GR L 23282; (April, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23282 April 28, 1969
FELIPE GANOB, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. REMEDIOS RAMAS, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Ireneo Quidato filed a Sales Application for Lot No. 47 in 1930, which was awarded to him in 1933 but cancelled in 1935 for nonpayment of installments. On August 2, 1937, Quidato executed a deed transferring his rights to Leodegario Ramas. Ramas paid the arrearages to the Bureau of Lands on August 12, 1937. On January 6, 1938, the Director of Lands reinstated Quidato’s sales application and ordered an investigation into the transfer. After an investigation and favorable report, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved the transfer of rights on September 14, 1939. Ramas occupied and cultivated the land, completing payment of the purchase price on June 26, 1941. During the war, petitioners entered the land. After the war, Ramas’s heirs found petitioners in occupancy and sought to resume possession. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.
ISSUE
Whether the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the cancelled sales application and approving the transfer of rights, and whether petitioners properly exhausted administrative remedies before filing for certiorari.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The officials acted within their jurisdiction and committed no error or grave abuse of discretion. The reinstatement of a cancelled sales application due to nonpayment is within the sound discretion of the Director of Lands, especially when subsequently approved by the Department Head. The findings of fact by the respondent officials were fully supported by evidence. Furthermore, petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as they had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appealing the Secretary’s decision to the Chief Executive before resorting to judicial action. The writ was denied.