7/11/2015

G.R.No.98045

TodayisSaturday,July11,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.98045June26,1996
DESAMPARADOVDA.DENAZARENOandLETICIANAZARENOTAPIA,petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, MR. & MRS. JOSE SALASALAN, MR. & MRS. LEO RABAYA, AVELINO LABIS,
HON. ROBERTO G. HILARIO, ROLLEO I. IGNACIO, ALBERTO M. GILLERA and HON. ABELARDO G.
PALAD,JR.,intheirofficialand/orprivatecapacities,respondents.

ROMERO,J.:p
Petitioners Desamparado Vda. de Nazareno and Leticia Nazareno Tapia challenge the decision of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the dismissal of petitioners' complaint by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental,
Branch22.Thecomplaintwasforannulmentoftheverification,reportandrecommendation,decisionandorder
oftheBureauofLandsregardingaparcelofpublicland.
The only issue involved in this petition is whether or not petitioners exhausted administrative remedies before
havingrecoursetothecourts.
ThesubjectofthiscontroversyisaparceloflandsituatedinTelegrapo,Puntod,CagayandeOroCity.Saidland
was formed as a result of sawdust dumped into the driedup Balacanas Creek and along the banks of the
Cagayanriver.
Sometime in 1979, private respondents Jose Salasalan and Leo Rabaya leased the subject lots on which their
housesstoodfromoneAntonioNazareno,petitioners'predecessorininterest.Inthelatterpartof1982,private
respondents allegedly stopped paying rentals. As a result, Antonio Nazareno and petitioners filed a case for
ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 4. A decision was rendered against
privaterespondents,whichdecisionwasaffirmedbytheRegionalTrialCourtofMisamisOriental,Branch20.
Thecasewasremandedtothemunicipaltrialcourtforexecutionofjudgmentafterthesamebecamefinaland
executory.PrivaterespondentsfiledacaseforannulmentofjudgmentbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofMisamis
Oriental,Branch24whichdismissedthesame.AntonioNazarenoandpetitionersagainmovedforexecutionof
judgmentbutprivaterespondentsfiledanothercaseforcertiorariwithprayerforrestrainingorderand/orwritof
preliminaryinjunctionwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofMisamisOriental,Branch25whichwaslikewisedismissed.
Thedecisionofthelowercourtwasfinallyenforcedwiththeprivaterespondentsbeingejectedfromportionsof
thesubjectlotstheyoccupied..
Beforehedied,AntonioNazarenocausedtheapprovalbytheBureauofLandsofthesurveyplandesignatedas
PlanCsd10600571withaviewtoperfectinghistitleovertheaccretionareabeingclaimedbyhim.Beforethe
approvedsurveyplancouldbereleasedtotheapplicant,however,itwasprotestedbyprivaterespondentsbefore
theBureauofLands.
IncompliancewiththeorderofrespondentDistrictLandOfficerAlbertoM.Gillera,respondentLandInvestigator
AvelinoG.LabisconductedaninvestigationandrenderedareporttotheRegionalDirectorrecommendingthat
SurveyPlanNo.MSI1006000571D(equivalenttoLotNo.36302,Cad.237)inthenameofAntonioNazareno,
becancelledandthatprivaterespondentsbedirectedtofileappropriatepubliclandapplications.
Basedonsaidreport,respondentRegionalDirectoroftheBureauofLandsRobertoHilariorenderedadecision
orderingtheamendmentofthesurveyplaninthenameofAntonioNazarenobysegregatingtherefromtheareas
occupied by the private respondents who, if qualified, may file public land applications covering their respective
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_98045_1996.html

