Jurisdiction of the DENR to Dispose Public Lands

! Atty. Erwin L. Tiamson !

Introduction

It would be very difficult to understand the present mandate of the DENR with
regard to survey and disposition of public lands without going through the various public land laws legislated throughout the entire course of the nations history. A review of the evolving mandate of the land sector of the DENR is necessary in order to put into context the its present functions and jurisdiction since the last codification of our public land laws was made way back during the Commonwealth Republic with the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 141 in 1936. Since then, a whole array of lands related legislature either by way of amendment to CA 141 or by introduction of totally new land administration or management laws, specially in the 1970s when various land use planning laws were enacted not to mention the various reorganizations and devolutions that the government conducted specially after 1986.

The need to codify all these inter-acting land related laws into one has been identified by the Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP) as one of the essential requisite to improve land administration in the Philippines. However, the codification will not be forthcoming in the next few years given the magnitude of the problem since the mandate over land administration had been fragmented into several agencies lodged in different Departments in the government bureaucracy. It would be necessary then for the Department to restudy its mandate of granting land patents over the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain in order to fully understand its jurisdiction so that it could serve the Filipino people better.

The power of direct executive control, administration, disposition and alienation of public lands had passed from the Director of Lands where it was originally lodged under our various Public Land Laws as will be discussed later, to the DENR Secretary by virtue of the express provisions of Executive Order No. 192. E.O. 192 impliedly modified the provision of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended with regard to the exercise of direct executive power of the Secretary. Nonetheless, the principles behind the exercise of executive control over public lands remain the same like its predecessor the Bureau of Lands/Land Department framework established way back in 1901 by the Americans. Thus, for purposes of the discussion below, it will be logically assumed that the principles upheld by the

!2

Supreme Court with regard to the authority of the Bureau of Lands and the various departments where it was attached remains to this date.

! ! ! Officers Exercising Executive Control The power of executive control,

administration, disposition and alienation of public lands is originally lodged with the Director of Lands subject to the control of the Secretaries of the various Departments in which the Bureau of Lands had been attached throughout the years. The Bureau was originally attached to the Department of Interior when it was first organized in September 2, 1901 under Act 219 (An Act Creating a Bureau of Public Lands) and when it implemented the first Public Land Act (Act No. 926). Act 2666 transferred the Bureau of Lands to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR). The Second Public Land Act1 (Act 2874) of 1919 likewise placed the Bureau under DANR. When the said law was re-enacted in 1936 by the Commonwealth Government as our present public land law, Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Bureau was placed under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture and Commerce and later to the reorganized Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources where it will to remain until 1974 when it was attached to the newly organized Department of Natural Resources (DNR) under Presidential Degree No. 461.
"

Thus, as originally envisioned by the framers of Act 926 and later, C.A. 141, the Department Secretary shall be the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the public land law through the Director of Lands exercising direct executive control thereof who should act under his immediate control. To quote Section 4 and 3 of C.A. 141:

! !

SECTION 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act through the Director of Lands, who shall act under his immediate control. SECTION 4. Subject to said control, the Director of Lands shall have direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession disposition and management of the lands of the public domain, and his decisions as to question of facts shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (Emphasis supplied)

!3

The powers granted by law to the Secretary of the Department are executive and administrative in nature. By virtue of his executive control over the Director of Lands in the management and disposition of lands of the public domain, the Secretary has the power to review, reverse, modify or affirm the decision of such official.

The Revised Administrative Code of 1919 (Act No. 2711) further define the power of the Bureau of Lands in relation to the other Bureaus exercising control over lands of the public domain. The Bureau of Lands being the agency responsible with the administration of all laws relative to public lands not classified as timber or mineral lands and of all other public real property not placed under the control of any other branch, department, bureau or office of the Government by legislative enactment or competent administrative authority (Section 1844 of Act No. 2711). This set-up was to remain until 1987 when Executive Order No. 192 (Reorganization of the Department of Environment Energy and Natural Resources and Renaming it Department of Environment and Natural Reources) was enacted by then President Corazon Aquino.

