Quasi-Judicial Function Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards

G.R. No. 96605 Morcoso v. CA

Martinez, J.

This case stemmed from a dispute over a parcel of land leased and turned into a fishpond. Petitioner (lessee) claims that
it is public domain and thus BFAR has jurisdiction over claims over it; SC affirms the trial court and says that respondent
(lessor) has a legitimate claim of ownership over it; thus, the parcel of land is not part of the public domain and outside
BFARs jurisdiction.

DOCTRINE
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies doesnt apply to this case because the subject parcel of land is
private land, and thus BFAR has no jurisdiction over claims over it.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Feliciano Morcoso petitioner
Rosa Tirol-Maquirang respondent

FACTS
1. Respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession and declaration of ownership of a fishpond in Aklan against
petitioner before a trial court (not stated which one). She alleged that:
The said fishpond (Lot 1) is a part of the 4.5 hectare of land she inherited from her father Eriberto Tirol;
She entered into a lease agreement with petitioner, allowing the latter without paying rental and for a period of
six years, to develop into a fishpond a 5,880 sq.m. portion of the land she inherited, with usufructuary rights;
While working on the fishpond, petitioner was informed by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR) that said portion of the land leased to him is within the area of alienable and disposable public land;
Petitioner then applied for a fishpond permit with the BFAR;
Petitioner subsequently refused to surrender the possession of the fishpond to respondent in 1976 when the
term of the lease expired;
Respondent filed an unlawful detainer case against petitioner but it was dismissed for not having been timely
filed.
2. Petitioner claimed that the fishpond in dispute from which he is being evicted is not the fishpond subject of the
contract of lease, because he developed two fishponds:
the fishpond subject of the lease, from which he was forcibly ejected by respondent in 1971 as a result of a
disagreement with her (Lot 1); and
the fishpond which he claims to be in dispute, which adjoins Lot 1 and which he developed after the BFAR
personnel assured him that the area he had moved to is a forested area, suitable for fishpond development
(Lot 2).
3. Petitioner said that he applied for a fishpond permit for Lot 2; and that he declared said fishpond in his name for
taxation purposes. He also assailed the jurisdiction of the trial court because of a pending administrative case before
the BFAR regarding their conflicting claims.
Basically, petitioner claims that Lot 2 is the lot in the case filed by respondent against him, and thus she cant
claim it as her own because it belongs to the public domain.
4. Trial court ruled in favor of respondent. This was affirmed by the CA.
5. Petitioner now appeals to the SC, averring that the trial court erred:
In taking cognizance of the case despite the subject parcel of land being of public domain, and thus under the
administration and control of BFAR; and
In declaring respondent as owner of said parcel of land of public domain.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1
1. W/N the petition has merit No.
Documentary evidence submitted by the parties and by BFAR shows that the subject lot in the case is Lot 1,
not Lot 2 (see Fact #2).
o Lot 1 was clearly the subject of the lease contract between respondent and petitioner.
o Respondent sufficiently proved that she has been in possession of said lot for a very long period of
time, inherited from her father, who had been paying for its taxes for over 70 years.
o Petitioner tried to take advantage of the knowledge from BFAR that Lot 1 was public land, and tried to
apply for a fishpond permit over the same, refusing to recognize the existing and legitimate claim of
respondent over it.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies doesnt apply to this case because the subject parcel of
land is private land, and thus BFAR has no jurisdiction over claims over it.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition denied. CA and TC affirmed.

DIGESTER: Cristelle Elaine Collera