G.R. No. L-22682 July 23, 1968
GORGONIO PABILING, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ISIDORO PARINACIO, DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

A conflict arose between a sales application filed by Gorgonio Pabiling and a homestead application of Crisanto Parinacio (predecessor of Isidoro Parinacio) over a tract of land. The Director of Lands initially decided in favor of Pabiling. Crisanto Parinacio appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who reversed the Director’s decision and ruled in favor of Parinacio’s heirs. Pabiling’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Pabiling then filed a civil action for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Isabela against Isidoro Parinacio, the Director of Lands, and the Secretary, seeking to annul the Secretary’s decision, revive the Director’s decision, and recover possession and damages. The CFI dismissed the case. Pabiling appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved purely legal questions.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CFI erred in denying Pabiling’s motion for postponement of the trial.
2. Whether the CFI erred in holding that Parinacio’s appeal from the Director’s decision to the Secretary was perfected on time.
3. Whether the CFI erred in affirming the Secretary’s decision, which Pabiling claimed was unsupported by evidence and law.
4. Whether the CFI erred in not holding Pabiling as the absolute owner by prior occupation and valid title.
5. Whether the CFI erred in holding that an amicable settlement (Exhibit 1) had the force of res judicata.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s decision.
1. The first assignment of error was devoid of merit. Pabiling’s absence was unexplained and unjustified. No showing was made that his testimony would change the case outcome, no new trial was sought, and his testimony from the Bureau of Lands was part of the documentary evidence considered. In a certiorari action reviewing an executive decision, the court considers only the evidence before the executive officer, not a trial de novo.
2. The second assignment of error was without merit. The Director’s decision was mailed to a non-existent address (“Crisanto Parinacio c/o Santiago Parinacio, Cordon, Isabela”). Crisanto Parinacio had died earlier, no Santiago Parinacio existed in Cordon, and Parinacio’s correct address was Inanama, Angadanan, Isabela. The envelope was returned unclaimed. The CFI found Isidoro Parinacio only learned of the decision in late October 1959. Thus, the appeal to the Secretary was timely.
3. The interrelated third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error were discussed jointly. On the merits, the Secretary’s decision was upheld. The key document was a compromise agreement (Exhibit 1), a joint affidavit dated October 20, 1947, where Pabiling relinquished his rights over a specific area in favor of Crisanto Parinacio. Pabiling later repudiated this, claiming he did not understand it and that the sketch on the back was added later. This was contradicted by Inspector Marcelino Hernaez, who testified the sketch was present at signing and the contents were translated and understood. The Secretary gave more weight to the inspector’s testimony. The Director’s factual findings are not conclusive if reversed by the Secretary, who has control over the Director. Even if the Secretary erred in appreciating evidence, it would not constitute a “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction” warranting certiorari. The amicable settlement was binding and effectively resolved the conflict.