E.O. 192, in effect, amended and modified C.A. 141 since the power of direct executive control of the Director of Lands in its implementation was assumed directly by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources with power to delegate such authority for the performance of any administrative or substantive function to subordinate officials of the Department (Sections 7, Paragraphs d and e, in relation to Section 14, Paragraphs f of E.O. 192), to quote:

SECTION 7. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. The authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the Department, the accomplishment of its objectives and the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as Secretary, who shall supervise the Department and shall be appointed by the President. For such purposes, the Secretary shall have the following functions:

(d) Exercise supervision over all functions and activities of the Department;

! !

!4

! ! !

(e) Delegate authority for the performance of any administrative or substantive function to subordinate officials of the Department;

SECTION 14. Lands Management Bureau. There is hereby created the Lands Management Bureau which shall absorb functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands except those line functions and powers which are transferred to the regional field office. The Lands Management Bureau to be headed by a Director and assisted by an Assistant Director shall advise the Secretary on matters pertaining to rational land classification management and disposition and shall have the following functions, but not limited to:

(f)

Assist the Secretary as Executive Officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Public Land Act (C.A. 141, as amended), who shall have direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other forms of concessions or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain;

Thus, the Secretary of the DENR became the Chief Executive officer with direct executive control with regard to all laws being implemented by the Department, among those are the management and administration of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. The new organization set-up abolished the Bureau of Lands and created the Lands Management Bureau as provided under Section 14 of E. O. 192. The Director of Lands lost the direct executive control over surveys and sale, lease and other forms of concessions or dispositions of the lands of the public domain as the same is now directly exercise by the Secretary. The powers of the Director of Lands and the Secretary under CA 141 was accordingly modified and delegated to different field officers, i.e. the Regional Executive Director, Regional Technical Director, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer and the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer. The regional and district land offices of the Bureau of Lands, together with that of the other Bureaus under the DENR, were integrated in the Department wide regional and field offices.

!5

E.O. 192 gave the Secretary of the DENR a wider latitude in the formation of position structures and staffing pattern within the Regional Office and Provincial set-up under Section 20 thereof, with powers to delegate authorities. The Secretary likewise may create Community Offices in the municipalities whenever he deemed necessary. Section 20 provides for the integration of all district offices of the former emasculated Bureaus in the new ENR offices to be headed by the Regional Executive Directors (RED) in the Regions who shall be assisted by Regional Technical Directors (RTD) of each of the sector; Forestry, Lands, Mines, Environment and Research. The DENR field office in the provinces was headed by the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) and the Community Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO) in the City or Municipality or clusters thereof. The Secretary of the DENR after E.O. 192

! ! The Power to Dispose Public Lands through Patents the power to grant
public land patents is probable the most important function of the Lands agency. Before, public land patents or land grants by the governments are prepared by the then Bureau of Lands and approved by the Chief Executive/Secretary in accordance with the public land laws at the moment. These patents are Homestead Patents, Free Patents and Sales Patents over agricultural lands and other public lands subject to disposition. Presently, patents are being prepared and issued by the DENR field offices in accordance with the delegated powers of the Secretary as will be discussed below.

Under Act No. 219, public land patents were originally issued in the name of the United States and the Philippine Government under the signature of the Governor General of the Philippines as the Chief Executive of the American colonial government. These patents were processed and prepared in the Bureau of Lands. In 1919, these patents were required to be countersigned by the Secretary of the DANR.

Upon the advent of the Philippine Commonwealth Government, land patents or certificates for land grants were issued in the name of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines under the signature of the President of the Philippines. The President, however, is allowed to delegate the power to sign patents to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce if the area involved does not exceed 144 hectares. This power to sign patents was further delegated under Republic Act No. 1240 to the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for lands not exceeding one hundred forty-four hectares in area and to

!6

the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for lands exceeding one hundred forty-four hectares. Said delegated power was further modified in Republic Act No. 3106 whereby the power to sign patents on lands not exceeding 144 hectares were both delegated to the Secretary of DANR and to the Undersecretary of Natural Resources while that exceeding was delegated to the Secretary only.

