G.R. No. 96605 May 8, 1992
FELICIANO MORCOSO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. TOMAS MAQUIRANG and ROSA TIROL-MAQUIRANG, respondents.

FACTS

In 1984, private respondent Rosa Tirol-Maquirang filed a complaint against petitioner Feliciano Morcoso for recovery of possession and declaration of ownership of a fishpond in Barangay Aslum, Ibajay, Aklan. She alleged the fishpond was part of a 4.5-hectare land she inherited from her father Eriberto Tirol in 1930. On December 28, 1969, she entered into a lease agreement with Morcoso, allowing him to develop a 5,880 sq.m. portion into a fishpond for six years without rental, granting him usufructuary rights. Morcoso was later informed by BFAR personnel that the leased area was within alienable and disposable public land, leading him to apply for a fishpond permit in 1973. When the lease expired in 1976, Morcoso refused to surrender possession. Tirol filed an unlawful detainer case, which was dismissed for being untimely.
Morcoso defended that the disputed fishpond was not the one subject to the lease. He claimed he developed two fishponds: the first, subject to the lease, from which Tirol ejected him in 1971 after a disagreement; and the second, the disputed fishpond, which he developed after BFAR personnel assured him it was a forested public area suitable for fishpond development. He applied for a permit in 1973 and declared the fishpond for taxation. Morcoso also assailed the trial court’s jurisdiction due to a pending administrative case before the BFAR regarding their conflicting claims.
The trial court ruled in favor of Tirol, declaring her the owner entitled to possession, ordering Morcoso to deliver possession, pay compensation for use and occupation from 1976, and pay attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the case despite a pending administrative conflict over public land.
2. Whether the trial court erred in declaring Tirol the owner of the disputed land claimed to be part of the public domain.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision.
1. The doctrine requiring prior exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable because the fishpond in dispute is private land, not public land. The Court of Appeals found that the disputed fishpond (Lot 1) was indeed the subject of the lease contract between Tirol and Morcoso, as evidenced by matching boundaries in the lease contract and sketch plans, despite a name change from Adiango Creek to Aslum River. The BFAR sketch plan submitted by Morcoso also showed the same area and adjoining owners as Tirol’s Lot 1. Lot 2 had different boundaries and was not the leased property.
2. The fishpond is not part of the public domain. Tirol and her predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land under a claim of ownership for a long period. Her father purchased the land in 1918, had it declared for taxation in 1921, and paid taxes. Upon his death in 1930, Tirol succeeded to possession, declared it for taxation, and continuously paid taxes. Their possession was undisturbed until Morcoso’s claim. The trial court’s factual findings, based on unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal. Therefore, the trial court correctly adjudged Tirol as the rightful owner.