FRANCISCO C. CALO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. DELFIN G. FUERTES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

In Bureau of Lands Claim No. 224 (N), Lot No. 143-A, Cadastral Case
No. 84, Butuan City, entitled Francisco C. Calo, claimant-contestant, vs.
H. A. No. 86871 (E-40476) Delfin C. Fuertes, applicant-respondent, the
Director of Lands rendered on 12 April 1956 an opinion denying and
dismissing former’s claim and contest against the Homestead Application
No. 86871 (E-40476) of Delfin C. Fuertes, ordering him to vacate the
premises within sixty days from receipt of a copy of the opinion, and
stating that upon finality thereof homestead patent would be issued to
Delfin C. Fuertes. His request for reconsideration having been denied
by the Director of Lands on 25 January 1957, Francsico C. Calo brought
to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the case,
docketed as DANR case No. 1549. On 28 February 1958 the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources modified the opinion of the Director
of Lands—

* * * in the sense that Delfin C. Fuertes should
reimburse Francisco C. Calo of the difference between the value of the
improvements the latter introduced on the land in controversy and the
value of the consequential benefits derived by him therefrom within
thirty (30) days from advice by the Director of Lands who is hereby
directed to determine the aforementioned difference within sixty (60)
days from receipt of a copy of this decision.

Still dissatisfied with the above opinion, Francisco C. Calo asked
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to reconsider it but
the latter denied a reconsideration thereof. Hence, on 1 August 1958
Francisco C. Calo appealed to the President of the Philippines (Annex A
to answer, p. 54, rec. of case No. 55), but on 8 August 1958 he
withdrew it before the President of the Philippines could act thereon
(Annex A to memorandum of the petitioner, p. 64, rec. of case No. 55).

On 22 August 1958 Francisco C. Calo filed in the Court of First
Instance of Agusan a petition for writ of certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction praying that the enforcement of the
opinions of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources be enjoined; that if a bond be needed for the purpose
he was willing to file it; that after hearing the injunction be made
final and permanent; that the respondent Delfin C. Fuertes pay him
P18,000 as damages and attorney’s fees and costs of the suit; that he
be declared the owner entitled to possess the parcel of land subject of
the litigation; and for any other just and equitable relief (special
civil case No. 55).

On 24 December 1958 the respondent Delfin C. Fuertes filed an answer
and, on 27 December 1958, an amended answer to the petition; on 29
December 1958 and 3 January 1959 the respondent Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Lands,
respectively, filed their answers. After a preliminary hearing as
provided for in section 5, Rule 8, of the Rules of Court, on 31 July
1959 the court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which is—

Wherefore, for failure to state a cause of action,
for lack of jurisdiction and for not exhausting all the administrative
remedies available to the petitioner in the ordinary course of law, the
Court resolves to dismiss as it hereby dismisses the herein petition
with costs against the petitioner.

The petitioner appealed, but as only a question of law is raised, the Court of Appeals certified the appeal to this Court.

This appeal has not been perfected within the reglementary period,
as provided for in section 17, Rule 41, for although the notice of
appeal was filed on 31 August 1959 (p. 77, record of case No. 55) or on
the 13th day from the receipt of notice of judgment, to wit: 18 August
1959,

(p. 76, rec. of case No. 55) the appeal bond was filed on 18
September 1959 (p. 78, record of case No. 55), or on the 31st day after
notice of judgment. This is enough to dispose of the case.

At any rate, the appellant’s contention that, as the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources is the alter ego of the President and
his acts or decisions are also those of the latter, he need not appeal
from the decision or opinion of the former to the latter, and that,
such being the case, after he had appealed to the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources from the decision or opinion of the
Director of Lands he had exhausted all the administrative remedies, is
untenable.

The withdrawal of the appeal taken to the President of the
Philippines is tantamount to not appealing at all thereto. Such
withdrawal is fatal, because the appeal to the President is the last
step he should take in an administrative case.

Furthermore, a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court lies only when “there is no appeal,
nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.” In the case at bar, appeal from an opinion or order by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President of the
Philippines is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to the
petitioner. ^[1]

The judgment appealed from already had become final and cannot be
reviewed. The appeal is dismissed, with costs against the
petitioner-appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.