Today is Sunday, January 26, 2020

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

RESOLUTION

l 13, 2009 Resolution2 which denied his petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

osenda Acerit (respondents) against the petitioner’s free patent application over a parcel of unregistered land located in Caniogan, St

o Bautista (Bautista). In 1959, Bautista, in turn, sold the subject land (second sale) to Atty. Samson Binag.

au of Lands (now Lands Management Bureau).4 On November 24, 1987, Atty. Binag sold the subject land (third sale) to the petitioner
lication.6

the free patent applications uniformly identified the subject land as Lot 322. The deeds covering the second and third sale also unifo

ation. The respondents asserted ownership over Lot 322 based on the Deeds of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale, dated June 23, 1

ormal investigation. The DENR Regional Office found out that the petitioner actually occupies and cultivates "the area in dispute inclu

in his free patent application since this lot belongs to the respondents. The DENR Regional Office ordered:
, Pls-541-D xxx;

1-D, as included in Lot No. 258;

ective technical description of x x x Lot Nos. 258 and 322, Pls-541-D.11

at in determining the identity of a lot, the boundaries – and not the lot number assigned to it - are controlling. Since the boundaries ind
Lot 322.12

he differences in the boundaries stated in the parties’ respective Deeds of Sale, the DENR Secretary concluded that the land claimed
e petitioner and Atty. Binag’s affidavit - claiming that the designation of Lot 322 in the Deed of Sale in the petitioner’s favor is erroneo

COURT OF APPEALS’ RULING

the CA ruled that since questions on the identity of a land require a technical determination by the appropriate administrative body, th
to great respect, if not finality.15 The petitioner assails this ruling before the Court.

ty. Binag filed a complaint for reformation of instruments, covering the second and third sale, against Bautista and the petitioner (the
of the land sold, the deeds, nevertheless, erroneously identified the subject land as Lot 322, instead of Lot 258.16

he pendency of the land protest before the Bureau of Lands. The RTC held in abeyance its resolution on the motion to dismiss.17

nag in the civil case by filing a complaint-in-intervention against the petitioner. The complaint-in-intervention captioned the responden
p of Lot 322. The respondents also alleged that they were in peaceful, continuous, public and adverse possession of Lot 322 from the
The respondents asked the RTC to declare them as owners of Lot 322.

respondents asked the RTC to suspend the civil case or, alternatively, to adopt the DENR Secretary’s ruling.20 In their prayer, the res

se of action xxx for reformation of contracts be granted;

ded to exclude Lot 322 xxx.

mages[.]

THE PETITION

e the parties’ conflicting claims of ownership over Lot 322, notwithstanding that the same issue is pending with the RTC. By ruling tha
e DENR effectively reformed contracts and determined claims of ownership over a real property – matters beyond the DENR’s compe

o has a better right over Lot 322 does not involve the "specialized technical expertise" of the DENR. On the contrary, the issue involve

y to the evidence. The petitioner asserts that the Deed of Sale in his favor clearly identified the property sold as Lot 322, which was th
a 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
over Lot 322, based on Atty. Binag’s testimony during the hearing on the respondents’ protest. According to the petitioner, the respon
, the respondents were already aware of Atty. Binag’s free patent application over Lot 322. Yet, they filed their protest to the free pate

at the respondents presented no sufficient evidence to prove their (or their predecessor-in-interest’s) title.

ble error in the assailed CA Decision and for raising substantially factual issues. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, confining h

THE RULING

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
the DENR’s jurisdiction and the CA’s application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

er 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
e the Court departs from the general rule on the reviewable issues under Rule 45, the petitioner did not even attempt to show that his
are generally conclusive on the courts,23 and even on this Court, when these factual findings are affirmed by the appellate court. We s

on to manage and dispose of lands of the public domain

uit for reformation of contracts belong, and those involving ownership of real property fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Region
dering the respondents to apply for a free patent over the same lot.

