G.R. No. 235051, June 16, 2021
VERONICA L. TUMAMPOS AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, REGION VII, PETITIONERS, VS. CONCEPCION P. ANG, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The subject matter is Lot No. 1211 in Babag, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu. Veronica L. Tumampos alleged she acquired the property from the heirs of Teodoro Berdon, declared it for taxation, took possession, and introduced improvements. She filed a free patent application (FPA No. 072226-27-F) with the DENR-VII in June 2012. Concepcion P. Ang claimed ownership through a chain of transactions dating back to 1947 and had a pending application for judicial titling of the same property filed in 1995 before the RTC, Lapu-Lapu City. Upon learning of Tumampos’s free patent application, Ang filed a formal protest with the DENR-VII, asserting the DENR had no jurisdiction, Tumampos’s documents were void, and she had a better right. The DENR-VII, in a Decision dated September 2, 2014, gave due course to Tumampos’s application and dismissed Ang’s protest, finding the land was still public land and that Tumampos had preferential right and possession. Ang did not appeal to the DENR Secretary but instead filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The CA granted the petition on January 31, 2017, ruling that the pendency of Ang’s judicial titling case should have prompted the DENR-VII not to take cognizance of Tumampos’s free patent application. The CA denied Tumampos’s motion for reconsideration on September 11, 2017.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari filed by Ang, and whether the rule on appeal from the decision of the DENR-VII may be dispensed with, allowing a petition for certiorari in lieu of an appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the CA erred. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, Ang had an available remedy by appealing the DENR-VII Decision to the DENR Secretary within a 15-day reglementary period as provided under DENR Department Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990. By failing to interpose an appeal and instead filing a certiorari petition, Ang erred in her choice of remedy. Her failure to timely appeal rendered the DENR-VII Decision final and executory. The Court also disagreed with the CA’s reasoning that the pending judicial titling case barred the free patent application. The Court clarified the distinct modes of disposing public land: judicial confirmation of imperfect title and administrative legalization (free patent). The pendency of a judicial application does not automatically divest the DENR of jurisdiction to process a free patent application, as the land remains part of the public domain until a title is actually issued or confirmed by a court. Since Ang did not perfect an appeal, the DENR-VII’s decision attained finality.