The overly centralized issuance of patents hinders the speedy disposition of public lands as thousands and thousands of patents were sent to Manila for signature, thus, in 1972 the legislature further delegated the power to sign patents to the District Land Officers (DLOs) of the Bureau of Lands by enacting Republic Act 6516. The new law further amended Section 107 of C.A. 141 by authorizing the District Land Officers of every Province to sign patents not exceeding five (5) hectares provided that said office is properly equipped to do so. Said law is not self executory since there is still a need to determine whether a particular district office is properly equipped to issue the land grant. The Bureau of Lands conducted a massive capacity building program in the regions in order to support the devolutions under RA 6516.

! !

On March 16, 1973, by virtue of Executive Order No. 407, then President Ferdinand Marcos, upon the recommendation of Secretary Arturo Tangco of the DANR, authorized the first fifteen (15) DLOs to issue patents not exceeding five (5) hectares, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Land District No. 1-4, Laoag City Land District No. II-1, Tuguegarao, Cagayan Land District No. III-1, San Fernando, Pampanga Land District No. III-4, Olongapo City Land District No. IV-3, Lucena City Land District V-1, Naga City Land District No. VI-1 Iloilo City Land District No. VII-1, Dumaguete City Land District No. VIII-1, Tacloban City Land District No. IX-1, Zamboanga City Land District No. IX-2, Jolo Sulu Land District No. X-1, Cagayan de Oro City Land District No. X-7, Iligan City Land District No. XI-2, Tagum, Davao del Norte; and Land District No. XI-4, Koronadal, South Cotabato

!7

In October 30, 1973, Executive Order No. 420 allowed an additional forty one (41) DLOs to issued patents:

1. District Land Office I-1, San Fernando, La Union 2. District Land Office I-3, Vigan, Ilocos Sur 3. District Land Office I-5, Bangued, Abra 4. District Land Office I-7, Dagupan City 5. District Land Office II-2, Ilagan, Isabela 6. District Land Office II-3, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya 7. District Land Office III-1, San Fernando, Pampanga 8. District Land Office III-2, Cabanatuan City 9. District Land Office III-3, Tarlac, Tarlac 10. District Land Office III-6, Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan 11. District Land Office IV-3, Lucena City 12. District Land Office IV-5, Sta. Cruz, Laguna 13. District Land Office IV-6, Baler, Quezon 14. District Land Office IV-8, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro 15. District Land Office IV-9, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro 16. District Land Office V-I, Legaspi City 17. District Land Office V-5, Daet, Camarines Norte 18. District Land Office VI-2, Roxas City 19. District Land Office VI-3, Bacolod City 20. District Land Office VI-5, Kalibo, Aklan 21. District Land Office VII-2, Tagbilaran City 22. District Land Office VIII-4, Catarman, Samar 23. District Land Office IX-2, Jolo, Sulu 24. District Land Office IX-3, Ipil, Zamboanga 25. District Land Office IX-4, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte 26. District Land Office IX-6, Pagadian City 27. District Land Office X-2, Butuan City 28. District Land Office X-3, Surigao City 29. District Land Office X-4, Malaybalay, Bukidnon 30. District Land Office X-5, Ozamis City 31. District Land Office X-6, Marawi City 32. District Land Office X-8 Sn Francisco Agusan del Sur 33. District Land Office X-9, Tandag, Surigao del 34. District Land Office X-10, Mambajao, Camiguin 35. District Land Office X-11, Malabang, Lanao del Sur 36. District Land Office XI-1, Davao City 37. District Land Office XI-3, Cotabato City

!8

Executive Order 430 in May 17, 1974 further allowed twenty seven (27) District Offices to issue patents:

38. 39. 40. 41.

