold the
subject land (second sale) to Atty. Samson Binag.
On
The deeds
evidencing the successive sale of the subject land, the Bureau of Lands survey,[7]
and the free patent applications uniformly identified the subject land as
third sale also uniformly identified the boundaries of the subject land.[8]
On
The Office of
the Regional Executive Director of the DENR conducted an ocular inspection and
formal investigation. The DENR Regional Office found out that the petitioner
actually occupies and cultivates the area in dispute including the area
purchased by [the respondents].[10]
On
1. [The respondents to] file their appropriate public land application covering Lot No. 322, Pls-541-D xxx;
2. [The petitioners free patent application] be amended by excluding Lot No. 322, Pls-541-D, as included in Lot No. 258;
3. [A] relocation survey xxx to determine the exact area as indicated in [the parties] respective technical description of x x x Lot Nos. 258 and 322, Pls-541-D.[11]
The
petitioner moved for reconsideration. The DENR Regional Office
denied the motion ruling that in determining the identity of a lot, the
boundaries and not the lot number assigned to it - are controlling. Since the
boundaries indicated in the deed of sale in the petitioners favor correspond
to the boundaries of Lot 258, what the petitioner acquired was Lot 258,
notwithstanding the erroneous description of the lot sold as
On appeal,
the DENR Secretary affirmed[13]
the ruling of the DENR Regional Office. After noting the differences in the
boundaries stated in the parties respective Deeds of Sale, the DENR Secretary
concluded that the land claimed by the petitioner is, in fact, distinct from
that claimed by the respondents. The DENR Secretary ruled that based on the
parties respective deeds of sale, the Subdivision Plan of the lot sold to the
petitioner and Atty. Binags affidavit - claiming that the designation of Lot
322 in the Deed of Sale in the petitioners favor is erroneous - what the
petitioner really acquired was Lot 258 and not Lot 322.[14]
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
COURT OF APPEALS RULING
The CA
affirmed the ruling of the DENR Secretary. Applying the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, the CA ruled that since questions on the identity of a land
require a technical determination by the appropriate administrative body, the
findings of fact of the DENR Regional Office, as affirmed by the DENR
Secretary, are entitled to great respect, if not finality.[15] The
petitioner assails this ruling before the Court.
Civil Case No. 751
In the
meantime, on
On
After
obtaining a favorable ruling from the DENR Regional Office, the respondents
joined Atty. Binag in the civil case by filing a complaint-in-intervention
against the petitioner. The complaint-in-intervention captioned the respondents
causes of action as one for Quieting of Title, Reivindicacion and Damages.[18] The
respondents alleged that the petitioners claim over Lot 322 is a cloud on
their title and ownership of
After the CA
affirmed the DENR Secretarys favorable resolution on the respondents protest,
the respondents asked the RTC to suspend the civil case or, alternatively, to
adopt the DENR Secretarys ruling.[20]
In their prayer, the respondents asked the RTC to:
1. [Adopt] the findings of the DENR as affirmed by the Court of Appeals xxx thus, the cause of action xxx for reformation of contracts be granted;
2. [Order
the petitioner] to vacate Lot 322 xxx and his [Free Patent Application] be
amended to exclude
3. [Set the case] for hearing to receive evidence on the claim of the [respondents] for damages[.]
THE PETITION
The
petitioner argues that the CA erred in affirming the DENR Secretarys jurisdiction
to resolve the parties conflicting claims of ownership over
The
petitioner faults the CA for applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
since the issue of who has a better right over
The
petitioner claims that the DENR Secretarys factual finding, as affirmed by the
CA, is contrary to the evidence. The petitioner asserts that the Deed of
Sale in his favor clearly identified the property sold as Lot 322, which was
the same land Atty. Binag identified in his free patent application; that the
area of Lot 322, as previously determined in a survey caused by the vendor
himself (Atty. Binag), tallies with the area stated in the deed in his favor;
that he has been in possession of Lot 322 since 1987, when it was sold to him;
and that his present possession and cultivation of Lot 322 were confirmed by
the DENR Regional Office during its ocular investigation.
The
petitioner also invites our attention to the incredulity of the respondents
claim of ownership over
Lastly, the
petitioner contests the adjudication of
In our
THE RULING
We deny the motion for reconsideration.
