SPOUSES ALEX BUSANTE AND EDITHA UGALDE, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE AND BUTUAN CITY, BRANCH V, AND MARCELINA MANILAG, RESPONDENTS.

This case involves a 300-square-meter piece of public land which
is the subject of adverse claims of possession by the petitioners and the
respondent. In an ejectment case which
the respondent, Marcelina Manilag, brought against the petitioners, judgments
were rendered by the City Court, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals in her favor. The Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on the other hand, in the
administrative proceedings on the petitioners’ Miscellaneous Sales Application,
awarded the land to the petitioners. The decision of the DENR became final for failure of the private
respondent to appeal the same.

Which decision should prevail? The court’s or that of the DENR?

In 1966, Manilag purchased the residential house of Miguel
Coronel on the disputed piece of public land of 300 square meters in barrio
Bonbon, Butuan City. Coronel had
declared the lot for taxation under Tax Declaration No. 22360 (1961). After buying the house, Manilag occupied it
and also declared the lot for tax purposes in 1967. In 1970 the house was destroyed and she has not resided on the
land since then.

In 1971, the petitioners, upon authority obtained from the
Barangay Captain of Bonbon, occupied a portion of Lot 2652, Pls-22, Case 2,
reserved as Bonbon Barrio Site. They
filed with the Bureau of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales Application to purchase
the lot. Manilag opposed their
application. However, according to the
petitioners, this lot is different from the lot claimed, or formerly occupied, by
Manilag.

On December 14, 1979, Manilag filed a complaint for forcible
entry against the petitioners. On
December 24, 1980, the City Court of Butuan City, Branch II, rendered judgment
in favor of Manilag, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff
Marcelina Manilag and against defendants-spouses Alex Busante and Editha Ugalde
ordering the latter to imme­diately vacate the premises – the land in question;
remove whatever improvements made by them illegally on the land on or before
the 30 days period from receipt of this judgment; to reimburse plaintiff the
necessary litigation expenses in the amount of P500.00, Philippine currency; to
pay plaintiff the reasona­ble rental of the land illegally occupied by them at
P20.00 a month for 12 months
from December 1979 to the date of this judgment or P240.00 Philippine currency;
to pay the plaintiff P1,000.00, Philippine currency as moral damages; to pay
the plaintiff P1,000.00 Philippine currency as exemplary damages; and to pay costs of the suit.” (pp. 22­-23, Rollo.)

The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court. During the pendency of their appeal, the
DENR, thru the Office of the Regional Executive Director, Region X, Northern
Mindanao, Cagayan de Oro City, ren­dered a
decision dated November 6, 1987, granting their Miscellaneous Sales
Application over the subject lot. The
DENR found that:

“In the investigation [of petitioners’ Miscellaneous Sales
Application] protestant-Marcelina Manilag adduced testamentary and documentary
evidence which sought to prove that she is the owner and actual occupant to the
litigated parcel of land; that she acquired the rights and interest over the
same parcel of land from a certain Mr. Miguel Coronel sometime in 1966; that
after the sale was effected, she
constructed a house thereon where she resided; that the same house
was destroyed in 1970 and since then
she has not resided on the land
in question; and that she has declared the land for taxation purposes.

“On the other hand, respondent Alex Busante, by himself and
thru his witnesses, adduced evidence which sought to prove that he is the owner
of the parcel of land identi­fied as Lot No. 2652; Pls-22 con­taining an area
of 202,178 square meters; that he caused a subdivision of the same parcel of
land segregating therefrom an area of 150 square meters designated as Lot No.
2652-A (the land in question)
for residential purposes; that the subdivision was approved sometime on
September 24, 1980 under Psd-10-0001459-D; that he constructed a residential house worth P40,000 on
the land in question and planted the same with some fruit trees; and that his
long and continuous possession of the lot in question has not been molested by
the claimant-protestant.

“In the ocular inspection conducted on the premises of the
litigated parcel of land by the representative of this Office, it was
ascertained that the land in question is actually occupied by the
applicant-respondent who has his house made of strong materials constructed
thereon where his family resides. The
place where the house of Miguel Coronel was constructed and which was sold to
the herein claimant-protestant is outside the area in question. At
the time of inspection no visible improvements of Miguel Coronel or Marcelina
Manilag were found on the land in question.

