G.R. No. 42782 - SEPTEMBER 1989 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 42782September 29, 1989 Figurado 0. Plaza vs. Juan C. Tuvera G.R. No. 57079September 29, 1989 Philippine Long Distance Telephone vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 69190September 29, 1989 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Niebres G.R. No. 73006September 29, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Periodica, Jr. G.R. No. 75009September 29, 1989Francisco M. Angeles vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 78339September 29, 1989Wenceslao D. Monserrate vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79622September 29, 1989Enriqueto F. Tejada vs. Homestead Property Corporation G.R. No. 80352September 29, 1989Benjamin G. Indino, vs. National Labor Relations Com. G.R. No. 80892September 29, 1989Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82508September 29, 1989Filinvest Credit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 83751September 29, 1989Manila Electric Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 83946September 29, 1989Nenita E. Babida vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 83988September 29, 1989Ricardo C. Valmonte vs. Renato De Villa G.R. No. 85879September 29, 1989Ng Soon vs. Aloysius Alday G.R. No. 35652September 29, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Herminio Taaca G.R. No. 48603September 29, 1989Government Serv. Insurance Sys. vs. Alfredo C. Florendo G.R. No. 50702September 29, 1989Alfredo Cabral vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 61272September 29, 1989Bagong Bayan Corporation Realty Investors & Developers vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 76353September 29,1989Sophia Alcuaz vs. Philippine School of Business Administration G.R. No. 76612September 29, 1989Romelito Zagado vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 86105-06September 29, 1989Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 54472-77September 28, 1989Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 39507September 28, 1989 Francisco Sim vs. Rep. of the Phil G.R. No. 46454September 28, 1989Nicetas C. Rodriguez vs. Employees' Compensation Com A.M. No. MTJ-86-11September 27, 1989David G. Ompoc vs. Norito E. Torres G.R. No. 47206September 27, 1989 Gloria M. De Erquiaga vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 75305September 26, 1989Michael Peñalosa vs. Candido P. Villanueva G.R. No. 80719September 26, 1989Hilda Ralla Almine vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82325September 26, 1989Espiritu Santo Parochial Sch. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 83250September 26, 1989Commission of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Hotel Corporation G.R. No. L-43810September 26, 1989Tomas Chia vs. Acting Collector of Customs G.R. No. 78412September 26, 1989Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78519September 26, 1989Victoria Yau Chu vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 65418September 25, 1989 Collector of Customs of Manila vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 71116September 19, 1989 The People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Hortillano G.R. No. 81231September 19, 1989Philippine National Railways vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. Nos. 72355-59September 15, 1989 People of the Philippines vs. Juan P. David G.R. No. 73053 September 15, 1989 Carmelita U. Cruz vs. Guillermo C. Medina, et al. G.R. No. 74060 September 15, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Crestito Hermosa, et al. G.R. No. 75662 September 15, 1989Mercury Drug Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 75693September 15, 1989Marcelo Bondoc vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80599 September 15, 1989Ernestina Crisologo-Jose vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 81949September 15, 1989Emeterio Guzman vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82670 September 15, 1989Dometila M. Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation G.R. No. 82703September 15, 1989Mauro De La Cruz vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 82971September 15, 1989Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82973September 15, 1989Mario Cartagenas, et al. vs. Romago Electric Company, Inc. G.R. No. 83695September 15, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Roy Alzaga G.R. No. 88211September 15, 1989Ferdinand E. Marcos vs. Raul Manglapus G.R. No. 35453September 15, 1989Industrial Finance Corporation vs. Hon. Sergio A.F. Apostol G.R. No. 63996September 15, 1989Eusebio Francisco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 67880September 15, 1989Felix Esmalin vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. Nos. 76216-17September 14, 1989German Management & Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 76573September 14, 1989Marubeni Corporation vs. Comm'r. of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 78409September 14, 1989Norberto Soriano vs. Offshore Shipping & Manning Corporation et al. G.R. No. 68203September 13, 1989 Meturogan L. Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 83907September 13, 1989Napoleon Gegare vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 69251 September 13, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Gole Cruz G.R. No. 87014-16 September 13, 1989 Salic B. Dumarpa vs. Jamil Dimaporo A.M. No. MTJ-89-251 September 8, 1989 Conrado Santos vs. Oscar I. Lumang G.R. No. 74978 September 8, 1989Market Developers, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 75819September 8, 1989Fermin Ong vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 81861 September 8, 1989Bernabe Que vs. J. Rodrigo V. Cosico G.R. No. 82696 September 8, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Noelito Manzanares G.R. No. 73465 September 7, 1989Leonida Cureg, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 76883 September 7, 1989Vassar Industries, Inc. vs. Vassar Industries Employees Union, et al. G.R. No. 78975September 7, 1989Ignacio V. Soriano vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82458September 7, 1989Concrete Aggregates Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 82478September 7, 1989Juanito De Asis, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 84578September 7, 1989Jose Vicente Santiago, Iv vs. Bonier De Guzman G.R. No. 85468September 7, 1989Quintin S. Doromal vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 87140September 7, 1989National Power Company vs. Arsenio M. Gonong G.R. No. 88637September 7, 1989Enrique T. Garcia vs. Board of Investments G.R. No. 46064September 7, 1989 Miguela Miranda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 51632 September 7, 1989 Pepsico, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 71681 September 5, 1989 People of the Philippines vs. Cornelio S. Marilao G.R. No. 75206September 5, 1989Tomas Galgala, et al. vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc. G.R. No. 79416 September 5, 1989Rosalina Bonifacio vs. J. Natividad G. Dizon G.R. No. 83216September 4,1989Teresita Quintos-Deles vs. Commission on Constitutional Commission G.R. No. 63118September 1, 1989Jose Rodriguez vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 73642 September 1, 1989Restituto Palma Gil, et al., vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 84960 September 1, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Efren M. Asio G.R. No. 39215 September 1, 1989 Philippine National Bank vs. Utility Assurance & Surety Company, Inc. