SANTIAGO BALMONTE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIAN MARCELO AND ALEJANDRO MARCELO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal on points of law from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Isabela, in its Civil Case No. 637, for “reivindicacion”.

Appellee Santiago Balmonte
applied in 1937 for a homestead patent covering Lot 2808
of the Santiago (Isabela) B. L. Cadastre-211.  In 1947, defendant-appellant Alejandro
Marcelo filed another homestead application for the same lot.  In view of the conflict, the District Land
Officer of Isabela held an investigation in which
Marcelo did not appear, despite notices served on
him.  As a result, the Marcelo claims and
homestead application were dismissed in 1948, and Balmonte
was issued first a patent on 28 May
1949, and, on 10 June 1949,
Original Certificate of Title No. P-692.  Marcelo protested the issuance of Balmonte’s patent, and the Director of Lands, on 27 August 1949, directed the Isabela District Land Officer to investigate.

On 7 November 1953, before completion of the Land Officer’s
investigation, Balmonte filed the present case in the
Court of First Instance of Isabela, to recover
possession of his land and damages from Alejandro Marcelo and the latter’s
father, Juan Marcelo, averring that the latter had illegally entered in 1950
during plaintiff’s temporary absence, and thereafter refused to surrender the
lot.  The answer of the Marcelos contested the jurisdiction of the court in view of
the pendency of the administrative investigation;
denied Balmonte’s prior possession and cultivation,
and the validity of his patent and certificate of title; and counterclaimed for
damages.

On 15 September 1955,
the Director of Lands decided the administrative dispute, finding the
occupation of the Marcelos to have been in bad faith,
and holding them to be in estoppel for failure to
appeal the result of the 1948 investigation. 
Believing that the decision of the Director was final, the Court of
First Instance granted Belmonte’s motion for summary
judgment, and, on 17 July 1956,
rendered a decision, declaring Balmonte to be the
absolute owner of the land, and ordering the Marcelos
to surrender possession and to vacate. 
By a supplemental decision in 1957, the defendants were sentenced to pay
P4,200.00 damages, plus P700.00 per agricultural year,
from 1957 to the actual surrender of the property litigated.

Upon appeal by the Marcelos, this
Supreme Court, on 25 April 1961, set aside the decision on the ground that the
decision of the Director of Lands was not yet final, as it was seasonably
appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; and remanded
the case back to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings and
reception of proof of the decision on appeal of the Department of Agriculture (Balmonte vs. Marcelo, 1 Supreme Court Reports Annotated,
1028).

On 18 May 1961, the Secretary of Agriculture dismissed the appeal
interpose by the Marcelos against the decision of the
Director of Lands.  Not content, Alejandro
Marcelo appealed once more to the President of the Philippines,
who, on 4 June 1962, through
the Assistant Executive Secretary, affirmed the decision of the Secretary of
Agriculture (Supplemental Record on Appeal, pages 23-27).

The court a quo then set the case for
rehearing.  On the date fixed, counsel
for defendants Marcelo orally moved for continuance to enable him to file an
amended answer to plead lack of clue process, because, allegedly, the Marcelos were not really notified of the 1948
investigation.  The postponement was
denied, and the hearing proceeded. 
Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision, which was rendered on
30 July 1962, reaffirming and reinstating the original 1956 judgment.  Defendants mailed a motion for
reconsideration that was received
by the court the next day after the decision; and on 6 August 1962 they
submitted a supplemental motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto a
purported amended answer, that they prayed to be admitted, averring that Alejandro
Marcelo, in fact, did not receive notice of the hearing of the 1948
investigation, nor of the order of the investigator dismissing his claim to the
land; but that, through fraud, said Marcelo was made to admit he had received
copy of the order; that despite the 1949 directive of the Director of Lands no
reinvestigation was actually made in 1949, and that the reports made by the
Lands investigator was a fabrication and/or falsification, yet the Director of
Lands in 1955 dismissed the claims of Marcelo with clear and grave abuse of
discretion.  The Court of First Instance,
on 8 September 1962 (Record on Appeal, pages 115-121), denied reconsideration
on the ground that the proposed new allegations set up facts already existing
when the defendants filed their original answer on 1 December 1953, and, not
having been so pleaded then, should be deemed waived.  The court further granted, upon bond, Balmonte’s motion for execution pending appeal, predicated
upon the alleged insolvency of the defendants. 
Defendants appealed once more to this Court.

The only error assigned here is the court’s refusal to allow the
defendants-appellants to amend their answer to plead lack of notice and fraud.

We fail to see any reversible error in the actuations of the
court below.  It is well to observe that
there is no cogent reason shown why the alleged lack of notice of the hearing
of the 1949 investigation was not pleaded in the original answer of 1953, or,
in fact, why it was not called to the attention of the Director of Lands even
before he issued his decision of 15 September 1955 dismissing the protest of
Marcelo against the issuance of a homestead patent to Balmonte
in 1949.

Appellants claim that they did raise the issue in their appeal to
the Secretary of Agriculture and later to the President.  If they did so, then the issue, which is on
of fact, was decided adversely
against appellants herein, for the decision of the Executive Secretary, issued
by authority of the President, expressly recites as follows:

“The record discloses that Marcelo had an opportunity to be
heard and present his evidence in the investigation conducted in 1948 by Public
Lands Inspector T. Cruz.  Despite notices
sent to him, he failed to appear and testify, for which reason the investigation
was conducted ex-parte.  Balmonte and his
witness sufficiently proved in this investigation that he was the prior entryman under Homestead Ap­plication No. 21956 of the
disputed tract and that his occupation was temporarily interrupted by the war
and, after liberation, by the lack of work animals.

x x x x x                     x x x x x                       x x
x x x

“A scrutiny of the record has failed to disclose the existence
of any fraud or irregularity in the is­suance of patent to Balmonte.  It is true that the District Land Office
erroneously processed Marcelo’s application. 
This cannot prejudice, however, Balmonte’s
prior application and entry made before the war, which entry has not been
previously cancelled or revoked, and which entitled him to the exclusive pos­session
of the land.”

The questions of notice, collusion and fraud being issues of
fact, the findings thereon by the competent executive officials are conclusive
upon the courts and not subject to judicial review in the absence of showing
that the decision was rendered as a result of fraud, imposition or mistake,
other than error of judgment, in estimating the value of evidence.  This is
a well established and reiterated doctrine (Ortua
vs. Singson, 59 Phil. 440; De Guzman vs. De Guzman,
104 Phil. 24; Julian vs. Apostol, 52 Phil. 422; Alfafars vs. Mapa, 95 Phil. 125).

There is no
pretense here that the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture, or that of the
President (independently of that of the Director of Lands), were in any way
tainted by abuse of discretion, fraud or imposition.  They should end a controversy that has
dragged for twenty years.

WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is affirmed.  Costs against appellants
Alejandro and Julian Marcelo.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, and Capistrano,
JJ., concur.