CUSTODIO MARI, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARCELIANO MARI, PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MARCIANA DURAN, MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, AND FRAN…

This is a petition to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources and his subordinates from proceeding further in the case
pending before that Department wherein Marciana Duran and other are contesting
the homestead application of Custodio Mari, the herein petitioner.

Facts. On March 12, 1946 Custodio Mari applied for homestead
patent over a parcel of land of about six hectares in Mangatarem, Pangasinan. On
June 12, 1946 such application was preliminarily approved by the Director of
Lands. But opposition having been submitted by Marciana Duran, Maximiano
Asuncion and Francisco Asuncion (herein respondents) the Director of Lands
assigned Public Lands Inspector De Guzman to make the necessary investigation.
This officer conducted an ocular inspection and reported that portions of the
land applied for were occupied and cultivated by Bonifacio Mari, Custodio Mari,
Francisco Asuncion, Maximiano Asuncion and others.

After several postponements, the examination of the witnesses
was had on August 8, 1946, in the absence of the oppositors. The applicant
Custodio Mari presented his evidence. Thereafter, based on the proofs adduced,
the Director of Lands overruled the oppositions and adjudged the land to
Custodio Mari. A motion to reconsider was denied. On March 30, 1950, a document
purporting to be an appeal to the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources was filed with said Department. Afterwards Custodio Mari questioned
the appeal, alleging that the signature and thumbmark affixed to such “appeal”
were spurious and forged. At the request of the Department, the National Bureau
of Investigation scrutinized the document, and confirmed the allegations of
forgery. Consequently on October 11, 1950 the Department dismissed the appeal
and the protest, and approved the order awarding the land to Custodio Mari.

Several months later, in their communication dated May 15,
1951, the protestants requested that said last order be set aside and that they
be given “an opportunity to prove their claim to the land in question on the
grounds (1) that the said order of this Office dismissing their appeal was based
on the technicality that the signature of the claimants were forged by Attorney
Bugayong who, instead of signing the said appeal in his own name as attorney of
the said claimants, unlawfully forged their signature and thumbmarks thereon for
one reason or another” which the said attorney only knows, and that as a result
of such: unlawful act a criminal complaint has been filed against Attorney
Bugayong which is now pending investigation in the Fiscal’s Office of
Pangasinan; (2) that the claimants believe that there was connivance between
their attorney and the son of the respondent; (3) that the failure of the
claimants-protestants to appear at the investigation of the case which resulted
in their being non-suited and the investigation of the case being conducted
ex-parte without their appearance was due to the misrepresentation of their
aforesaid attorney, who told them that this case would be heard in Mangatarem,
Pangasinan and that it was not necessary for them to go to Dagupan, Pangasinan,
the place of the investigation; (4) that they have been in possession of the
land for more than 30 years as shown by their improvements thereon; and (5) that
the lease contract supposed to havo been signed by them (claimants) was secured
by fraud and deceit, as they were made to sign it while under the influence of
liquor.”

Finding favorably to the protestants, the respondent Head of
Department, on June 20, 1951, set aside his aforesaid order of October 11, 1950
and reinstated the appeal.

Subsequently, on March 29, 1952, he decided the appeal as
follows:

“Considering (1) that the appealed decision of the Director of
Lands in the above-entitled case dated November 14, 1949 dismissing the claim of
the protestants-appellants to the land covered by Homestead Application No. V-8P
(E-86) of Custodio Mari was based upon an ex-parte investigation; (2) that the
claim of the appellants to the said land is based upon their alleged ownership
and possession thereof for more than 30 years; (3) that the said
claimants-appellants have already been relieved from the effects of the order of
this Office of October 11, 1950 dropping their appeal in the order of this
Office of June 20, 1951; and (4) that the motion of the counsel for the
applicant-appellee for the reconsideration of the said order of June 20, 1951
had already been denied on September 19, 1951, this office believes that in
order to avoid any possible miscarriage of justice this case should be
investigated in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 7 of Lands Administrative Order
No. 6 by the District Land Officer himself of Pangasinan.

“WHEREFORE, this case should be, as hereby it is, remanded to
the Bureau of Lands; the decision of the Director of Lands dated November ,14,
1949, set aside; and said official directed to have this case investigated in
accordance with the aforesaid Lands Administrative Order No. 6 and to decide the
case anew on the basis of the result of the formal investigation as herein
directed.'”

Discussion. The petitioner contends that the respondent
official was “without jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction, or committed
abuse of discretion” in promulgating his orders of June 20, 1951 and March 29,
1952. Various reasons are explained in his several pleadings before this court.
Considering them as in relation with the answers and memoranda of the
respondents, we do not think that the peticion should be granted.

The administration and distribution of public lands is
committed by law to the Director of Lands primarily, and ultimately to the
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In the
exercise of such power they have to determine the conflicting claims of
applicants and occupants of disposable lands of the public domain. To regulate
the procedure of adjudication the head of department saw fit to promulgate rules
and regulations, one of which prescribes the following:

“Relief from effect of decisions and orders of the Secretary
or of the Director of Lands.—Upon such terms as may be considered just, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, the Undersecretary or the Director of
Lands may relieve a party or his legal representative from a decision, order, or
other proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
default or excusable neglect; Provided, that application therefor be made within
a reasonable time but in no case exceeding one (1) year after such decision,
order or proceeding was taken.”

There is neither constitutional nor legal objection to the
validity of the above regulation. Neither may its equitable feature be assailed
for it is a counterpart of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court affording relief
against fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.

Now, as we read the record, we see that the official acts of
the respondent Secretary come within the purview of the above-quoted rule. And
we are not convinced that he has acted clearly with abuse of that discretion
which he necessarily has in affording relief. For one thing his findings of
facts are final. (Julian vs. Apostol, 52 Phil., 422).

Anyway—and this is the main ground of our decision—the
petitioner knows, or ought to know, that when relief is granted under Rule 38 by
an inferior court, no appeal lies to this court, (Samia vs. Medina, 56 Phil.,
613) nor is certiorari permissible (Mendoza vs. Montesa,^* L-4159, Dec. 28, 1951)
inasmuch as the aggrieved party may still appeal should he finally lose in the
new hearing which the order granting relief directs or allows. In other words,
such aggrieved party has another remedy. With reference to the instant case, the
“other” remedy of petitioner is to appear at the reinvestigation, protect his
interests therein, and thereafter, if the Director of Lands decides against him,
to appeal to the Department—of course, provided the circumstances disclosed at
such reinvestigation justify his claim to preference over the land.

Judgment. Wherefore this petition will be dismissed, with costs
against petitioner.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Padilla, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and
Labrador, JJ., concur.

---

* 90 Phil., 631.