G.R. No. L-1334; August 29, 1947
MARTA ESPINOSA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. QUERUBE C. MAKALINTAL, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners (Marta Espinosa, et al.) seek the dismissal of Civil Case No. 200 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint, filed by respondent Juan Paranpan (represented by Querube C. Makalintal), seeks to recover material possession of a parcel of public forest land in Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, converted into a fishpond, and covered by Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 123 executed between Paranpan and the Commonwealth of the Philippines on February 12, 1941. Paranpan alleges he was in peaceful possession until February 1944, when defendants, through force and intimidation, took possession and appropriated the fishpond’s products, causing him damages. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing jurisdiction lies with the Department of Agriculture and Commerce, which has discretionary authority over conflicting claims regarding public lands for fishpond purposes. The lower court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Defendants’ answer (and that of intervenor Tereso Sason) alleges the fishpond was originally leased to Sason, who mortgaged his rights to Paranpan under a pacto de retro sale; Sason later sold his repurchase rights to defendants, who paid off the mortgage to Paranpan in 1944, and that Paranpan obtained the lease agreement through false representations.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Iloilo has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 200, or whether exclusive jurisdiction resides in the Department (Secretary) of Agriculture and Commerce.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The powers granted to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce under Act No. 4003 (as amended), Administrative Order No. 14, and Commonwealth Act No. 141 are executive and administrative in nature, pertaining to the granting, approval, rejection, or cancellation of licenses, permits, leases, and applications for public lands. They do not confer judicial power to decide the legal controversies presented in the pleadings. The issues in the case—involving the alleged deprivation of possession, the nature and validity of mortgage contracts between the parties, allegations of usury, and claims for damages—are judicial questions that only courts of justice can adjudicate. The Constitution vests judicial power exclusively in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as established by law. Therefore, the lower court correctly assumed jurisdiction. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.