District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office

XI-5, Kidapawan, Maguindanao XI-6, Davao del Sur XI-7, Mati, Davao Oriental XI-8, Buluan, Sultan Kudarat

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office District Land Office

I-2, Baguio City I-6, Bontoc, Mt. Province II-4, Aparri, Cagayan II-5, Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao II-6, Lagawe, Ifugao II-7, Basco, Batanes II-8, Cabarroguis, Quirino III-5, Balanga, Bataan IV-1, Gen. Solano, Manila IV-2, Batangas City IV-4, Cavite City IV-7, Boac, Marinduque IV-10, San Jose, Occ. Mindoro IV-11, Mamburao, Occ. Mindoro IV-12, Odiongan, Romblon IV-13, Puerto Princesa City IV-14, Roxas, Palawan V-3, Sorsogon, Sorsogon V-4, Masbate, Masbate V-6, Virac, Catanduanes VI-4, San Jose, Antique VII-1, Cebu City VII-4, Cerena, Siquijor VIII-2, Catbalogan, Samar VIII-3, Maasin, Southern Leyte VIII-5, Borongan, Eastern Samar IX-5, Dipolog City

Thus, from 1974 onwards, patents less than five (5) hectares are all processed and issued in the DLO of the Bureau of Lands with the District Land Officer as signatory. This speed up title distribution since these public land grants no longer had to be brought to Manila for signing. However, the devolution also had an

!9

implication with regard to records management since the monitoring of both the processing and issuance of patents became localized. Prior to this, the Bureau of Lands was able to properly indexed and file all public land applications and dispositions since all approvals has to passed through the central office for signature. Upon devolution, the Regional Offices were mandated to furnish the Bureaus central office of a copy of the patents it issued as provided by RA 6516, however, the physical dislocation of the offices during the 70s brought confusion in this process and as a result, the once centralized record keeping mechanism became fragmented.

After the reorganization and integration of the different Bureaus under the DNR in the Regional/Field Office Set-up in 1987, the Secretary of the newly organized DENR was given a general mandate to implement public land laws, with powers to delegate. This general power in the implementation of the public land laws and the formulation of such rules and regulations to carry out the same, includes the power to sign patents and to delegate the same to such officers as he may deem fit.

! !

Thus, immediately prior to enactment of E.O. 192, the power to sign patent has been delegated by law to the following DANR/BL officials as follows: 1. Secretary of the DANR/DNR 144 hectares above 2. Undersecretary of the DANR/DNR not less than five (5) hectares but not more than 144 hectares 3. District Land Officers of the Bureau of Lands not more than five (5) hectares.

! !

However, the approval and signing of Sales Patents remained or was retained by the Secretary irrespective of the number of hectares involved. The last Sales Patent being numbered and issued from the Land Management Bureau was in 1991. Upon the enactment of EO 192 and the corresponding limitations in the area of public land for disposition under the 1987 Constitution, the Secretary of the DENR as the chief executive of the newly organized Department has issued DAO 20-88, the first of the four administrative orders delineating functions and authorities between the different field offices of the DENR. Under DAO 20-88, the following DENR officials has the power to sign patents as follows:

SECRETARY : Regional Executive Director (RED):

Seven (7) hectares and above. Below seven (7) hectares.

!10

! ! ! ! !

This initial delegation is not in consonance with the intended further devolution of functions, thus, on April 19, 1990, the DENR issued DAO 38-90 revising DAO 20-88. Under the new administrative order, the following officers were given the power to sign patents. SECRETARY : More than five (5) hectares for sale; more than ten(10) hectares for homestead and free patents. Up to five (5) hectares for sales; and five (5) up to ten (10) hectares for homestead and free patent. Up to five (5) hectares for homestead and free patent.