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Figurado 0. Plaza vs. Juan C. TuveraPhilippine Long Distance Telephone vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo NiebresPeople of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Periodica, Jr.Francisco M. Angeles vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtWenceslao D. Monserrate vs. Court of AppealsEnriqueto F. Tejada vs. Homestead Property CorporationBenjamin G. Indino, vs. National Labor Relations Com.Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines vs. Hon. Court of AppealsFilinvest Credit Corporation vs. Court of AppealsManila Electric Company vs. National Labor Relations CommissionNenita E. Babida vs. People of the PhilippinesRicardo C. Valmonte vs. Renato De VillaNg Soon vs. Aloysius AldayPeople of the Philippines vs. Herminio TaacaGovernment Serv. Insurance Sys. vs. Alfredo C. FlorendoAlfredo Cabral vs. Court of AppealsBagong Bayan Corporation Realty Investors & Developers vs. National Labor Relations CommissionSophia Alcuaz vs. Philippine School of Business AdministrationRomelito Zagado vs. Court of AppealsPhilippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Court of AppealsFrancisco Sim vs. Rep. of the PhilNicetas C. Rodriguez vs. Employees' Compensation ComDavid G. Ompoc vs. Norito E. TorresGloria M. De Erquiaga vs. Court of AppealsMichael Peñalosa vs. Candido P. VillanuevaHilda Ralla Almine vs. Court of AppealsEspiritu Santo Parochial Sch. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionCommission of Internal Revenue vs. Manila Hotel CorporationTomas Chia vs. Acting Collector of CustomsTraders Royal Bank vs. Court of AppealsVictoria Yau Chu vs. Court of AppealsCollector of Customs of Manila vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtThe People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio HortillanoPhilippine National Railways vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Juan P. DavidCarmelita U. Cruz vs. Guillermo C. Medina, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Crestito Hermosa, et al.Mercury Drug Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionMarcelo Bondoc vs. Court of AppealsErnestina Crisologo-Jose vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Emeterio Guzman vs. Court of AppealsDometila M. Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust CorporationMauro De La Cruz vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPhilippine National Bank vs. Court of AppealsMario Cartagenas, et al. vs. Romago Electric Company, Inc.People of the Philippines vs. Roy AlzagaFerdinand E. Marcos vs. Raul ManglapusIndustrial Finance Corporation vs. Hon. Sergio A.F. ApostolEusebio Francisco vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtFelix Esmalin vs. National Labor Relations CommissionGerman Management & Services, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsMarubeni Corporation vs. Comm'r. of Internal RevenueNorberto Soriano vs. Offshore Shipping & Manning Corporation et al.Meturogan L. Sarep vs. SandiganbayanNapoleon Gegare vs. Hon. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Danilo Gole CruzSalic B. Dumarpa vs. Jamil DimaporoConrado Santos vs. Oscar I. LumangMarket Developers, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtFermin Ong vs. Court of AppealsBernabe Que vs. J. Rodrigo V. CosicoPeople of the Philippines vs. Noelito ManzanaresLeonida Cureg, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Vassar Industries, Inc. vs. Vassar Industries Employees Union, et al.Ignacio V. Soriano vs. Court of AppealsConcrete Aggregates Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionJuanito De Asis, et al. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionJose Vicente Santiago, Iv vs. Bonier De GuzmanQuintin S. Doromal vs. SandiganbayanNational Power Company vs. Arsenio M. GonongEnrique T. Garcia vs. Board of InvestmentsMiguela Miranda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Pepsico, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Cornelio S. MarilaoTomas Galgala, et al. vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc.Rosalina Bonifacio vs. J. Natividad G. DizonTeresita Quintos-Deles vs. Commission on Constitutional CommissionJose Rodriguez vs. SandiganbayanRestituto Palma Gil, et al., vs. People of the PhilippinesPeople of the Philippines vs. Efren M. AsioPhilippine National Bank vs. Utility Assurance & Surety Company, Inc.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 42782 September 29, 1989
FIGURADO O. PLAZA,petitioner,
vs.
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 0. PLAZA,petitioner,
vs.
ERNESTO C. REYES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS,respondents.
Froilan R. Montalban, Sr. for petitioner.
Citizens Legal Assistance Office for private respondent.
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.
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 vs. 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 forcertiorari,prohibitionand mandamusin 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 0. 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:
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:
... 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 anycertiorariwhich has not been filed to annul it, admitted the fact that 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).ℒαwρhi৷As the subject matter, the private parties, and the issues in this petition for review are the same as those in thecertioraricase (G.R. No. L-42782), the two cases were consolidated.
The legal question presented by this petition forcertiorari,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 theaccion publicianafiled 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. vs. 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 as 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 vs. Del Rosario, 9 SCRA 755; Gonzales vs. Secretary of Education, 5 SCRA 657).
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.