Questions
of fact generally barred under Rule 45
The main
thrust of the petitioners arguments refers to the alleged error of the DENR
and the CA in identifying the parcel of land that the petitioner bought
an error that adversely affected his right to apply for a free patent over
the subject land. In his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner apparently
took a cue from our
The
petitioner correctly recognized the settled rule that questions of fact are
generally barred under a Rule 45 petition. In the present case, the identity
of Lots 258 and 322 is a central factual issue. The determination of the
identity of these lots involves the task of delineating their actual boundaries
in accordance with the parties respective deeds of sale and survey plan, among
others. While there are instances where the Court
departs from the general rule on the reviewable issues under Rule 45, the
petitioner did not even attempt to show that his case falls within the
recognized exceptions.[21]
On top of this legal reality, the findings and decision of the Director
of Lands[22] on questions of fact, when approved by the DENR
Secretary, are generally conclusive on the courts,[23] and
even on this Court, when these factual findings are affirmed by the appellate
court. We shall consequently confine our
discussions to the petitioners twin legal issues.
The
determination of the identity of a public land is within the DENRs exclusive
jurisdiction to manage and dispose of lands of the public domain
The
petitioner insists that under the law[24]
actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, to which a suit for reformation of
contracts belong, and those involving ownership of real property fall within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Since these actions are
already pending before the RTC, the DENR Secretary overstepped his authority in
excluding
In an action
for reformation of contract, the court determines whether the parties written
agreement reflects their true intention.[25]
In the present case, this intention refers to the identity of the land
covered by the second and third sale. On the other hand, in a reivindicatory
action, the court resolves the issue of ownership of real property and the
plaintiffs entitlement to recover its full possession. In this action, the
plaintiff is required to prove not only his ownership, but also the identity
of the real property he seeks to recover.[26]
While these
actions ordinarily fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, the
courts jurisdiction to resolve controversies involving ownership of real
property extends only to private lands. In the present case, neither party has
asserted private ownership over
Section 4. Powers and Functions. - The Department [of Environment and Natural Resources] shall:
x x x
(4) Exercise supervision and control over forest lands, alienable and disposable public lands, mineral resources and, in the process of exercising such control, impose appropriate taxes, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of levy and collect such revenues for the exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such resources;
x x x
(15) Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain and serve as the sole agency responsible for classification, sub-classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with appropriate agencies[.] (Underscoring supplied.)
Under Section
14(f) of Executive Order No. 192,[29] the
Director of the Lands Management Bureau has the duty, among others, to assist
the DENR Secretary in carrying out the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A.
No. 141)[30] by
having direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or
any other forms of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the
public domain.
As the CA
correctly pointed out, the present case stemmed from the protest filed by the
respondents against the petitioners free patent application. In resolving this
protest, the DENR, through the Bureau of Lands, had to resolve the issue of identity
of the lot claimed by both parties. This issue of identity of the land requires
a technical determination by the Bureau of Lands, as the administrative agency with
direct control over the disposition and management of lands of the public
domain. The DENR, on the other hand, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to
manage and dispose of public lands, must likewise determine the applicants
entitlement (or lack of it) to a free patent. (Incidentally, the DENR Regional
Office still has to determine the respondents entitlement to the issuance of a
free patent[31] in
their favor since it merely ordered the exclusion of
After the
DENR assumed jurisdiction over
The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There are hundreds of administrative bodies now performing this function by virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as it is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power entrusted to them of regulating certain activities falling under their particular expertise.[35]
The
DENR has primary jurisdiction to resolve conflicting claims of title over
public lands
The
petitioner argues that the CA erred in applying the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, claiming that the issue (of who has a better right over
We disagree.
Under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts must refrain from determining a
controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter, where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact[36]
In recent years, it has been the jurisprudential trend to apply [the doctrine of primary jurisdiction] to cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies[. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.] It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body, in such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.[37]
The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, however, does not call for the dismissal of the case below. It need only be suspended until after the matters within the competence of [the Lands Management Bureau] are threshed out and determined. Thereby, the principal purpose behind the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is salutarily served.[38] (Emphases added.)