RED

PENRO

One June 2, 1998, the DENR approved its new Manual of Approvals under DAO 24-98 which further delegated to the PENRO the signing of Sales Patents not exceeding one thousand square meters (1,000 sqm.). The RED retains the authority to sign Sales Patents not more than one thousand square meters (1,000 sqm.) but not exceeding five (5) hectares. The signing of Sales Patents in excess of five (5) hectares is retained by the Secretary.

! !

DAO 11-00 decreased the area of the PENRO to one (1) hectare and the RED to three (3) hectare for Free Patents and Homestead Patents. However, DAO 24-98 was restored as the governing administrative order on the delegation of authority to sign patents in 2003. As mentioned, the Secretary of the DENR has discretionary power to delegate the exercise of executive functions, thus, he may revoke or otherwise modify the signing approval. There has been an occasion when the DENR Secretary revoked the signing authority of the RED and PENRO by way of a Memorandum dated October 18, 1999, and its concomitant clarification in Memorandum dated March 30, 2000. The power of the RED and PENRO to sign patents was again restored by another Memorandum of the DENR Secretary dated July 27, 2001. This revocation of delegated authority affected the number of land patent issued of the Department in 2000 and 2001 since all patents have to be signed by the Secretary alone.

!11

The Authority to Determine the Conflicting Claims of Applicants and

Occupants Application over a piece of public land sometimes becomes a contest between two or more applicants and/or becomes adversarial as against another person claiming superior rights over the said property. In such an instance, the determination of facts of the Director of Lands goes beyond the qualifications of applicants to be a grantee of government lands but shall include findings on the conflicting claims thereat. The authority of the Director of Lands/DENR to adjudicate or otherwise determine this claims that may result to a denial of the application, patent or grant over alienable and disposable lands of the public domain is based on Section 102 of C.A. 141 that provides:

SECTION 102. Any person, corporation, or association may file an objection under oath to any application or concession under this Act, grounded on any reason sufficient under this Act for the denial or cancellation of the application or the denial of the patent or grant. If, after the applicant or grantee has been given suitable opportunity to be duly heard, the objection found to be well founded, the Director of Lands shall deny or cancel the application or deny patent or grant, and the person objecting shall, if qualified, be granted a prior right of entry for a term of sixty days from the date of the notice.

This section allows a person, claiming to have better or superior right than an applicant, to file his objection, opposition, or protest under oath, against the application pertaining to controversy over ownership, right of preference to, and boundary of, a land within the jurisdiction of the then Bureau of Lands. The objection, opposition or protest, must cite the reasons or grounds relied upon, such as that of being an actual occupant or prior applicant; or riparian owner of a land adjoining a foreshore or bank of a navigable river; that the applicant has abandoned the land, or failed to comply with the requirements of the law or, violated any provision thereat.

This provision of the Act is implemented under Lands Administrative Order No. 6 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Promulgation of Decisions and Orders of the Director of Lands and the Filing of Appeals Therefrom to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce) and Lands Office Circular No. 68 (Re: Investigation of Claims and Conflicts).

!12

Power to Promulgate Rules and Regulations The rule shaped out by

jurisprudence regarding the power of administrative agencies to promulgate its own rules is that when Congress authorizes such promulgation of administrative rules and regulations to implement given legislation, all that is required is that the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards that the law prescribes (Director of Forestry v. Muoz, 23 SCRA 1183). The rule delineating the extent of the binding force to be given to administrative rules and regulations was explained by the Court in Teoxon v. Member of the Board of Administrators (33 SCRA 588), thus: "The recognition of the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of the statute, as necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment, may be found as early as 1908 in the case of United States v. Barrias (11 Phil. 327) in 1914 U.S. v. Tupasi Molina (29 Phil. 119), in 1936 People v. Santos (63 Phil. 300), in 1951 Chinese Flour Importers Ass. v. Price Stabilization Board (89 Phil. 439), and in 1962 Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission (4 SCRA 627).

! !

