G.R. No. L-27235; May 22, 1969
Bonifacio Balmes, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Fortunato Suson, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the preferential right to possess a sixteen-hectare parcel of public land (Lot 2104). The Director of Lands decided in favor of plaintiff Bonifacio Balmes in 1941, a decision reaffirmed after reinvestigation in 1954. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources affirmed this decision on appeal in 1955 and declared it final in 1956 after denying defendant Fortunato Suson’s three time-barred motions for reconsideration. Despite this final administrative decision, Balmes could not obtain possession of the land, which Suson had held since 1939. Balmes sought execution from the Bureau of Lands to no avail. Consequently, Balmes filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur to obtain possession and damages. After receiving the complaint, Suson filed a petition for executive review with the Office of the President and moved to dismiss the court case, arguing it was premature due to the pending administrative appeal. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Suson then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. L-12868), arguing the lower court lacked jurisdiction because administrative remedies were not exhausted. The Supreme Court dismissed that petition for lack of merit, and the denial became final. The lower court then proceeded, and after a stipulation of facts and evidence on damages, rendered judgment ordering Suson to vacate the land and pay Balmes damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Did the lower court acquire jurisdiction to entertain the case despite the pendency of a petition for executive review in the Office of the President of the Philippines?

RULING

Yes, the lower court acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the resolutions in the earlier certiorari case (G.R. L-12868), which denied Suson’s petition and became final, constitute “the law of the case.” These resolutions settled the jurisdictional issue against Suson and are no longer subject to question. The Court noted a pattern of delay by Suson, who had remained in possession since 1939, filed motions for reconsideration out of time, and only sought executive review almost a year after his last motion was denied and apparently in response to the court action. The Court found his objective was to delay surrendering possession. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with a modification increasing the award of attorney’s fees.