G.R. No. 186487 ; August 15, 2011
ROSITO BAGUNU, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO AGGABAO & ROSENDA ACERIT, Respondents.

FACTS

The controversy originated from a protest filed by respondents Spouses Aggabao against petitioner Rosito Bagunu’s free patent application over an unregistered land (subject land) in Isabela, pending before the DENR Regional Office. The land was previously owned by Marcos Binag, sold to Felicisimo Bautista, then sold to Atty. Samson Binag in 1959. Atty. Binag applied for a free patent over the land in 1961. In 1987, Atty. Binag sold the land to petitioner Bagunu, who substituted as the free patent applicant. The deeds of sale and survey identified the land as Lot 322. In 1992, respondents filed a protest, claiming ownership of Lot 322 based on Deeds of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale executed in their favor by heirs of Rafael Bautista. The DENR Regional Office, after investigation, found petitioner occupied and cultivated the disputed area including that purchased by respondents. It ruled that petitioner wrongfully included Lot 322 in his application, ordered respondents to file their own application for Lot 322, petitioner to amend his application to exclude Lot 322, and a relocation survey. The DENR Secretary affirmed, concluding based on boundaries in deeds and an affidavit from Atty. Binag (claiming the Lot 322 designation was erroneous) that petitioner actually acquired Lot 258, not Lot 322. The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Concurrently, Atty. Binag filed a civil case for reformation of instruments (to correct the lot number from 322 to 258) against Bautista and petitioner. Respondents later intervened in that case, seeking quieting of title, claiming petitioner’s claim clouded their title and that they were dispossessed in 1992.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DENR Secretary’s jurisdiction to resolve the conflicting claims over Lot 322 and in applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, considering that the issue allegedly involves interpretation of contracts and ownership claims within the competence of courts, not the DENR.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld the denial of the petition. The Court ruled that the DENR, through the Lands Management Bureau, has primary jurisdiction over controversies involving public lands, including the disposition and management of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. The determination of the identity of the land and who has a better right to a free patent application are matters within the DENR’s specialized competence. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies as the question requires the technical knowledge and expertise of the administrative agency. The Court found no error in the CA’s affirmation of the DENR’s factual findings, which were supported by evidence, including the boundaries in the deeds and Atty. Binag’s affidavit. The petitioner’s arguments largely raised factual issues not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition. The pendency of the civil case for reformation of instruments did not divest the DENR of its jurisdiction over the public land application.