In the exercise of its power to determine the conflicting claims over public lands, the Director of Lands, with the approval of the Secretary, is expressly authorized under Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 to promulgate rules and regulations to carry into effect the provisions of the Public Land Act, to quote: "Section 5 The Director of Lands, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall prepare and issue such forms, instructions, rules and regulations consistent with this Act, as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof arising under such provisions."

The Supreme Court had an occasion to rule on the validity of Lands Administrative Order No. 6 that governs the promulgation of decisions and orders of the Director of Lands and providing for the prescriptive period within which appeals may be interposed issued pursuant to the provisions of section 79(b) of the Revised Administrative Code, section 5 of Act No. 2874 and Act No. 3038. In Geukeko vs. Araneta (G.R. No. L-10182, December 24, 1957; 102 Phil 706), the Supreme Court states:

It must be remembered that Lands Administrative Order No. 6 is in the nature of procedural rules promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources pursuant to the power bestowed on said administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations

!13

necessary for the proper discharge and management of the functions imposed by law upon said office. The necessity for vesting Administrative Authorities with power to make rules and regulations because of the impracticability of the lawmakers to provide general regulations for various and varying details of management, has been recognized by the courts and upheld against various particular objections (42 Am. Jur. 329). Recognizing the existence of such rulemaking authority, what is the weight of an interpretation given by an administrative agency to its own rules or regulations? Authorities sustain the doctrine that the interpretation given to a rule or regulation by those charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest weight by the Court construing such rule or regulation, and such interpretation will be followed unless it appears to be clearly unreasonable or arbitrary (42 Am. Jur. 431). It has also been said that:

! ! !

An administrative body has power to interpret its own rules which have the force and effect of law, and such an interpretation becomes part of the rule (Foley vs. Benedict, 122 Tex 193, 55 SW [2d] 805, 86 ALR 477). Rules, regulations, and general orders enacted by administrative authorities pursuant to the powers delegated to them have the force and effect of law (Columbia Broadcasting System vs. United States, 87, L Ed [Adv 1066]). The contemporaneous construction of a statute (and similarly of rules and regulations) by the executive officers of the government whose duty it is to execute it is entitled to great respect, and should ordinarily control the construction of the statute by the courts (United States vs. Philbrick, 120 U.S. 52, 30 L Ed. 559). Courts are reluctant to disregard a settled practice of an executive department where they are not satisfied that it is contrary to law, and are satisfied that it is in accordance with justice and good faith (Grant vs. Raymond, 8 L Ed. 376).

! !

This was again reiterated by the Supreme Court, En Banc in Uichanco vs. Secretary DANR (G.R. No. L-17328, March 30, 1963) and in the more recent City

!14

Government of Makati City vs. Civil Service Commission et al. penned by J. Bellosilo (G.R. No. 131392, February 6, 2002).

! Quasi-Judicial Officer In the disposition of public lands, the Bureau of

Lands/Department Secretary and presently, the various field officers of the DENR are considered quasi-judicial officers. This is the American concept that was adopted in the Philippines. The Bureau of Lands/Land Department framework was originally created and modeled after the Land Department of the United States in the same manner that we can trace the parentage of our Public Land Law to the Revised Statutes of the United States. In fact, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of Act No. 218 specifically provides that the Bureau has to be framed as nearly as may be after the organization of the Public Land Office in the United States. While the original Public Land Law (Act 926) was drafted and passed by a Commission composed mostly of Americans and as the United States has had its vast public lands and has had the same problems as we now have, involving their settlement and occupation, it is reasonable to assume that it was their intention to introduce into the country these laws in relation to our problems of land settlement and disposition. (Andres Pitargue vs. Leandro Sorilla, G.R. No. L-4302, September 17, 1952).

