GR 142595; (October, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142595, October 15, 2003
Rachel C. Celestial, Petitioner, vs. Jesse Cachopero, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Jesse Cachopero filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) for a 415-square-meter parcel of land, a dried creek bed. Petitioner Rachel Celestial, his sister and an adjacent owner, filed a protest, claiming a preferential right and a necessary right of way. The Bureau of Lands initially denied the MSA, finding the land outside the commerce of man as it was certified for future public use. The parties later entered into a compromise in an ejectment case, where respondent agreed to vacate, and petitioner agreed to provide a two-meter alley. Subsequently, respondent filed a second MSA for a portion of the same land, now supported by new certifications from local officials stating the land was no longer needed for public use and was suitable for residential purposes. Petitioner again protested. The DENR Regional Executive Director found the land suitable for residential use but, due to the conflicting claims, ordered it to be sold at public auction and dismissed the second MSA.
ISSUE
Whether the DENR Regional Executive Director acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing respondent’s second Miscellaneous Sales Application and ordering a public auction instead of approving it.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the DENR Regional Executive Director committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the property and the applicable public land laws. The subject land, being a dried creek bed, is an abandoned riverbed. Under Article 461 of the Civil Code, abandoned riverbeds automatically belong to the owners of the adjoining riparian lands. Since the land adjoins the properties of both the petitioner and the respondent, who are co-owners by virtue of Article 461, it is considered private property, not part of the public domain. Consequently, it is not disposable under the Public Land Act through a miscellaneous sales application or a public auction conducted by the DENR. The DENR, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the MSA or order its sale at public auction. The proper remedy for the parties, as co-owners, is an action for partition in the proper civil court to settle their respective shares. The Court of Appeals decision, which correctly nullified the DENR orders for lack of jurisdiction, was affirmed.