G.R. No. L-28780. February 18, 1970
ROSALINDA E. MERIS, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND JOSE C. MERIS, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. DOMINGO CUESTA, THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE …
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal, taken by petitioners Rosalinda E. Meris
and her husband Jose C. Meris,
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of the City of Baguio dismissing Civil Case No.
1766 thereof.
Petitioners herein having filed Townsite
Sales Application No. V-1603 for the purchase
of a parcel of public land, of about 619 square meters, situated in the City of
Baguio and appraised at P5.40 per square meter, on
June 18, 1962, the Director of Lands caused to be published a notice to the
effect that said land would be sold by his office, through oral bidding, on
September 6, 1962, at 10:00 A.M., at Baguio
City. After describing the land in
question, the notice said:
“No bid shall be accepted that does not equal at least
two-thirds (2/3) of the appraised value of the land. In order that a person may be entitled to
participate in the bidding, he must, before
the commencement thereof, make a deposit of at least ten per centum
(10%) of his bid. A person bidding in
representation of another may do so under a duly executed power of
attorney. During the bidding the bidder
has to make an additional deposit every time his bid is raised to complete the
10% of his raised bid, otherwise such bid as raised shall not be accepted. The right is reserved to reject any or all
bids. Only deposit in cash, money order,
certified check, cashier’s check and manager’s check can be accepted.
“The successful bidder
if other than the owner of the improvements must reimburse the latter of
the value thereof and must also deposit the sum of P340.00 to defray the
expenses for the publication of the notice of auction (P190.00) and the survey
of the land (P150.00).”
Only petitioners herein and private respondent Domingo Cuesta, both acting through their respective
representatives, participated in the bidding, which was conducted by the
District Land Officer of Baguio. The latter
declared Cuesta, who had offered P10.00 per square
meter, as against petitioner’s final bid of P9.05 a square meter, as the
highest and successful bidder.
Thereupon, Cuesta paid the sum of P619.00, as
cash deposit equivalent to 10% of his final bid. He, likewise, filled up the bidding form BL
Form No. 28-26, and enclosed therewith the official receipt evidencing said
cash deposit, as well as offered to reimburse the value of all the
improvements introduced by the petitioners on the land in question. Petitioners, in turn, accomplished a similar
form and made a cash deposit of P560.19, representing 10% of their final bid.
Subsequently, petitioners brought the matter to the Director of
Lands, and asked him to annul the bidding, upon the ground that it had been
conducted irregularly, the bidders not having deposited 10% of their initial
bids before the start of the bidding, and the same not having been held in an
open and public place. On October 23, 1962, the Director of
Lands issued an order annulling the aforementioned bidding, on account of the
absence of said deposit of 10% before the commencement of the bidding. He did not make a ruling on whether the
bidding had been conducted publicly, this question being one of fact which
could not be determined without prior investigation. Cuesta filed a
motion for reconsideration, which was denied, in view of which, he appealed to
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
In due course, the latter rendered his decision setting aside the
appealed order of the Director of Lands and upholding the validity of the
bidding held on September 6, 1962,
as well as adjudging Cuesta the highest and
successful bidder. A reconsideration,
sought by herein petitioners, having been denied, they appealed to the
President who, acting through the
Executive Secretary, concurred in the findings and conclusions of the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
The office of the President having refused to reconsider its stand,
petitioners commenced, in the Court of First Instance of Baguio,
the present action for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction,
against Cuesta, the Executive Secretary, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Director of Lands and the
District Land Officer of Baguio City, to set aside
the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
ruling of the Executive Secretary, and revive the aforementioned order of the
Director of Lands. After appropriate
proceedings, said court of first instance rendered its appealed decision
dismissing the petition herein, without special pronouncement as to costs. Hence, this appeal
taken by the petitioners.
The latter maintain that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources and the Executive Secretary have committed a grave abuse of
discretion in setting aside the order of the Director of Lands annulling the
award in favor of Cuesta, (1) because the provision
of the notice of sale requiring a cash deposit of 10% of the initial bid of
each party, before the bidding took place, had not been complied with; and (2)
because the right “to reject any and all bids” had been
“reserved” by the Director of Lands in said notice of sale. Petitioners’ claim is devoid of merit.
As regards the first
argument, it is conceded that, when the bidding was about to commence, the two
(2) bidders were required by the District Land Officer to put their money on
the table where the bidding was about to be held; that, thereupon, petitioners
and Cuesta placed the sums of P565.00 and P2,000.00, respectively, on said table; and that this sum of P2,000.00
of respondent Cuesta is far in excess of the amount
of deposit required in the notice of sale.
