G.R. No. L-22240 November 27, 1968
SANTIAGO BALMONTE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIAN MARCELO and ALEJANDRO MARCELO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellee Santiago Balmonte applied for a homestead patent over Lot 2808 in 1937. In 1947, defendant-appellant Alejandro Marcelo filed a homestead application for the same lot. After an investigation in 1948 where Marcelo did not appear despite notices, his claims were dismissed, and Balmonte was issued a patent and Original Certificate of Title in 1949. Marcelo protested, leading the Director of Lands to order an investigation in 1949. Before this investigation was completed, Balmonte filed a reivindicacion case in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Isabela in 1953 to recover possession and damages, alleging the Marcelos illegally entered the land in 1950. The Marcelos contested the court’s jurisdiction due to the pending administrative investigation and denied Balmonte’s claims. In 1955, the Director of Lands decided in favor of Balmonte, finding the Marcelos’ occupation in bad faith. The CFI then granted summary judgment for Balmonte in 1956. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case in 1961, noting the Director of Lands’ decision was not final as it had been appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Subsequently, the Secretary dismissed Marcelo’s appeal in 1961, and the President affirmed this dismissal in 1962. Upon rehearing, the CFI reinstated its 1956 judgment. The Marcelos moved for reconsideration and sought to amend their answer to plead lack of due process (specifically, lack of notice of the 1948 investigation) and fraud. The CFI denied this, stating the new allegations pertained to facts existing when the original answer was filed in 1953 and were thus waived.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in refusing to allow the defendants-appellants to amend their answer to plead lack of notice and fraud regarding the 1948 administrative investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no reversible error. The alleged lack of notice and fraud were factual issues that had already been raised and decided adversely against the Marcelos in their appeals to the Secretary of Agriculture and the President. The decision of the Executive Secretary explicitly found that Marcelo had an opportunity to be heard in 1948 but failed to appear despite notices, and that no fraud or irregularity attended the issuance of Balmonte’s patent. The findings of fact by competent executive officials are conclusive upon the courts and not subject to judicial review absent a showing of fraud, imposition, or mistake other than error in judging evidence. No such showing was made. Therefore, the decision of the lower court was affirmed.