1/5

7/11/2015

G.R.No.98045

portions.
Antonio Nazareno filed a motion for reconsideration with respondent Rolleo Ignacio, Undersecretary of the
Department of Natural Resources and OfficerinCharge of the Bureau of Lands who denied the motion.
Respondent Director of Lands Abelardo Palad then ordered him to vacate the portions adjudicated to private
respondents and remove whatever improvements they have introduced thereon. He also ordered that private
respondentsbeplacedinpossessionthereof.
Upon the denial of the late Antonio Nazareno's motion for reconsideration, petitioners Desamparado Vda. de
Nazareno and Leticia Tapia Nazareno, filed a case before the RTC, Branch 22 for annulment of the following:
order of investigation by respondent Gillera, report and recommendation by respondent Labis, decision by
respondent Hilario, order by respondent Ignacio affirming the decision of respondent Hilario and order of
executionbyrespondentPalad.TheRTCdismissedthecomplaintforfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremedies
whichresultedinthefinalityoftheadministrativedecisionoftheBureauofLands.
Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionoftheRTCdismissingthecomplaint.ApplyingSection4of
C.A.No.141,asamended,itcontendedthattheapprovalofthesurveyplanbelongsexclusivelytotheDirectorof
Lands.Hence,factualfindingsmadebytheMetropolitanTrialCourtrespectingthesubjectlandcannotbeheldto
becontrollingasthepreparationandapprovalofsaidsurveyplansbelongtotheDirectorofLandsandthesame
shallbeconclusivewhenapprovedbytheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalresources.1
Furthermore,theappellatecourtcontendedthatthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbyAntonioNazarenocannot
beconsideredasanappealtotheOfficeoftheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources,asmandatedby
C.A.No.141inasmuchasthesamehadbeenacteduponbyrespondentUndersecretaryIgnacioinhiscapacity
asOfficerinchargeoftheBureauofLandsandnotasUndersecretaryactingfortheSecretaryofAgricultureand
Natural Resources. For the failure of Antonio Nazareno to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, the present case does not fall within the exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies. It also held that there was no showing of oppressiveness in the manner in which the orders were
issuedandexecuted..
Hence,thispetition.
Petitionersassignthefollowingerrors:
I.PUBLICRESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSINAWHIMSICAL,ARBITRARYANDCAPRICIOUS
MANNER AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE
PREVAILINGFACTSANDTHELAWONTHEMATTER
II.PUBLICRESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSINAWHIMSICAL,ARBITRARYANDCAPRICIOUS
MANNERAFFIRMEDTHEDECISIONOFTHELOWERCOURTDISMISSINGTHEORIGINALCASE
WHICH FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE EXECUTION ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT
ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., DIRECTOR OF LANDS, MANILA, PRACTICALLY CHANGED THE
DECISION OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT ROBERTO HILARIO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
LANDS, REGION 10, THUS MAKING THE CASE PROPER SUBJECT FOR ANNULMENT WELL
WITHINTHEJURISDICTIONOFTHELOWERCOURT.
Theresolutionoftheaboveissues,however,hingesonthequestionofwhetherornotthesubjectlandispublic
land.Petitionersclaimthatthesubjectlandisprivatelandbeinganaccretiontohistitledproperty,applyingArticle
457oftheCivilCodewhichprovides:
To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually
receivefromtheeffectsofthecurrentofthewaters.
InthecaseofMenesesv.CA,2thisCourtheldthataccretion,asamodeofacquiringpropertyunderArt.457oftheCivil
Code,requirestheconcurrenceoftheserequisites:(1)thatthedepositionofsoilorsedimentbegradualandimperceptible
(2)thatitbetheresultoftheactionofthewatersoftheriver(orsea)and(3)thatthelandwhereaccretiontakesplaceis
adjacenttothebanksofrivers(ortheseacoast).Thesearecalledtherulesonalluvionwhichifpresentinacase,giveto
theownersoflandsadjoiningthebanksofriversorstreamsanyaccretiongraduallyreceivedfromtheeffectsofthecurrent
ofwaters.

Forpetitionerstoinsistontheapplicationoftheserulesonalluviontotheircase,theabovementionedrequisites
mustbepresent.However,theyadmitthattheaccretionwasformedbythedumpingofboulders,soilandother
filling materials on portions of the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan River bounding their land. 3 It cannot be
claimed, therefore, that the accumulation of such boulders, soil and other filling materials was gradual and imperceptible,
resulting from the action of the waters or the current of the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan River. In Hilario v. City of
Manila,4thisCourtheldthattheword"current"indicatestheparticipationofthebodyofwaterintheebbandflowofwaters
duetohighandlowtide.Petitioners'submissionnothavingmetthefirstandsecondrequirementsoftherulesonalluvion,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_98045_1996.html

2/5

7/11/2015

G.R.No.98045

theycannotclaimtherightsofariparianowner.

