SPOUSES JOSE R. ONG & MARCELINA ONG, SPOUSES JUAN MANUEL LIM & CLARISSA LIM, SPOUSES CECIL YAP AND JULIA VICTORIA YAP, AND SPOUSES CLIFTON YAP AND ANGELITA YAP, PLAINTIFFS-APPEL…

Ong versus Heirs of Lucresia Lopena Lopos

The Case

This is an appeal brought by the spouses Ong, the spouses Lim, and the spouses Yap against the Heirs of Lucresia Lopena Lopos and the public officers of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The plaintiffs below filed an action for quieting of title and damages over two parcels of land in Dauis, Bohol, claiming to have bought them from the heirs of one Serapio Lopena. The defendants countered that the lots belonged to a different person, Serafino Lopena, whose heirs had applied for free patents. The case matters because it fixes a clean rule for the Bar: the regular courts have no jurisdiction over land that remains part of the public domain, and a final decision of the DENR Regional Executive Director, once unappealed, binds the parties under res judicata.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed their complaint for quieting of title and damages with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Branch 49. The private defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, and forum shopping. The trial court initially denied the motion in its January 2012 order. On reconsideration, the trial court reversed itself and, in its April 2012 order, dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata, forum shopping, and lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied in a May 2012 order. The plaintiffs then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, assigning as errors the trial court's findings of res judicata, forum shopping, and implied admission that the lots remained public land.

Facts

The controversy concerns Lot 6740 and Lot 6741 in Totolan, Dauis, Bohol. The private defendants, Dominga Biliran and Julia Lopos, filed free patent applications before the DENR Region VII. They claimed that the lots, then still one parcel, were originally owned by the late Serafino Lopena as early as 1916, who possessed and cultivated them and died a widower without issue. After his death, his siblings adjudicated the land by oral partition to his sister, Lucresia Lopena Lopos, who continued to possess and cultivate it. Upon her death in 1982, the land passed to her children, who took over possession and cultivation, and the land was later subdivided into the two lots now in dispute.

On the other side, the plaintiff Jose R. Ong filed a formal protest against the free patent applications in January 2006. He claimed that Serafino and Serapio are one and the same person, and that he and his co-vendees had bought the lots from the heirs of Maria Lopena, the only child of the late spouses Serapio Lopena and Macaria Guimbarda, by an extrajudicial settlement with simultaneous sale in July 2006. At the time of sale, the lots were covered by tax declarations in the name of Serapio Lopena.

In April 2008, the DENR Regional Executive Director dismissed the protest and ordered that the free patent applications be given due course. The Director found that Serafino Lopena and Serapio Lopena are separate and distinct persons, that the sale to Ong was therefore ineffectual and void from the beginning, and that the private defendants were in actual possession, had introduced improvements, and had paid the realty taxes. Ong's motion for reconsideration was denied in October 2008, and he did not appeal to the DENR Secretary. Instead, in November 2008, the plaintiffs filed the present complaint for quieting of title before the trial court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction over the action for quieting of title, considering that the lots in dispute are the subject of pending free patent applications and were never shown to be private land.
• Whether or not the complaint is barred by res judicata on account of the final decision of the DENR Regional Executive Director.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs were guilty of forum shopping, and whether or not their protest before the DENR amounted to an implied admission that the lots remain part of the public domain.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Grounds. - Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim; (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations.

This provision supplies the very grounds on which the trial court dismissed the complaint, namely lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and a cause of action barred by prior judgment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint and is conferred by the Constitution and the law, not by the parties. The Court stressed that jurisdiction over questions of land ownership depends on the nature of the land: if it is public land, jurisdiction lies with the DENR; if it has been declared private, the regular courts may adjudicate ownership. Here, the plaintiffs' claim that the lots are private was never proven. No title was presented, and their only basis was tax declarations, which at most are mere indicia of a claim of ownership. Since the lots did not clearly appear to be within private ownership, they are presumed to belong to the State under the Regalian Doctrine. The lots being the subject of free patent applications, the DENR had primary jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court held that res judicata had set in. The very issues raised in the complaint, namely whether Serapio and Serafino are one and the same person, who the true owners are, and who the true heirs are, had already been squarely resolved by the DENR Regional Executive Director in its April 2008 decision and October 2008 order. The plaintiffs did not appeal to the DENR Secretary and to the Office of the President, so those rulings attained finality. The Court ruled that decisions of administrative agencies rendered in their quasi-judicial capacity, upon finality, have the binding effect of a final judgment under res judicata.

On the third issue, the Court agreed that the plaintiffs should have exhausted the administrative remedies open to them by appealing to the DENR Secretary instead of filing a new complaint. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of the judicial system, allowing administrative agencies to discharge their responsibilities within their specialized competence.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint and by the nature of the land involved. Public land falls within the exclusive competence of the DENR, while private land falls within the regular courts. Second, tax declarations alone do not prove ownership; they are mere indicia of a claim of ownership. Third, under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not clearly shown to be within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Fourth, a final decision of an administrative agency rendered in its quasi-judicial capacity has the force and binding effect of a final judgment under res judicata. Fifth, a party must first exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking the intervention of the courts.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, with the private defendants prevailing.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a final and unappealed decision of the DENR Regional Executive Director binds the parties under res judicata, and the regular courts cannot take cognizance of an action over land that remains part of the public domain. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over public land, the probative weight of tax declarations, and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.