CONRADO B. UICHANCD, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

This appeal from a decision of  the Court of First Instance of Manila
was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the
question involved is one of law.

It appears that Conrado P. Uichanco filed sales application No.
21922 (E. V-572) with the Bureau of Lands for the purchase of a parcel
of public land situated in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. The application
was protested by Vivencio Duefias and Pablo Yasona, as a result of
which the. Director of Lands conducted an investigation and later on
rendered a decision, dated November 22, 1955, cancelling . Uichanco’s
application and declaring forfeited to the Government whatever amount
the applicant had paid on account thereof.

On January 21, 1956, Uichanco filed a motion for re-investigation
and reconsideration of the decision: above referred to. Among other
things, the motion alleged that Lands Inspector Juan G. Calayan of the
Bureau of Lands

“who conducted the investigation was biased and partial against him
and displayed unusual enthusiasm in favor of the opposite parties. As a
result thereof, the Director of Lands, on February 25, 1957, issued an
order suspending the effeetivity of the said decision and ordered the
re-investigation of the case by another investigator.

Before the reinvestigation could be carried out, however, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred
to1 as Secretary, for brevity) received on April 12, 1957 a 1st
Indorsement, dated April 8, 1957, from the Office of the Executive
Secretary, directing the former “to take appropriate action” on the
letter written in Tagalog dated February 25,, 1957, signed by five
persons, protesting against Uichanco in that in spite of the decision
of the Director of Lands, said Uichanco continued with the cultivation
of the area in question. Acting on this indorsement, the Secretary
created a committee of three consisting of personnel, from the office
of the Secretary, Bureau of Lands and Bureau of Forestry, to conduct an
investigation of the case. The committee thus conducted hearings at
which Uichanco, with the assistance of counsel, had presented his
evidence.

After hearing and ocular inspection, of the property involved, the
committee submitted two separate reports to the Secretary, and the
latter rendered a decision on December 20, 1957, reinstating the sales
application of Uichanco but excluding therefrom the portions occupied
by the protes-tants. Not satisfied, Uichanco filed a motion for
reconsideration of said decision, alleging for the first time that the
Secretary had no jurisdiction over the case because there had been no
appeal from any decision of the Director of Lands.

The motion for reconsideration having been denied, Uichanco
instituted with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for
certiorari contesting the legality of the adjudication made by the
Secretary on the ground that the latter had acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
challenged decision.

On May 18, 1959, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment
declaring the decision of the Secretary null and void as having been
issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.

In behalf of the Secretary, the Solicitor General has appealed.

Upon the submission of the brief by the appellant, the appellee
filed a manifestation stating that the appealed decisiori of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, dated May 18, 1959, contains all the
facts and reasons why the said court had arrived at said decision, upon
which the herein petitioner-appellee may rely, and he, therefore,
hereby waives his right to submit any brief or memorandum in answer to
the one presented by the respondent-appellant.” The said appellee,
therefore, did not present any new arguments or authorities to support
his stand.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Secretary acted without
jurisdiction in assuming to act directly on the conflict in question
without first waiting for the decision of the Director of Lands on the
matter.

The following pertinent provisions of the Revised Ad-. ministrative Code state the powers of a Department Secretary, to wit:

“Sec. 79(A). Initiative of the Department Head.-
Executive orders, regulations, decrees and proclamations relative to
matters under the supervision or jurisdiction of a Department, the
promulgation ¦whereof is expressly assigned by:law to the President of
the Philippines, shall, as a general rule, be issued upon proposition
and recommendation by the respective Department.”

“Sec. 79(B). Power to regulate.—The
Department Head shall have power to promulgate, whenever he may see fit
to do so, all rules, regulations, orders, circulars; memorandums, and
other instructions, Tiot contrary to law, necessary to regulate the
propjjr working and “harmonious and efficient administration of each
and all of the offices and dependencies of his Department, and for the
strict enforcement, and proper execution of the laws relative to.
matters under the jurisdiction of said Department; but none of said
rules or orders shall prescribe penalties for the violation thereof,
except as expressly authorized by law. All rules, regulations, orders
or instructions of a general and permanent character promulgated in
conformity with this section shall be numbered by each Department
consecutively each year, and shall be duiy published.

“Chief
of Bureaus or offices may, however, be authorized to promulgate
circulars of information or’ instructions for the government of the
officers and employees in the interior administration of the business
of each Bureau1 or office, and in such case said circulars Shall not be
required to be published.”

Sec. 79 (G). Power of direction and supervision.—The
Department Head shall have direct control, direction, and supervision
over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction, and may, any
provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding, repeal or
modify the decisions of the chief of said bureaus or offices when
advisable in thp public interest.”

Under the above quoted provisions, it is clear that the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources is empowered to promulgate rules and
regulations for the internal administration of offices and bureaus
under its jurisdiction, and to repeal or modify the decisions of the
chiefs thereof. This power of supervision and control is derived not
only from the Administrative Code but mainly from the provision of the
Constitution which explicitly ordains that “the President shall have
control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices.” (Section
10, Art. VII). “Control” in this sense implies the power of an officer
to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what; a subordinate officer
had. done and substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter (Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil., 148; 51 Off. Gaz. p. 2887). This
power-insofar as bureaus and offices are concerned—is exercised by the
President through the heads of the executive ‘departments who, as
agents or tools of the Executive shall have direct control over all
bureaus and offices when advisable in the public interest. (See Acting
„ Collector of Customs  vs. Court of Tax. Appeals, 102 Phil., 244.) In
other words, the Department heads, as agents of the President, have
direct control and supervision over all bureaus and offices under their
jurisdiction. And the last sentence of section 74 of the said Code is
explicit that “each Department Secretary shall assume the burden of,
and responsibility for, all activities of the Government under his
control and supervision.”

The lower court has ruled, notwithstanding the above authorities,
that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted without
jurisdiction in rendering a decision on the land conflict without any
appeal taken to his office from the decision of the Director of Lands,
on the supposition that there was a violation of Lands, Administrative
Order No. 6 and its amendments. While these Administrative Orders
outline the procedure to be followed in appeals from the decisions of
the Director of Lands respecting conflicting land claims, yet there is
nothing in the said rules and regulations or in any existing law which
prohibits the Secretary from exercising the power which he did in this
particular instance. These rules and regulations were promulgated by
the Secretary for the convenience, of the Department as well as
litigants and are adopted to facilitate office transactions. Under the
special circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, it was to the
benefit of both parties, ; it being more expedient and practical, for
the. Secretary to act upon and decide the land conflict in question,
because the matter was referred to him by the Office of the President.

It is significant that before, during and even after the,
investigation by the Departmental committee created by the . Secretary,
Uichanco himself had recognized the authority of said official to
handle the case. It was Uiehanco who was insistent in having. another
ocular inspection of the area involved and- he even requested the
Secretary to expedite the final determination of the case. If the
Secretary had the authority to appoint a committee to investigate the
conflict and inspect the area in question, his jurisdiction to make a
decision on the matter is beyond dispute.

At any rate, there had been no violation of the constitutional
or substantive rights of the appellee. As indicated  above, lie had at
all times been represented by counsel while the case was pending with
the Secretary. And the adjudication made by the latter is even more
favorable to him because,while the suspended decision of the Bureau of
Lands is to dismiss entirely his sales application, the decision of the
Secretary is to reinstate the said application with the exclusion only
of the portions occupied by the protestants. There should, therefore,
be no room for complaint on the part of the appellee.

The above observation persuade Us, at this instance, to disagree with the lower court.

Wherefore, the judgment below is hereby reversed, with costs against the appellee.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.