EMILIANO BALADJAY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. HON. ZOILO CASTRILLO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND MARIA BALCITA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental
dismissing the present case without special pronouncement as to costs.

Plaintiff Emiliano Baladjay instituted this case, against the Director of
Lands and Maria Balcita, on June 3, 1958. Baladjay alleged in the complaint that
he is the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land situated in the barrio of
Capucao, City of Ozamiz, otherwise known as Lot No. 2170, Case No. 17 of Ozamiz
Cadastre, and more particularly described in said pleading, he, as well as his
predecessors in interest, having been, for time immemorial in public, open,
peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous possession of said lot as owners thereof
and having exercised full dominion, possession and control thereof and
introduced permanent improvements thereon, as well as paid regularly the
corresponding real estate taxes; that he had just learned that the Director of
Lands had, on April 80, 1958, issued, in favor of Maria Balcita, Free Patent No.
V-94223 covering said lot; that the registration of said patent and the issuance
of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title in accordance ‘with section 122 of
Act No. 496 is pending in the office of Register of Deeds of Oroquieta, Misamis
Oriental; that, apparently, the Director of Lands had issued said free patent by
virtue of an application of Maria Balcita, without an investigation to determine
the truth of the allegations therein made, without ascertaining whether Maria
Balcita came within the provisions of the pertinent law’ and without giving the
notice required by the same, to afford adverse claimants an opportunity to file
their claims; that Maria Balcita had maliciously and in bad faith applied for,
and, by fraudulent means and false proofs or concealment obtained, said free
patent, for neither she nor her predecessors in interests had ever occupied or
cultivated said Lot No. 2170 or paid real estate taxes thereon; that neither had
she claimed said lot in said cadastral proceedings; and that, owing to her
wrongful acts, plaintiff had suffered moral and actual damages in the sum of
P5,000 and was constrained to engage the services of counsel at a cost of
P1,000. Plaintiff prayed, therefore, that the aforementioned free patent be
declared null and void, as well as rescinded and cancelled, and that Maria
Balcita be sentenced to pay him damages and attorney’s fees, as well as the
costs.

The Director of Lands filed an answer admitting the issuance of said free
patent to Maria Balcita, denying most of the other allegations in the complaint,
and averred that Maria Balcita had inherited Lot No. 2170 from her parents, who
had held it since 1914; that upon the filing of her free patent application, an
investigation was made by a representative of the Bureau of Lands, who found her
in the actual occupation and cultivation of said lot; that copies of the notice
of said application were duly posted for the period and at the places required
by law; and that plaintiff Baladjay is not the owner of said lot and has no
legal right thereto. By way of affirmative defense, the Director of Lands
alleged that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint; that plaintiff has not exhausted, or even availed, of the
administrative remedies in the executive branch of the government; and that he
had no personality to institute this action. Said officer further alleged, by
way of special defense, that the lot in question is a public land, subject to
his exclusive jurisdiction; that the aforementioned free patent was duly
processed and issued after verifying that Maria Balcita had complied with all
pertinent requirements; and that plaintiff had never protested against her free
patent application, while it was being processed in the Bureau of Lands, despite
the notice aforementioned.

Maria Balcita, in turn, moved for the dismissal of the complaint, upon the
ground: (1) that the court had no jurisdiction over its subject matter, for
plaintiff had neither exhausted the administrative remedies nor even filed a
protest with the Bureau of Lands; and (2) that he has no legal capacity to sue,
for a certificate of title issued in consequence of a patent granted by the
Government, once registered in the corresponding Register of Deeds, becomes
operative under the Land Registration Act, and may be cancelled at the instance
only of the Government, upon failure of the grantee to comply with the
conditions imposed by law.

The lower court granted this motion to dismiss. Hence, the appeal by
plaintiff Baladjay.

The appeal is well taken. The doctrine requiring that administrative remedies
be first exhausted before a recourse to the courts of justice may.be had and the
legal provision giving the Government the exclusive authority to seek
cancellation of a title issued in conformity with a homestead patent and
reversion of a land to the public domain are, in the very nature of things,
confined in their application to lands of the public domain which have
been granted by virtue of such patent in pursuance of the Public Lands Act. They
are inapplicable to private lands, not even to those acquired by the
Government by purchase for resale to individuals (Marukot vs. Jacinto, 98
Phil., 128; 52 Off. Gaz., 213; Santiago vs. Cruz, 98 Phil., 168; Geukeko
vs. Araneta, 102 Phil., 706; 54 Off. Gaz., [15] 4494.

The defendants herein claim, it is true, that Lot No. 2170 is part of the
public domain. A motion to dismiss the complaint assumes, however, that its
allegations are true, and plaintiff alleges in her complaint that said lot is
her private property. In other words, the complaint does not indicate that
plaintiff had derived his title from the Government or that said lot ever been
under the jurisdiction or management of the Director of Lands. Upon the
allegations of fact made in said pleading, plaintiff was not bound, therefore,
to resort to the administrative remedies provided in the Public Lands Act as a
condition precedent to a judicial recourse for the protection of his alleged
rights. Whether plaintiff is capable of proving the truth of said allegations is
another thing. But this is a matter that will have to be determined after he has
had an opportunity to introduce evidence thereon. It can not be taken upon
motion to dismiss.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside, and the
record of this case should be, as it is hereby, remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings, with the costs of this instance against defendant Maria
Balcita. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.