G.R. Nos. L-32651-52. August 31, 1971
LUCIO DAJUNOS, DIONISIA DAJUNOS, MANUEL FIRMALO, ROSITA FIRMALO, EMILIA FIRMALO, NENITA FIRMALO, THELMA FIRMALO, GUIA FIRMALO AND EMILIO FIRMALO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. TEODULO C…
CASTRO, J.:
The principal parties to this case are at odds over the ownership
and possession of a certain parcel of land, measuring about 9 hectares, located
in Demologan, Bacolod, in the province
of Lanao del Norte. Arrayed on the one hand are the petitioners
Manuel, Rosita, Nenita, Thelma, Guia
and Emilio, all surnamed Firmalo, and, on the other,
the respondents Faustino, Aniceta, Artemio, Rodolfo and Epifania,
all surnamed Taruc.
The Firmalos invoke in their favor, as the
heirs of the late Ireneo Firmalo,
a free patent award encompassing the land in question and issued by the
Director of Lands in March, 1969; whereas the Tarucs
rely on a final judgment rendered on October 28, 1968 by the respondent Judge Teodulo Tandayag of the Court of
First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch II, in
civil case 1218, adjudging them as the “equitable owners” over a
large portion of the property.
Daniel Taruc filed free patent
application 17-6267 on April 5, 1960
for a parcel of public land, about 9 hectares in size, situated in barrio Demologan, Bacolod,
Lanao del Norte. About two years thereafter, or on May 7, 1962, the Firmalos
lodged a protest with the Director of Lands, thru its regional office in Iligan City,
against the said application. Due
hearing was conducted thereon, and on December 16, 1963 a decision was rendered
by the Director rejecting Daniel Taruc’s application
and declaring the Firmalos the preferred applicants
over the property. The appeal taken by
Daniel Taruc to the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources was to no avail. On April 28, 1966, the latter rendered a
decision sustaining the findings of the Director of Lands and dismissing Taruc’s appeal. Two
motions, one for reconsideration, and another for
reinvestigation, were both denied by the same department head on October 4,
1967.
In the meantime, Daniel Taruc died.[1]
On June 14, 1968, appeal was taken (in the deceased’s name) to the President of
the Philippines from the Secretary’s decision of April 28, 1966 and order of
October 4, 1967. Before the
administrative case could be fully terminated, however, or on November 10, 1967
to be precise, the Tarucs, all heirs of the late
Daniel Taruc, commenced civil case 1218 against the Firmalos in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, presided by the respondent judge who was
on mere detail thereat due to the absence of the regular judge, Hernando
Pineda. The complaint, styled “for
the quieting of title and to prevent a cloud from being cast on said
title,” alleged that the Tarucs succeeded to all
the rights and property of the late Daniel Taruc;
that the latter, during his lifetime, was “the owner and in possession,
free, open and uninterrupted” of the land in dispute since 1929, the same
being covered by a free patent application in his name; that the defendants Lucio and Dionisia Dajunos have asserted a claim over the same property by
virtue of an invalid deed of sale executed in their favor by the defendant
Manuel Firmalo; and that this claim tended to cast a
cloud on the Tarucs‘ title and disturbed the latter’s
ownership. The Tarucs
asked the court to adjudicate to them the land in question, to the exclusion of
the Firmalos.
On June 10, 1968, the Firmalos filed an
answer to the above complaint, setting up the two decisions of the Director of
Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources rendered in their
favor and, by way of counterclaim, demanding from the Tarucs
payment of damages for the loss occasioned by the latter’s refusal to yield
possession of the disputed property.
Civil case 1218 was twice calendared for pre-trial but neither
the Firmalos nor their counsel appeared, and hearing
was consequently held ex parte for
reception of the evidence of the Tarucs. Finally, on October 8, 1968, the respondent judge rendered a decision
declaring the Tarucs the “true equitable
owners” of the land subject of that case and the rightful possessors
thereof. No appeal was taken from this
decision, causing the same to become “final and executory.”
Subsequently, however, the President of the Philippines acted on
the late Daniel Taruc’s appeal in the administrative
proceedings. In a decision handed down
on December 6, 1968, the President sustained the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. This opened the way
for the Firmalos to apply for a title to the
land. Finally, on March 28, 1969,
Original Certificate of Title P-2881 was issued to the Firmalos,
covering 13 hectares of land, a large portion of which is admittedly the same
property adjudicated by the respondent judge in favor of the Tarucs.
On November 5, 1969, a new action, civil case 1528, was commenced
by the Firmalos against the Tarucs
in the same court, now presided by Judge Hernando Pineda, for “ownership,
possession and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction.” The Firmalos invoked the title of ownership administratively
awarded to them. On November 24, 1969,
finding merit in the verified complaint filed by the Firmalos,
Judge Pineda issued an order granting the petition for preliminary mandatory
injunction and directing the Tarucs to vacate the
land covered by the Firmalos‘ title. The Tarucs filed a
motion for reconsideration of this order, claiming that the “final”
judgment in civil case 1218 barred the filing of the new action. They likewise offered to file a counter-bond
for the lifting of the injunction against them.
This motion was, however, denied in an order dated February 17,
1970. As a result, the possession of the
land in dispute shifted to the Firmalos and there
remained until about half a year later when Judge Pineda retired from the bench
and the respondent judge again took over.