The
resolution of conflicting claims of ownership over real property is within the
regular courts area of competence and, concededly, this issue is judicial in
character. However, regular courts would have no power to conclusively resolve
this issue of ownership given the public character of the land, since
under C.A. No. 141, in relation to Executive Order No. 192,[39]
the disposition and management of public lands fall within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Director of Lands, subject to
review by the DENR Secretary.[40]
While
the powers given to the DENR, through the Bureau of Lands, to alienate and
dispose of public land do not divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory
actions instituted by occupants or applicants (to protect their respective
possessions and occupations),[41]
the respondents complaint-in-intervention does not simply raise the issue of
possession whether de jure or de facto but likewise raised
the issue of ownership as basis to recover possession. Particularly, the
respondents prayed for declaration of ownership of
Undoubtedly,
the DENR Secretarys exclusion of
WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the motion for
reconsideration. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as Acting Member of the Second
Division per Special Order No. 1062 dated
** Designated as Additional Member of the Second
Division per Special Order No. 1053 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 256-265; dated
[2]
[3] Under the provisions of Chapter VII of Commonwealth Act No. 141.
[4] Rollo, p. 14.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] The deeds of sale describe the parcel of land sold as follows:
A tract of land known as Lot 322 of Pls. 541-D, Case No. 1 of the Santo Tomas public Land Subdivision situated in the barrio of San Vicente [Caniogan], Municipality of Santo Tomas, Province of Isabela, Philippines, bounded on the north by the Cagayan River; on the east by property of [the heirs of] Ambrocio Binag; on the south by property of [the heirs of] Ambrocio Binag and on the west by the property of [the heirs of] Pio Bautista xxx.
[9] Rollo, p. 126.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] (1) [W]hen the findings
are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its
findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the
findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10)
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Triumph
International [Phils.], Inc. v. Apostol, G.R. No. 164423,
[22] Under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192, the newly created Lands Management Bureau has absorbed the functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands except those line functions and powers which were transferred to the regional field offices.
[23] Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, reads:
SEC. 4. Subject to said control, the Director of Lands shall have direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain, and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources.
[24] Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
[25] Article 1359 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed.
[26] Spouses
Caezo v. Bautista, G.R. No. 170189,
[27] Sumail v.
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, 96 Phil. 946 (1955).
[28] Administrative Code of 1987; see also Section 5, Executive Order No. 192.
[29] Providing for
the Reorganization of the Department of Environment, Energy and Natural
Resources, Renaming it as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
and for Other Purposes,
[30] Otherwise known as The Public Land Act.
[31] Under C.A.
No. 141, as amended, before a free patent is issued to an applicant, the latter
must prove his compliance with the statutory requisites to entitle him to a
patent. Section 44, Chapter VII of the Public Land Act provides that the
applicant for administrative confirmation of imperfect title must be a natural
born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than 12 hectares
and who, for at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No.
6940 amending the Public Land Act, has continuously occupied and cultivated,
either by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest, a tract or tracts of
agricultural public land subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real
estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by any person shall be
entitled to a free patent over such land/s not to exceed 12 hectares. (
[32] Heirs of
[33] See Sherwill
Development Corporation v. Sitio
Sto. Nio Residents
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 158455,
[34] Badillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131903,
[35] Id. at 448, citing C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v. Hibionada, G.R. No. 80916, November 9, 1990, 191 SCRA 268, 272-273.
[36] Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
G.R. No. 167715,
[37] Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 95694,
[38] Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88550, April 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 426, 432.
[39] Section 5 of E.O. No. 192 reads:
Powers and Functions
To accomplish its mandate, the Department
[of Environment and Natural Resources] shall have the following powers and
functions:
d. Exercise supervision and
control over forest lands, alienable and disposable lands, and mineral
resources and in the process of exercising such control, the Department shall
impose appropriate payments, fees, charges, rentals, and any such form of levy
and collect such revenues for the exploration, development, utilization or
gathering of such resources;
xxx
m. Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public domain and shall continue to be the sole agency responsible for classification, sub-classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with appropriate agencies[.]
[40] Section 3 of C.A. No. 141, as amended, reads:
SEC. 3. The Secretary of [Environment and Natural Resources] shall be the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act through the Director of Lands, who shall act under his immediate control.
[41]
[42] Supra note 37.