“In the light of the forego­ing, this Office finds and so
holds that respondent Alex Busante has established preferential right over the
litigated parcel of land covered by his aforenoted application by virtue of his
actual and physical possession thereof in the concept of an owner. On the other hand, prot­estant Manilag
failed to show any color of right over the land in question.” (pp. 51-52,
Rollo.)

Manilag did not appeal nor file a motion for reconsideration of the DENR decision, hence, it
became final.

On the other hand, on May 16, 1990 the Regional Trial Court of
Agusan del Norte and Butuan City affirmed in toto the judgment of
the City Court in Manilag’s ejectment case against the petitioners.

The petitioners filed a petition
for review in the Court of Appeals raising the following issues:

“1. The subject matter being a public land, they had the neces­sary permit
or authority to possess the same from
the Barangay Captain and the Bureau of Lands while the alleged possession of
private re­spondent was unauthorized and illegal.

“2. The basis of the alleged possession of said public land by private
respondent was allegedly the Bill of Sale executed by a certain Miguel Coronel which sold only his right
over the house and not the public land in 1966, hence, said possession if any,
extends only to the house, and not the land in question.

“3. Petitioners to convert their possession to that of an owner, duly filed
a Miscellaneous Sales Application with the Bureau of Lands which was protested to by private
respondent but the same was duly approved, which approval has long become final
and executory.

“4. The decision of the Bureau of Lands, an
agency under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources tasked with
the administration, control, and disposition of public lands should be given
more weight and respect by the court.” (pp. 6-7, Rollo.)

However, on October 4, 1990, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the lower court.

The petitioners have appealed by certiorari to this Court
alleging that:

“A

Respondent Court erred in affirming the lower court’s decision
finding that private respondent established legal prior possession than that of
petitioners,

“B

In view of a supervening fact, the existence of the decision of the
Bureau of Lands dated November 6, 1987, finding that petitioners are the prior
possessors of the land in question and at the same time awarding it to them,
materially changes the entire complexion of this instant case which
necessitates its immediate reversal.” (p. 9, Rollo.)

After the finality of the award of the disputed lot by the DENR
to the petitioners, did the courts still have jurisdiction to decide who is
entitled to the possession of the land?

We rule in the negative.

In the case of National Development Company vs. Hervilla (151
SCRA 520), this Court said:

“It is now well settled that the administration and
disposition of public lands are committed by law to the Director of Lands
primarily, and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. The jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Lands is confined to the determina­tion of the respective rights of
rival claimants to public lands or to cases which involve disposition and
alienation of public lands. The
jurisdiction of courts in possessory actions involving public lands is limited
to the determination of who has the actual, physical possession or occupation
of the land in ques­tion (in forcible entry cases, before municipal courts) or,
the better right of possession (in accion publiciana, in cases before Courts of
First Instance, now Regional Trial Courts).”

The possessory action in the RTC was rendered moot and academic
by the decision of the Director of Lands dated November 6, 1987 awarding the
land to the peti­tioners for, from then on, as owners, they had the better
right of possession over the disputed lot, than the non-awardee. The courts may not interfere with nor review
the Bureau of Lands’ disposition of public land which became final by failure
of Manilag to appeal the same to the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources. As we held in Rallon vs.
Ruiz, Jr., 28 SCRA 332, 342:

“The reason then for posses­sory actions in court, namely, to
‘facilitate adjudication’ by the Lands Department of a dispute over public land
no longer exists. For defendants’
applications are no longer pending investigation. Defendants’ possession of the lands disputed, for purposes of the
free patents, has been confirmed in the administrative case. The adminis­trative branch of the government
has thus already spoken. Its action has
lapsed into finality. Accordingly,
plaintiffs’ claim of possession is lost. Since plaintiffs’ protests, in reference to possession, has already been
resolved adversely against them by the Lands Depart­ment, nothing more is left
for the courts to pursue.”

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 22265, as well as the judgments and orders of the Re­gional
Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and of the Municipal Court of Butuan City are
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. NO
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), and Bellosillo,
JJ., concur.

Padilla and Medialdea,
JJ., on leave.