ent reflects their true intention.25 In the present case, this intention refers to the identity of the land covered by the second and third sa
equired to prove not only his ownership, but also the identity of the real property he seeks to recover.26

on to resolve controversies involving ownership of real property extends only to private lands. In the present case, neither party has a
ntion, instead of asserting their own private ownership of the property. For his part, the petitioner’s act of applying for a free patent wit
the Bureau of Lands. Section 4, Chapter 1, Title XIV of Executive Order No. 29228 reads:

all:

neral resources and, in the process of exercising such control, impose appropriate taxes, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of

xxx

domain and serve as the sole agency responsible for classification, sub-classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation wit

has the duty, among others, to assist the DENR Secretary in carrying out the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A. No. 14

ents against the petitioner’s free patent application. In resolving this protest, the DENR, through the Bureau of Lands, had to resolve t
over the disposition and management of lands of the public domain. The DENR, on the other hand, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to
ondents’ entitlement to the issuance of a free patent31 in their favor since it merely ordered the exclusion of Lot 322 from the petitione
ers properly falling within the powers of the DENR Secretary and the Director of Lands,32 unless grave abuse of discretion exists.

the exercise of its jurisdiction on related issues on the same matter properly within its jurisdiction,33 such as the distinct cause of actio
he CA found to actually pertain to Lot 258. When an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controvers

he Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There are hundreds of administrative bodies now performing this function by
tivities falling under their particular expertise.35

hat the issue (of who has a better right over Lot 322) does not require the "specialized technical expertise" of the DENR. He posits tha

olving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter, where the question de
s of fact36 –

to cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies[. It may occur that the Court has jurisdictio
d skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then
of primary jurisdiction.] It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of th
pended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view."37

he case below. It need only be suspended until after the matters within the competence of [the Lands Management Bureau] are thres

ea of competence and, concededly, this issue is judicial in character. However, regular courts would have no power to conclusively re
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director of Lands, subject to review by the DENR Secretary.40

blic land do not divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants (to protect their resp
of ownership as basis to recover possession. Particularly, the respondents prayed for declaration of ownership of Lot 322. Ineluctab
1avvphi1

ment to a free patent, following the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

tion and his consequent directive for the respondents to apply for the same lot are within the DENR Secretary’s exercise of sound ad
at the rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies to questions on the identity of the disputed public land since this
y power to proceed, in recognition of the primary jurisdiction of the administrative agency.
 ANTONIO T. CARPIO*
Associate Justice
Chairperson

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO**

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CERTIFICATION

, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to

d August 15, 2011.

dated July 29, 2011.

unreadable. While the free patent application of the petitioner, attached as Annex "P" of the petition, identified the land as Lot 322, it
public Land Subdivision situated in the barrio of San Vicente [Caniogan], Municipality of Santo Tomas, Province of Isabela, Philippine
by the property of [the heirs of] Pio Bautista xxx.

(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the j
ts findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial
d reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
d, would justify a different conclusion. (Triumph International [Phils.], Inc. v. Apostol, G.R. No. 164423, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 185

has absorbed the functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands except those line functions and powers which were transferred to the

control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the pu

ntract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequit
al Resources, Renaming it as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and for Other Purposes, June 10, 1987.

ter must prove his compliance with the statutory requisites to entitle him to a patent. Section 44, Chapter VII of the Public Land Act pr
east 30 years prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6940 amending the Public Land Act, has continuously occupied and cultivated
e has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled to a free patent over such land/s not to exceed 12 hectares. (Martinez v. Cou

08 SCRA 692.

G.R. No. 158455, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 517.

r 9, 1990, 191 SCRA 268, 272-273.

RA 426, 432.

Powers and Functions

ces] shall have the following powers and functions:

nds, and mineral resources and in the process of exercising such control, the Department shall impose appropriate payments, fees, c

xxx

of the public domain and shall continue to be the sole agency responsible for classification, sub-classification, surveying and titling o

utive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act through the Director of Lands, who shall act under his immediate con

e Court, G.R. No. 72486, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 267; and Omandam v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, January 18, 2001, 34
Constitution
Statutes

Executive Issuances

Judicial Issuances

Other Issuances

Jurisprudence

International Legal Resources

AUSL Exclusive