On August 31, 1970, a writ of execution was issued by the
respondent judge in civil case 1218, enforcing the judgment of October 28,
1968. This writ was served upon the Firmalos and the possession of the property in question was
thereby effectively returned to the Tarucs. On September 2, 1970, the Firmalos
filed an urgent motion for the recall of the above writ, mounting an attack on
the jurisdiction of the court in civil case 1218 to adjudicate the ownership
and possession of the property which admittedly belonged to the category of
public land. This motion was denied by
the respondent judge on September 12, 1970.
He ruled that the court’s “final” judgment may be annulled
only by an independent action for that purpose and not by mere motion filed by
the aggrieved party. Further, the
respondent judge declared the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued
in civil case 1528 in favor of the Firmalos dissolved
and without force and effect.
It is in the context of this situation that the present petition
found its way to this Court.
The central issue presented to us for resolution is, whether the court
below had the power to determine, in civil case 1218, which of the adverse
claimants therein had the better right to the ownership of the property in
litigation.
In his decision, the respondent judge, after discrediting the
claim of the Firmalos, held that:
“… On the other hand, though it is
shown by the evidence of the plaintiffs [the Tarucs]
that the land in question is a public land and applied before [sic] a
patent title by the late Daniel Taruc under Free
Patent Application No. 17-6267, it could be concluded that plaintiffs have an
equitable title or interest in the land in question because by their contin[u]ous, adverse, open and
peaceful possession of said land since 1929 up to the present, they are
entitled to a free patent title to said land and they are regarded as equitable owners of the
same as a basis of their action.” (Underscoring supplied)
In effect, the court below was, knowingly
or unknowingly, substituting its judgment in place of the two decisions that
at that time had already been rendered by the Director of Lands and the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources in favor of the Firmalos. But even while the Tarucs
have concealed (intentionally or otherwise) in their complaint or omitted from
their evidence the fact that the administrative proceedings over the same
property had already reached that stage where only the President’s action on
Daniel Taruc’s appeal stood in the way of a grant of
title to the Firmalos, the court should have
nevertheless desisted from passing judgment upon the respective claims of the
parties over the parcel of public land in dispute.
The action commenced by the Tarucs is
not one of the possessory actions which, we have
held, courts have power to determine notwithstanding that the property affected
thereby is public land.
“Courts have jurisdiction over possessory actions involving public lands to determine the
issue of physical possession (in forcible entry cases before inferior courts)
or the better right of possession (in accion publiciana cases before courts of first
instance.)”[2]
Neither is the action one for a judicial
review of the decision of the Director of Lands, something which jurisprudence
recognizes in those instances where there is fraud, imposition or mistake other
than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of the evidence,[3]
or where the correctness of the legal conclusions of the Director is in issue.[4]
The Tarucs‘ action was for “quieting of
title” and necessitated determination of the respective rights of the
litigants, both claimants to a free patent title, over a piece of property,
admittedly public land. The law,[5]
as relied upon by jurisprudence,[6]
lodges “the power of executive control, administration, disposition and
alienation of public lands with the Director of Lands subject, of course, to
the control of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.”[7]
In sum, the decision rendered in civil case 1218 on October 28,
1968 is a patent nullity. The court
below did not have power to determine who (the Firmalos
or the Tarucs) were entitled to an award of free
patent title over that piece of property that yet belonged to the public
domain. Neither did it have power to
adjudge the Tarucs as entitled to the “true
equitable ownership” thereof, the latter’s effect being the same: the exclusion of the Firmalos
in favor of the Tarucs.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the court a quo
in civil case 1218 dated October 28, 1968 is hereby set aside as being null and
void, together with the writ of execution and the order of September 12, 1970
deriving therefrom.
The same court is hereby ordered to reinstate the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction dated December 16, 1969 issued in civil case 1528 and,
thereafter, proceed with the hearing and determination of the latter case. Costs against the private
respondents.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., took no part.
[1]
The record does not show the date of death.
[2] Rallon vs. Ruiz, Jr., L-23318, May 26, 1969, 28 SCRA
332, 340-1, citing Molina vs. De Bacud,
19 SCRA 956, and Villaflor vs. Reyes,
22 SCRA 385.
[3] Alejo vs.
Garchitorena, 83 Phil. 294; De Guzman vs. De
Guzman, 104 Phil. 24.
[4] Alejo vs.
Garchitorena, supra; Ortua vs. Singson Encarnacion, 59 Phil. 440.
[5] Section 4, Commonwealth Act 141.
[6]
See cases cited in City of Baguio
vs. Marcos, L-26100, February
28, 1969, 27 SCRA 342, 349, at footnote 7.
[7]
In view of the conflicting claims regarding which of the parties has been in
longer possession of the property the Regional Land Officer of Cagayan de Oro city conducted a
hearing (at which both sides presented their evidence) and made an ocular inspection
of the disputed land. Subsequently, the
Director of Lands, in a decision dated December 16, 1963, found the
preponderance of evidence in favor of the Firmalos. Daniel Taruc
appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources alleging that
the Regional Land Officer erred (a) in finding “that the late Ireneo Firmalo had been in
exclusive possession of the land in question long before the war up to his
death in 1955; and (b) in disregarding the testimonies of Taruc’s
tenants and the adjoining landowners to the effect that he (Taruc)
was the actual occupant and possessor of the land.” In a decision dated
April 28, 1966, the Secretary found the errors assigned to be without basis,
and affirmed the Director’s findings of fact as well as the latter’s
adjudication of the land to the Firmalos. Taruc’s appeal to
the President was similarly adjudged to be without merit.