Thus, in interpreting the power of the Land Department of the Philippines, recourse may be made of the various superior tribunal of the United States, in accordance with the rule of statutory construction that a statute adopted from another state or country will be presumed to be adopted with the construction placed upon it by the courts of that state or country before its adoption. Such construction is regarded as of great weight, or at least persuasive, and will generally be followed if found reasonable, and in harmony with justice and public policy, and with other laws of the adopting jurisdiction on the subject. (In the matter of the petition of ROBERT CU to be admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines [G.R. No. L-3018, July 18, 1951]; National Marketing Corporation vs. Federation of United Namarco Distributors, Inc. [G.R. No. L-22578, January 31, 1973]

The land department of the United States, according to American authorities, was created as the tribunal for determining the right under the laws of the United States of any person to receive a patent for any of the public lands and that the tribunal is invested with the jurisdiction to determine all questions of fact that may arise in any controversy respecting such right. The Land Department is a quasijudicial tribunal and has exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of lands of the

!15

public domain in the absence of specific legislation to the contrary. (Alfonso S. Borja, The Law on Public Land Conflicts in the Philippines, North Star Publishers, 1940 ed. p. 357, citing Cage vs. Guther, 136 Cal. 358, 68 pac. 710, 89 ALR 341, Bishop of Nesqually vs. Gibbon, 158 U.S. 155; Knight vs. U.S. Land Association, 142 U.S. 161; McDaid vs. Oklahoma, 150 U.S. 209.)

! !

Such authority of the then Bureau of Lands or the Director of Lands for that matter as quasi-judicial officer was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ortua vs. Encarnacion (G.R. No. 39919, January 30, 1934), when it states: The Director of Lands performs his functions pursuant to the provisions of the Public Land Law. In accordance with this law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is made the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Public Land Law, and he performs this duty through the Director of Lands (sec. 3). Subject to the control of the executive head, the Director of Lands is by law vested with direct executive control over land matters, "and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce." (Sec. 4.)

The foregoing analysis of the pertinent provisions of the Public Land Law will show why in the opening paragraphs of this decision, we accepted the decision of the Director of Lands on questions of facts as conclusive. We would even go farther and would hold that the Director of Lands has been made by law a quasi-judicial officer. As such officer he makes findings of fact, even passes upon questions of mixed fact and law, and considers and decides the qualifications of applicants for the purchase of public lands. A discretion is lodged by law in the Director of Lands which should not be interfered with. The decisions of the Director of Lands on the construction of the Public Land Law are entitled to great respect by the courts. (Emphasis supplied)

This quasi-judicial power granted by law to the Director of Lands and to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources regarding the administration and disposition of alienable lands of the public domain carries with it the authority to determine the conflicting claims of applicants and occupants. The Supreme Court in Custodio Mari vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (G.R. No. L-5622, December 29, 1952) states:

!16

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.

In Republic vs. Heraclio Diaz (G.R. No. L-36486, August 6, 1979) J. MelencioHerrera in describing the then power of the Director of Lands said When the Director of Lands, therefore, leased the property to defendant, he did so as a public officer and he represented the Government and stood for it as an "arm of the State." He acted by virtue of an authority vested in him by law and needed no further delegation of power. He was clothed with some part of the sovereignty of the State.

! Decision of the Director of Lands/Secretary entitled to Great Respect;

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction Findings of quasi-judicial agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality where such findings are supported by substantial evidence, and judicial review by the courts is limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

Decision of the Director of Lands affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, on the interpretation and application of the Public Land Law are entitled to great respect by the courts because the Director of Lands is by law, a quasi-judicial officer and as such officer, he makes findings of fact, even passes upon question of mixed fact and law, and consider and decides the qualifications of applicants for the purchase of public lands. Discretion is lodged by law in the Director of Lands which should not be interfered with by the courts. (Mauleon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-27762, August 7, 1975, citing Ortua vs. Encarnacion, supra). It is well settled that the decision rendered by the Director of Lands when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is final and conclusive upon all questions of fact concerning homesteads which fall within his scope and authority, in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of a fraud, imposition or mistake other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of evidence. (Julian vs. Apostol, 52 Phil. 422; Ortua vs. Singson Encarnacion, 59 Phil., 440; De Guzman vs. De Guzman, et al., 104 Phil., 24, 56 Off. Gaz., [4] 753).

