G.R. No. L-17466 September 18, 1965
FAUSTINA JAMISOLA VDA. DE CALIBO, and HIPOLITO, ALEJANDRO, AURORA, VICENTE, PACIFICO and PAZ, surnamed LIBUTAN, HEIRS OF OLIVA JAMISOLA, petitioners-appellants, vs. TIBURCIO BALLESTEROS, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The case involves a conflict over public land between the sales application of respondent Tiburcio Ballesteros and the claims of the petitioners, heirs of Barbara Andoy and Oliva Jamisola. In 1930, the Director of Lands rejected the sales application of Barbara Andoy (mother of petitioners) and gave due course to Ballesteros’ application, finding Andoy’s entry was not in good faith. In 1931, lots were surveyed for the petitioners. In 1953, after an investigation and hearing conducted by Public Land Inspector Pablo Canda, Jr., where both parties presented evidence, the Director of Lands rendered a decision dismissing the Jamisolas’ claim and giving due course to Ballesteros’ application. The Jamisolas moved for reconsideration and then appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. On June 30, 1955, the Secretary modified the Director’s decision, holding petitioners had a preferential right to acquire two lots (totaling 17.41 hectares) based on a government policy to give land to the landless. Ballesteros filed a motion for reconsideration, supported by documents and affidavits alleging the petitioners were not landless but owned considerable landed properties. The petitioners were furnished copies and given thirty days to answer but failed to do so. Consequently, on September 3, 1955, the Secretary reversed his own decision and affirmed the Director’s decision, except for one lot whose transfer Ballesteros recognized. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of this reversal was denied on November 9, 1955. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with prohibition in the Court of First Instance, which was dismissed based on a stipulation of evidence. The petitioners appealed, arguing grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction by the Director and the Secretary.

ISSUE

Whether the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in their decisions and orders regarding the disposition of the public land.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The controverted land is public land. The Director of Lands, charged with administering the Public Land Act, acted within his jurisdiction. His decision, based on evidence presented at a hearing, involved an appraisal of evidence; any error was one of judgment, not a capricious or whimsical exercise amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Similarly, the Secretary, who has the power to review, reverse, modify, or affirm the Director’s decision, did not act with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction. His initial modification in favor of the petitioners, based on a policy presumption, was reversed upon receiving uncontroverted proof from Ballesteros that the petitioners were not landless. The petitioners were given due process—they were furnished the motions and given thirty days to answer but failed to do so. Their failure to refute the allegations bound them to the consequences. The procedure adopted was not lacking in fair play. The order of the lower court dismissing the petition was affirmed.