G.R. No. 98045 June 26, 1996
DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO and LETICIA NAZARENO TAPIA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MR. & MRS. JOSE SALASALAN, MR. & MRS. LEO RABAYA, AVELINO LABIS, HON. ROBERTO G. HILARIO, ROLLEO I. IGNACIO, ALBERTO M. GILLERA and HON. ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., in their official and/or private capacities, respondents.

FACTS

The controversy involves a parcel of land formed from sawdust dumped into a dried creek in Cagayan de Oro City. Petitioners, successors of Antonio Nazareno, had previously secured a final ejectment judgment against private respondents Salasalan and Rabaya, who had leased the lots. Separately, Antonio Nazareno sought to perfect title over the area by securing approval of a survey plan from the Bureau of Lands. Private respondents protested this plan. Following an investigation, the Bureau’s Regional Director issued a decision amending Nazareno’s survey plan to segregate the portions occupied by private respondents, who were directed to file their own public land applications. A motion for reconsideration was filed and denied by the Undersecretary of the Department of Natural Resources, acting as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Lands. The Director of Lands then issued an order for execution. Petitioners subsequently filed a case before the Regional Trial Court seeking annulment of the various Bureau of Lands orders and decisions.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to judicial action, thereby rendering the administrative decision final.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine that decisions of the Director of Lands on matters within his jurisdiction, such as the approval or cancellation of survey plans and the disposition of public lands, are subject to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources under Commonwealth Act No. 141. The Court found that the motion for reconsideration filed by Antonio Nazareno was acted upon by the Undersecretary in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Lands, not as an alter ego of the Secretary. This did not constitute the requisite appeal to the Secretary. Consequently, the administrative decision attained finality. The Court further held that the execution order issued by the Director of Lands was a mere implementation of the prior decision and did not alter it. Absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion or that the case fell under established exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, the judicial recourse was premature. The Court also noted that the core issue of whether the land was public or private accretion was primarily within the administrative agency’s competence to determine initially.