Under the circumstances, respondent public officers did not abuse their
discretion, much less gravely, in considering that said requirement in the notice
of sale had thereby been substantially complied with. Indeed, referring to the deposit required in
connection with the sale of public lands, this Court, in the very case of Panlilio v. David[1] cited by petitioners herein, expressed
itself as follows:
“x x x Its purpose is evidently to prevent the presentation of
frivolous bids and to avoid difficulties in the collection of the amount of an
accepted bid. x x x.
“But, while the Director of Lands had the right to reject the
bids, it does not necessarily follow that, if he accepted one of them, a merely
formal defect in the accepted bid would vitiate the award. Regulations as well as statutes must be given
a reasonable construction and it seems clear that the provision here in
question is merely directory and not mandatory.
x x x“
Hence, in his decision setting aside the order of the Director of
Lands, dated October 23, 1962,
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources said:
“x x x
even assuming, arguendo, that the formalities
called for in the notice of bidding were not literally and strictly observed,
the same should not be considered
enough to nullify the bid of Cuesta, or even that of Meris. It is the
opinion of this Office that only for every weighty consideration should the bid
of a person, who had substantially complied with the requirements of the
bidding and had evinced a sincere desire to meet the other requirements preparatory
to an award of the land subject of the sale, be nullified. It must be remembered that Cuesta was willing to pay, and as a matter of fact he
offered the amount, for the value of the unauthorized improvements introduced
on the disputed area by Meris. But despite this and the paramount effort of
the District Land Officer concerned to solve the dispute between the two
bidders, Meris refused to abide by the result of the
bidding.”
Furthermore, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
and the Executive Secretary have correctly held that petitioners must be deemed
to have waived, insofar as they are concerned, the requirement of a previous deposit, as well as to be
in estoppel to invoke such requirement, because they
had, not only acquiesced in the procedure followed by the District Land Officer
and respondent Cuesta, but, also, induced them to
proceed with the bidding, (1) by placing their (petitioners’) money, amounting
to P565.00, on the table, when the bidding was about to commence, in the same
way that Cuesta had put the sum of P2,000.00 on said
table; (2) by participating in the bidding, and making an initial bid of P3.60
a square meter, and gradually increasing the same, as Cuesta
made higher bids, until they (petitioners) made a final bid of P9.05 a square
meter, which was raised by Cuesta to P10.00 a square
meter; and (3) by filling, after Cuesta had been
declared the highest and winning bidder, the bidding form BL Form No. 28-26 and
depositing P560.19, which is 10% of their final bid, just like Cuesta, who had deposited P 619.00, representing 10% of his
final bid, and filled and submitted said form.[2]
It is true that the Director of Lands had, pursuant to the notice
of sale aforementioned, the right to reject any and all bids, but it is no less
true that decisions and other acts of said officer are appealable
to[3]
and subject to the control of the Secretary of Agriculture, and that this power of control entails
the right to review and, hence, to affirm, modify or reverse the decisions and
other determinations of the Director of Lands, and even to substitute him in
the exercise of his judgment and discretion.[4]
It may not be amiss to point out that the order of the Director
of Lands, dated October 23, 1962,
annulling the bidding held on September
6, 1962, was rendered without giving Cuesta
an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the elementary principles of due
process.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against herein petitioners-appellants, Rosalinda E. Meris and Jose C. Meris.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.
[1]
50 Phil. 105, 108-109.
[2]
Castrillo v.
Court of Appeals, L-18046, March 31, 1964;
Mirasol v. Municipality of Tabaco, 43 Phil. 610; Llacer v. Muñoz, 12 Phil. 328.
[3]
Sections 79(c) and 84, Revised Administrative Code; Miguel v.
Vda. de Reyes, 93
Phil. 542; Geukeko v. Araneta,
102 Phil. 706.
[4]
Mondano v. Silvosa,
97 Phil. 143, 148; Hebron v. Reyes,
104 Phil. 174; Hamoy v. Sec. of Agriculture,
L-13456, Jan. 30, 1960; Pajo v. Ago, L-15414, June 30, 1960; Yutivo
Sons v. CTA, L-13203, Jan. 28,
1961; Suarez v. Reyes, L-19828, Feb. 28, 1963; Uichangco v. Sec. of Agriculture, L-17328, March 30,
1963; Ganitano v. Sec. of Agriculture,
L-21167, March 31, 1966; Castro v. Hechanova,
L-23635, Aug. 31, 1966; Arocha v. Vivo,
L-24844 & L-24853, Oct. 26, 1967.