G.R. No. L-20408; April 27, 1967
NARCISO SOLANCHO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSEFA RAMOS and ISMAEL CALDERON, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On December 8, 1961, Narciso Solancho filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan against Josefa Ramos, Flaviano Ramos, Valentin Arios, and Ismael Calderon. He sought recovery of ownership and possession of a piece of land, alleging he was the owner and had been in possession since time immemorial until 1959 when the defendants, through force, violence, threats, strategy, stealth, and intimidation, usurped portions of it. He prayed for a declaration of ownership, an order for the defendants to vacate and surrender possession, and an award for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Instead of answering, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that a pending administrative case between the plaintiff and defendant Josefa Ramos over the same land was before the District Land Office (Bureau of Lands). They attached a letter from the Bureau of Lands advising Josefa Ramos to file a protest and her written protest. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, stating his free patent application had been withdrawn. The court deferred resolution pending action from the Bureau of Lands. The plaintiff later manifested his free patent application had been rejected. The lower court then issued an order directing the District Land Office to investigate whether the land was private land, and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of an administrative case before the Bureau of Lands constitutes a ground for the dismissal of a civil action in court under the Rules of Court, specifically under the ground of “another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.”

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the orders of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the ground for dismissal under Section 1(d), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court (“there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause”) refers only to an “action,” which Rule 2, Section 1 defines as “an ordinary suit in a court of justice.” An administrative proceeding before the Bureau of Lands is not an “action” as contemplated by the Rules. Therefore, the pendency of an administrative case is not a valid ground to dismiss a judicial action. The lower court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on that basis. Costs were awarded against the appellees.