G.R. No. L-14756. April 26, 1961.
EMILIANO BALADJAY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HON. ZOILO CASTRILLO in his capacity as Director of Lands and MARIA BALCITA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Emiliano Baladjay filed a complaint against the Director of Lands and Maria Balcita, seeking the annulment of Free Patent No. V-94223 issued to Balcita covering Lot No. 2170. Baladjay alleged he and his predecessors had possessed the lot as owners since time immemorial, introduced permanent improvements, and paid real estate taxes. He claimed the patent was issued without proper investigation or notice, and that Balcita obtained it fraudulently, as neither she nor her predecessors had occupied, cultivated, or paid taxes on the land. He prayed for the patent’s cancellation and damages.
The Director of Lands and Balcita moved to dismiss the complaint. The Director asserted the court lacked jurisdiction as Baladjay failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the Bureau of Lands and that only the Government could seek cancellation of a patent title. Balcita similarly argued lack of jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and Baladjay’s lack of legal capacity to sue. The Court of First Instance granted the motion to dismiss, prompting Baladjay’s appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds of (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies and (2) lack of legal capacity to sue, given the plaintiff’s allegation that the land is private property.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal order. The legal doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the exclusive authority of the Government to seek cancellation of a patent title are confined to lands of the public domain granted under the Public Lands Act. They are inapplicable to private lands. A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations in the complaint. Baladjay’s complaint explicitly alleged that Lot No. 2170 was his private property, acquired not from the Government but through immemorial possession by himself and his predecessors. The complaint contained no indication that his title was derived from the Government or that the lot was ever under the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands.
Consequently, upon the pleaded facts, Baladjay was not obligated to first avail of administrative remedies within the Bureau of Lands as a precondition to judicial action. The question of whether he could substantiate his allegation of private ownership with evidence is a matter of proof to be determined in a full trial on the merits, not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.