G.R. No. 83907 . September 13, 1989.
NAPOLEON GEGARE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (ELEVENTH DIVISION) AND ARMIE ELMA, respondents.

FACTS

The controversy involves Lot 5989 in General Santos City. The lot, originally titled to Paulino Elma, was reverted to public domain by a final court decision, which granted preferential right to its actual occupant, petitioner Napoleon Gegare. Both Gegare and private respondent Arnie Elma filed applications with the Board of Liquidators. Initially, the Board favored Gegare. However, after investigations, the Board ultimately passed Resolution No. 272, series of 1981, partitioning the lot equally between the parties by negotiated sale. This administrative resolution was affirmed by the Office of the President. Elma paid for his half and obtained a patent and title. Gegare then filed a civil case in the Regional Trial Court seeking annulment of the partition and the Board’s resolutions.
The trial court initially granted Elma’s motion to dismiss but later reconsidered and allowed the case to proceed. Elma filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court’s orders. The appellate court granted Elma’s petition, declared the trial court’s orders null and void, and directed the dismissal of the civil case for lack of jurisdiction. Gegare’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over Gegare’s action for annulment of the administrative partition of the lot.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the nature of the subject matter. The disposition of the reverted public land was an administrative function vested by law in the Board of Liquidators, acting under the executive department. The Board’s resolution partitioning the lot, which was affirmed by the Office of the President, constituted a final administrative action. Absent a clear showing of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the administrative agency, the regular courts should not interfere. The trial court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to annul or review the administrative partition.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that Gegare lacked the capacity to sue for the nullification of the land grant. The real party-in-interest in such an action is the government or the state, as the grantor of the patent. The Court also found that Gegare failed to comply with the mandatory conciliation requirement under Presidential Decree No. 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay Law) before filing his court action, as the contending private parties were residents of the same barangay. The petition for certiorari filed by Elma with the Court of Appeals was proper, as it assailed the trial court’s interlocutory orders which were issued without jurisdiction.