ROSARIO S. JUAT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Plaintiffs brought an action before the Court of First Instance of
Rizal to annul the deed of sale made by the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources in favor of the province of Rizal covering Lot
57-A of Block 8 of the Tambobong estate situated in Malabon, Rizal.
After trial, the court dismissed the complaint without costs, having
found said sale legal and valid. The case was taken on appeal to the
Court of Appeals, but the latter certified the case to us on the ground
that the only questions raised are purely of law.

The lot in question, which is a fishpond, forms
part of Lot 57-A of Block 8 of the Tambobong estate. This lot was
formerly Lot 607 of the Capellañia de Concepcion, former owner of the
Tambobong estate. Originally, Mamerta Antonio de Ignacio was the holder
of the leasehold right of Lot 607 who later sold it to Alberto Santos
on November 2, 1919. Alberto Santos took possession thereof after the
sale paying the corresponding rentals to the Capellañia. When Alberto
Santos died on December 9, 1941, he left as heirs his spouse Leoncia A.
Vda. de Santos and all the relatives who appear as plaintiffs herein.
They took possession and administration of the lot in question. When
the Tambobong estate was acquired by the government, plaintiffs
continued paying the rentals of the lot to the government until 1947.

In 1954, the Bureau of Lands which was then the administrator of the
Tambobong estate notified plaintiffs to enter into a contract of sale
of the lot with said Bureau and to pay the purchase price within three
months. Honorato Santos, representing the plaintiffs, inquired from
said Bureau about the purchase price of the same and the back rentals
due and asked for an indefinite extension of time within which to enter
into the required contract of sale. In response to this representation,
the Director of Lands under a letter dated February 20, 1954, granted
plaintiffs an extension of time within which to pay the rents due as
well as to enter into the contract of sale. On March 8, 1954, counsel
for plaintiffs sent a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources asking for reconsideration of the computation of the
back rentals and of the purchase price stating therein his reasons.
This letter was received on the same date, and on March 11, 1954, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources advised plaintiffs’
counsel that his letter was referred to the Director of Lands for
appropriate action and report and that as soon as the desired report is
received, further action will be taken on the matter of which
plaintiffs’ counsel will be duly notified. Since then neither
plaintiffs nor their counsel has received any communication from either
the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources regarding the lot in question.

In the meantime,
the province of Rizal has shown interest in acquiring an area of 29,100
sq. m. of lot 57, Block 8, which is the lot in question, and to this
effect its provincial board approved Resolution No. 479, series of
1955, requesting the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to
sell it to the province for purpose of a fishery school site. The land
was finally sold to the province by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources under a deed of sale executed on March 14, 1955 for
the sum of P23,260.00. After the sale, the province began dumping
stones and gravel on the lot with the apparent intention of levelling
it thereby giving notice to the plaintiffs that the land had already
been sold. Hence, plaintiffs began the present action seeking to annul
the sale and to enjoin defendants from filling up the land and to pay
damages. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the Court
pending the litigation.

Appellants’ main theme is that under
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 539 they are entitled to purchase the lot
in question from the government at such reasonable price and under such
condition the latter may fix, they being its bona fide tenants
since their predecessor-in-interest died in 1941, and since the
government sold the same to the province of Rizal in utter disregard of
their right of preference, the sale is null and void, it having been
made in violation of the letter and spirit of the law.

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 539 provides:

“Section
1. The President of the Philippines is authorized to acquire private
lands or any interest therein, through purchase or expropriation, and
to subdivide the same into home lots or small farms for resale at
reasonable prices and under such conditions as he may fix to their bona fide
tenants or occupants or to private individuals who will work the lands
themselves and who are qualified to acquire and own lands in the
Philippines.”

We have no quarrel with the
view that once a private land is acquired by the government thru
purchase or expropriation by virtue of the authority granted by the law
as abovequoted, it becomes its duty to subdivide the same into small
lots “for resale at reasonable prices and under such conditions as he
(President of the Philippines) may fix to their bona fide
tenants or occupants or to private individuals who will work the lands
themselves.” It may also be stated that the avowed policy behind the
adoption of such measure is, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals,
“to provide the landless elements of our population with lots upon
which to build their homes and small farms which they can cultivate and
from which they can derive their livelihood without being beholden to
any man” (Pascual vs. Lucas, 51 Off. Gaz., No. 5, p. 2429),
such measure having been adopted in line with the policy of social
justice enshrined in our Constitution to remedy and cure the social
unrest caused by the concentration of landed estates in the hands of a
few by giving to the landless elements a piece of land they can call
their own.

But, while such is the avowed policy of the law,
it should not however be overlooked that Congress has likewise decreed
that the President may sell to the provinces or municipalities portions
of the lands thus acquired of sufficient size and convenient location
“for public squares or plazas, parks, streets, markets, cemeteries, schools,
municipal or town hall, and other public buildings”, without stating
any qualification for the exercise of the authority. Thus, Section 10
of the same Commonwealth Act 539 provides:

“Sec.
10. The President may sell to the provinces and municipalities portions
of lands acquired under this Act of sufficient size and convenient
location for public squares or plazas, parks, streets, market,
cemeteries, schools, municipal or town hall, and other public
buildings.”

Since said section does not
exclude the lots that may be sold under Section 1 from sales under
Section 10 in the sense, that lots acquired under the former cannot be
disposed of for purposes contemplated in the latter, it follows as a
logical conclusion that the choice or discretion to sell lands under
either section is with the President whose choice, once exercised,
becomes final and binding upon the government. This is what was done in
the instant case. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
deemed it proper under the circumstances to sell the land to the
province of Rizal for a school site. And it can be said that the act of
the Secretary in making the sale has the same effect as if done by the
President himself by virtue of the legal truism that the acts of a
department secretary are presumed to be the acts of the Chief
Executive. (Donnelly vs. Agregado, 95 Phil., 142; 50 Off. Gaz., [10] 4269; Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil., 451.)

Neither can it be contended that by allowing the President to sell
portions of the lands acquired under section 1 of Commonwealth Act 539
for purposes other than what is therein provided, or to those who are
not the persons therein intended, would be in violation of the avowed
policy to give land to the landless as enshrined in our Constitution,
for it cannot be denied that the authority given to him under Section
10 of the same Act is likewise for the same purpose, which is to
promote public policy or the education of our youth. It should be here
emphasized that the main purpose of giving the land to the province of
Rizal is to utilize the same as, a site, for a proposed vocational
school dedicated primarily to courses in fishery and other related
subjects, and this is in line with the mandate of the Constitution to
our government to establish and maintain a complete and adequate system
of public instruction, including vocational efficiency (Article XIV,
Section 5).

Assuming arguendo that under Section 1
of Commonwealth Act 539 it is mandatory for the President to subdivide
the lands acquired thereunder into small lots for resale to the persons
therein mentioned to the exclusion of all others, it should be noted
however that said section 1 requires that the recipient of the
privilege be a bona fide tenant or occupant in the sense that he should be up to date in the payment of his rentals to the landowner. Here, however, this condition is not present, for plaintiffs are not bona fide tenants
of the land in controversy. The record shows that plaintiffs only paid
the rentals for the lot up to the month of December, 1947 but ceased to
pay the same since that year to the time of this litigation. In fact,
they failed to present evidence showing that they complied with the
requisite condition that would entitle them to purchase the lot within
the purview of the law.

Wherefore, we hereby affirm the decision of the trial court, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.