In any case, this court agrees with private respondents that petitioners are estopped from denying the public
characterofthesubjectland,aswellasthejurisdictionoftheBureauofLandswhenthelateAntonioNazareno
filedhisMiscellaneousSalesApplicationMSA(G6)571.5ThemerefilingofsaidApplicationconstitutedanadmission
thatthelandbeingappliedforwaspublicland,havingbeenthesubjectofSurveyPlanNo.MSi1006000571D(Equivalent
toLotNo.36302,Cad237)whichwasconductedasaconsequenceofAntonioNazareno'sMiscellaneousSalesApplication
wherein said land was described as an orchard. Said description by Antonio Nazareno was, however, controverted by
respondentLabisinhisinvestigationreporttorespondentHilariobasedonthefindingsofhisocularinspectionthatsaidland
actually covers a dry portion of Balacanas Creek and a swampy portion of Cagayan River. The investigation report also
statesthat,exceptfortheswampyportionwhichisfullyplantedtonipapalms,thewholeareaisfullyoccupiedbyapartof
a big concrete bodega of petitioners and several residential houses made of light materials, including those of private
respondentswhichwereerectedbythemselvessometimeintheearlypartof1978.6

Furthermore,theBureauofLandsclassifiedthesubjectlandasanaccretionareawhichwasformedbydeposits
ofsawdustintheBalacanasCreekandtheCagayanriver,inaccordancewiththeocularinspectionconductedby
the Bureau of Lands. 7 This Court has often enough held that findings of administrative agencies which have acquired
expertisebecausetheirjurisdictionisconfinedtospecificmattersaregenerallyaccordednotonlyrespectbutevenfinality.
8 Again, when said factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the same are conclusive on the parties and not
reviewablebythisCourt.9

ItisthisCourt'sirresistibleconclusion,therefore,thattheaccretionwasmanmadeorartificial.InRepublicv.CA,
10 this Court ruled that the requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of the current of the river is

indispensable. This excludes from Art. 457 of the Civil Code all deposits caused by human intervention. Putting it
differently, alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature. Thus, in Tiongco v. Director of Lands, et al., 11 where the land
wasnotformedsolelybythenaturaleffectofthewatercurrentoftheriverborderingsaidlandbutisalsotheconsequence
of the direct and deliberate intervention of man, it was deemed a manmade accretion and, as such, part of the public
domain.

Inthecaseatbar,thesubjectlandwasthedirectresultofthedumpingofsawdustbytheSunValleyLumberCo.
consequenttoitssawmill
operations. 12 Even if this Court were to take into consideration petitioners' submission that the accretion site was the
result of the late Antonio Nazareno's labor consisting in the dumping of boulders, soil and other filling materials into the
BalacanasCreekandCagayanRiverboundinghisland,13thesamewouldstillbepartofthepublicdomain.

Havingdeterminedthatthesubjectlandispublicland,afortiori,theBureauofLands,aswellastheOfficeofthe
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources have jurisdiction over the same in accordance with the Public
Land Law. Accordingly, the court a quo dismissed petitioners' complaint for nonexhaustion of administrative
remedieswhichrulingtheCourtofAppealsaffirmed.
However,thisCourtagreeswithpetitionersthatadministrativeremedieshavebeenexhausted.Petitionerscould
nothaveintendedtoappealtorespondentIgnacioasanOfficerInChargeoftheBureauofLands.Thedecision
being appealed from was the decision of respondent Hilario who was the Regional Director of the Bureau of
Lands.Saiddecisionwasmade"forandbyauthorityoftheDirectorofLands". 14Itwouldbeincongruoustoappeal
thedecisionoftheRegionalDirectoroftheBureauofLandsactingfortheDirectoroftheBureauofLandstoanOfficerIn
ChargeoftheBureauofLands.

In any case, respondent Rolleo Ignacio's official designation was "Undersecretary of the Department of
AgricultureandNaturalResources."Hewasonlyan"OfficerInCharge"oftheBureauofLands.Whenheacted
onthelateAntonioNazareno'smotionforreconsiderationbyaffirmingoradoptingrespondentHilario'sdecision,
hewasactingonsaidmotionasanUndersecretaryonbehalfoftheSecretaryoftheDepartment.Inthecaseof
Hamoyv.SecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources,15thisCourtheldthattheUndersecretaryofAgricultureand
NaturalResourcesmaymodify,adopt,orsetasidetheordersordecisionsoftheDirectorofLandswithrespecttoquestions
involving public lands under the administration and control of the Bureau of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. He cannot, therefore, be said to have acted beyond the bounds of his jurisdiction under Sections 3, 4
and5ofCommonwealthActNo.14116

