G.R. No. L-21607 January 30, 1970
RAFAEL MACAILING, SILVESTRE MACAILING, DOMINICO NECESITO and RAFAEL NECESITO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. TOMAS ANDRADA, MARIA ANDRADA, FEDERICO ANDRADA, FLORENCIA VDA. DE ANDRADA, JESUS ANDRADA, ANDREA R. GAURANA (HEIRS OF SALVADOR ANDRADA) and ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ENRIQUE C. QUEMA (in behalf of the President), defendants-appellants.

FACTS

A dispute over four parcels of land in Lebak, Cotabato arose between plaintiffs (settlers) and the heirs of Salvador Andrada (sales applicant). The District Land Officer decided for the plaintiffs, but the Director of Lands reversed this, ordering the lands restored to the Andrada heirs. On appeal, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reversed the Director on October 27, 1956, awarding the lands to the plaintiffs. The Andrada heirs’ motions for reconsideration were denied, with the Secretary’s order of September 12, 1957, stating his decision had long become final and executory and the case was closed. The heirs received this denial on October 14, 1957. On October 23, 1957, the heirs appealed to the Office of the President. On August 20, 1959, Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique C. Quema, by authority of the President, reversed the Secretary’s decision and restored the lands to the Andrada heirs. The plaintiffs then filed a suit in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, challenging the finality of the Secretary’s decision. The lower court, based on a stipulation of facts, declared the Secretary’s decision final and executory and nullified the Assistant Executive Secretary’s decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiffs’ remedy of filing an ordinary civil action was proper, or if certiorari was the appropriate remedy.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance of Cotabato had jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against the Assistant Executive Secretary who held office in Manila, outside its territorial boundaries.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs’ appropriate remedy was certiorari, not an ordinary civil action. Where the law is silent on judicial review of administrative decisions, the special civil actions under the Rules of Court (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) are available. The Court treated the plaintiffs’ action as one for certiorari, as the allegations charged the Assistant Executive Secretary with grave abuse of discretion for entertaining an appeal from a final and executory decision. The absence of verification in the petition was excused as the case presented a question of law based on recorded facts.
2. The Supreme Court held that the Court of First Instance of Cotabato had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against the Assistant Executive Secretary. Under Section 44(h) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 and Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a Court of First Instance’s power to issue writs is limited to acts committed within its territorial province or district. Since the Assistant Executive Secretary performed the assailed act in Manila, outside Cotabato, the Cotabato court lacked authority. The Court cited a line of jurisprudence, including Castaño vs. Lobingier and Samar Mining Co., Inc. vs. Arnado, establishing that courts cannot issue writs against persons or entities outside their territorial jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment on the merits, declaring the Secretary’s decision final and executory and the Assistant Executive Secretary’s decision null and void, as the appeal to the President was filed out of time after the Secretary’s decision had become final.