!17

In Villaflor vs. C.A. and Nasipit (G.R. No. 95694, October 9, 1997) the Supreme

Court upheld Director Cassanovas finding that the property subject of a public land sales application is public and not private as claimed by petitioner. The Court, through J. Panganiban eloquently explained the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, to quote:

The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application in this case, since the questions on the identity of the land in dispute and the factual qualification of private respondent as an awardee of a sales application require a technical determination by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative agency with the expertise to determine such matters. Because these issues preclude prior judicial determination, it behooves the courts to stand aside even when they apparently have statutory power to proceed, in recognition of the primary jurisdiction of the administrative agency.

Reliance by the trial and the appellate courts on the factual findings of the Director of Lands and the Minister of Natural Resources is not misplaced. By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, 29 by the courts. 30 The findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. It is not the task of an appellate court to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative body and to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency in respect of sufficiency of evidence.

Clearly, this issue falls under the primary jurisdiction of the Director of Lands because its resolution requires "survey, classification, . . . disposition and management of the lands of the public domain." It follows that his rulings deserve great respect. As petitioner failed to show that this factual finding of the Director of

!18

! Effect of the Decision It is already well-settled in our jurisprudence that the

decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their quasijudicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction. (Dulay vs. Hon. Minister of DNR, G.R. No. L-48766, February 9, 1993)

Lands was unsupported by substantial evidence, it assumes finality. Thus, both the trial and the appellate courts correctly relied on such finding. We can do no less.

! Judicial Review of the Decisions of the Director of Lands - The Director of

Lands is therefore a quasi-judicial officer when he exercises his function of public land disposition. A decision rendered by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, upon a question of fact is conclusive and not subject to be reviewed by the courts, in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect of evidence. (Ortua vs. Encarnacion, supra).

There is, however, another side to the case. It certainly was not intended by the legislative body to remove from the jurisdiction of courts all right to review decisions of the Bureau of Lands, for to do so would be to attempt something which could not be done legally. Giving force to all possible intendments regarding the facts as found by the Director of Lands, yet so much of the decision of the Director of Lands as relates to a question of law is in no sense conclusive upon the courts, but is subject to review. In other words, any action of the Director of Lands which is based upon a misconstruction of the law can be corrected by the courts. (Ortua vs. Encarnacion, supra, citing (Shepley vs. Cowan [1876], 91 U. S., 330; Moore vs. Robbins [1878], 96 U. S., 530; Marquez vs. Frisbie [1879], 101 U. S., 473; Black vs. Jackson [1900], 177 U. S., 349; Johnson vs. Riddle, supra.)

This general rule, however, is not without exceptions: "As recently reiterated, it is jurisprudentially settled that absent a clear, manifest and grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction, the findings of the administrative agency on matters falling within its competence will not be disturbed by the court.

!19

Specifically with respect to factual findings, they are accorded respect, if not finality, because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these tribunals from handling the specific matters falling under their jurisdiction.

The factual findings of administrative agencies may only be disregarded by the courts if:

! ! ! References: !

1. When grave abuse of discretion arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest. (Mapa v. Arroyo, 176 SCRA 76 [1989], American Inter-Fashion Corp. vs. O.P. G.R. No. 92422, May 23, 1991) 2. Arbitrarily disregarded evidence (Eastern Telecom vs. ICC, G.R. No. 135992, July 23, 2004) 3. Where the findings are initiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; 4. Where the procedures which lead to the factual findings are irregular; 5. When palpable errors are committed;

Alfonso S. Borja, The Law on Public Land Conflicts in the Philippines, North Star Publishers, 1940 ed.

! DANR Operations Manual, Volume 4, Bureau of Lands. ! DENR Manual on Land Disposition, 1991. ! DENR Manual on Settlement of Land Disputes, 1991. !

Laws, Administrative Issuances and Supreme Court Cases, as cited in the Article.