As borne out by the administrative findings, the controverted land is public land, being an artificial accretion of
sawdust.Assuch,theDirectorofLandshasjurisdiction,authorityandcontroloverthesame,asmandatedunder
Sections3and4ofthePublicLandLaw(C.A.No.141)whichstates,thus:
Sec. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be the exclusive officer charged
with carrying out the provisions of this Act through the Director of Lands who shall act under his
immediatecontrol.
Sec.4.Subjecttosaidcontrol,theDirectorofLandsshallhavedirectexecutivecontrolofthesurvey,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_98045_1996.html

3/5

7/11/2015

G.R.No.98045

classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition and management of the
lands of the public domain, and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when
approvedbytheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources.
In connection with the second issue, petitioners ascribe whim, arbitrariness or capriciousness in the execution
order of public respondent Abelardo G. Palad, the Director of Lands. This Court finds otherwise since said
decisionwasbasedontheconclusivefindingthatthesubjectlandwaspublicland.Thus,thisCourtagreeswith
the Court of Appeals that the Director of Lands acted within his rights when he issued the assailed execution
order,asmandatedbytheaforecitedprovisions.
Petitioners'allegationthatrespondentPalad'sexecutionorderdirectingthemtovacatethesubjectlandpractically
changedrespondentHilario'sdecisionisbaseless.ItisincorrectforpetitionerstoassumethatrespondentPalad
awarded portions of the subject land to private respondents Salasalans and Rabayas as they had not yet been
issuedpatentsortitlesoverthesubjectland.Theexecutionordermerelydirectedthesegregationofpetitioners'
titledlotfromthesubjectlandwhichwasactuallybeingoccupiedbyprivaterespondentsbeforetheywereejected
fromit.Basedonthefindingthatprivaterespondentswereactuallyinpossessionorwereactuallyoccupyingthe
subject land instead of petitioners, respondent Palad, being the Director of Lands and in the exercise of his
administrative discretion, directed petitioners to vacate the subject land on the ground that private respondents
haveapreferentialright,beingtheoccupantsthereof.
Whileprivaterespondentsmaynothavefiledtheirapplicationoverthelandoccupiedbythem,theynevertheless
filedtheirprotestoroppositiontopetitioners'MiscellaneousSalesApplication,thesamebeingpreparatorytothe
filing of an application as they were in fact directed to do so. In any case, respondent Palad's execution order
merelyimplementsrespondentHilario'sorder.Itshouldbenotedthatpetitioners'ownapplicationstillhastobe
givenduecourse.17
AsDirectorofLands,respondentPaladisauthorizedtoexerciseexecutivecontroloveranyformofconcession,
dispositionandmanagementofthelandsofthepublicdomain.18Hemayissuedecisionsandordersashemaysee
fitunderthecircumstancesaslongastheyarebasedonthefindingsoffact.

InthecaseofCalibov.Ballesteros,19thisCourtheldthatwhere,inthedispositionofpubliclands,theDirectorofLands
bases his decision on the evidence thus presented, he clearly acts within his jurisdiction, and if he errs in appraising the
evidence,theerrorisoneofjudgment,butnotanactofgraveabuseofdiscretionannullablebycertiorari.Thus,exceptfor
theissueofnonexhaustionofadministrativeremedies,thisCourtfindsnoreversibleerrornorgraveabuseofdiscretionin
thedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
Regalado,Puno,MendozaandTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1DecisioninCAG.R.No.22927pennedbyJusticeSegundinoChua,pp.5556,Rollo.
2246SCRA374(1995).
3Petition,p.16,Rollo.
419SCRA931(1967).
5MemorandumforPrivateRespondents,p.118,Rollo.
6Annex"C",InvestigationReport,p.30,Rollo.
7Appendices"D"and"E",pp.3337,Rollo.
8COCOFEDv.Trajano,241SCRA362(1995).
9CocaColaBottlersPhilippines,Inc.v.CA,229SCRA533(1994).
10132SCRA514(1984).
1116C.A.Rep.211.
12InvestigationReport,Appendix"C",p.30,Rollo.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_98045_1996.html

4/5

7/11/2015

G.R.No.98045

13Petition,p.16,Rollo.
14Appendix"D",p.33,Rollo.
15106Phil.1046(1960).
16Hamoyv.SecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources,supra.
17Appendix"D",p.35,Rollo.
18Pinedav.CFIofDavao,1SCRA1020.
1915SCRA37(1965).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_98045_1996.html

5/5