FAUSTINA JAMISOLA VDA. DE CALIBO, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. TIBURCIO BALLESTEROS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Calibo versus Ballesteros

The Case

This is Faustina Jamisola de Calibo and the other Jamisola heirs against Tiburcio Ballesteros, a contest over who may buy a parcel of public agricultural land in Zamboanga del Sur. The Jamisolas asked the Court of First Instance to annul, by certiorari with prohibition, the decisions of the Director of Lands and of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources that gave due course to Ballesteros's sales application. The case matters because it fixes the standard for grave abuse of discretion in administrative land cases, and because it shows how far the courts will defer to the factual findings of the Director of Lands when approved by the Department Secretary.

Procedural History

The Jamisolas filed a petition for certiorari with prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur. The parties stipulated to admit as the evidence the decisions and orders of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, together with the related pleadings. On that stipulation the trial court dismissed the petition. The Jamisolas appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and since the appeal raised only questions of law, the Court treated the trial court's findings of fact as conclusive.

Facts

The land had long been contested. Barbara Andoy, mother of Faustina Jamisola de Calibo, had filed a sales application over it, but the Director of Lands rejected her application in a decision dated April 10, 1930, finding that she had entered the land knowing that Tiburcio Ballesteros had already applied for it, and gave due course to Ballesteros's application instead. The land was surveyed in 1931, and the Jamisolas later claimed several lots within it. The Jamisolas did not deny that the land was public; they said they had entered it in 1925 when it was still cogonal and partly virgin forest, and had declared it for tax purposes and paid the taxes.

To resolve Ballesteros's application, the Director of Lands ordered an investigation. Public Land Inspector Pablo Canda, Junior, held a hearing at which both sides presented evidence, and on the basis of his report and minutes the Director rendered a decision dated August 11, 1953, dismissing the Jamisolas' claim and giving due course to Ballesteros's application. The Jamisolas moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and then appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

On June 30, 1955 the Secretary modified the Director's decision and gave the Jamisolas a preferential right to acquire three lots, with a total area of 17.41 hectares, on the ground that they were landless and that government policy favored giving land to the landless. Ballesteros moved for reconsideration, attaching proof that the Jamisolas were not landless but owned considerable landed property. The Jamisolas were furnished copies of the motion and the amended motion and were required to answer, but they did not answer within the more than thirty days given. The Secretary then reversed his own decision and affirmed the Director's decision, except as to one lot that had been transferred to a certain Suasola, a transfer Ballesteros recognized. The Jamisolas' motion for reconsideration was denied, and they went to court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Director of Lands acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering his decision of August 11, 1953.
• Whether or not the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing his orders of September 3, 1955 and November 9, 1955.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of the Public Land Law, as cited by the Court, provides:

The Director, who is the officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Public Land Law (Section 3), has control over the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain.

This establishes that the Director of Lands is the officer vested with control over the disposition of public land, which is why his actuations are reviewed only for grave abuse of discretion.

Section 4 of the same law, as cited by the Court, provides:

His decision as to questions of fact, when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, is conclusive (Section 4).

This is the basis for the Court's deference to the findings of the Director as approved by the Secretary, and for treating the alleged error in weighing evidence as an error of judgment rather than a jurisdictional defect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Director did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The land was public land. The Director was the officer charged with carrying out the Public Land Law, and his decision on questions of fact, when approved by the Secretary, is conclusive. Both sides were given the chance to present evidence at the hearing conducted by the Bureau of Lands investigator, and the Director based his decision on that evidence. If he erred in appraising the evidence, the error was one of judgment, not an act of grave abuse of discretion that certiorari may annul. The Court defined the standard:

There is grave abuse of discretion only when there is capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all in contemplation of law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Secretary neither overreached his jurisdiction nor acted with grave abuse of discretion. As department head he had the power to review, reverse, modify or affirm the Director's decision. He first modified it on the assumption that the Jamisolas were landless, but upon proof that they owned landed property he set aside his own decision and affirmed the Director's, except as to the lot transferred to Suasola. The Jamisolas were given thirty days to deny or refute Ballesteros's claim and failed to answer, whether by choice or through neglect, so they must accept the consequences. Having been given sufficient time to answer, the procedure adopted by the Secretary was not so lacking in the fundamentals of fair play as to violate due process.

Doctrine

First, the decision of the Director of Lands on questions of fact, when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, is conclusive, because the Director has control over the survey, classification, lease, sale and management of lands of the public domain. Second, an error in the appraisal of evidence is an error of judgment, not grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion arises only from a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, as where power is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility, amounting to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Third, a party given notice and an opportunity to answer who fails to do so cannot later claim denial of due process.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, with costs against the appellants, so Ballesteros prevailed and the decisions of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line that grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, not a mere error of judgment. Examiners use this case on the conclusiveness of the Director of Lands' factual findings when approved by the Secretary, and on the requisites of certiorari against administrative bodies.