G.R. No. L-34492 March 28, 1988
MIGUEL L. GUERRERO, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. AUGUSTO M. AMORES and ABELARDO DEVELOS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Miguel Guerrero and private respondent Abelardo Develos filed separate Miscellaneous Sales Applications for adjacent public land lots in Olongapo City. Guerrero claimed Develos was occupying a portion of his applied-for lot. The Director of Lands, in a 1967 decision, ruled in Guerrero’s favor, ordering Develos to vacate the contested northern portion. Develos filed multiple motions for reconsideration and a motion for new trial with the Bureau of Lands, which were denied, though an order of execution was issued in 1969. Despite this, Develos remained in possession.
In 1971, Guerrero filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with the Court of First Instance of Zambales. After a preliminary hearing on Develos’s affirmative defenses, the trial court dismissed the case. It ruled that Guerrero failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as the Bureau of Lands proceedings were not yet final due to Develos’s pending motions. Guerrero’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the civil case for recovery of possession on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an absolute bar to judicial action in this context. The Court delineated the separate jurisdictions of administrative bodies and the judiciary concerning public lands. The Bureau of Lands has primary jurisdiction over the administration, disposition, and alienation of public lands, including the determination of the respective rights of rival applicants. Conversely, the regular courts have jurisdiction over possessory actions, such as accion publiciana or recovery of possession, which determine who has the better right of physical possession.
Guerrero’s complaint was precisely a possessory action to recover physical possession, not an action to adjudicate ownership or resolve the conflict over the sales applications. This relief falls within the inherent power of the courts. The Bureau of Lands, while it can decide conflicts over applications and order a losing party to vacate, lacks the coercive power to execute such an order for physical ejectment through its own sheriff; that power resides solely in the courts. Therefore, Guerrero correctly resorted to the court to enforce his possessory right based on the favorable, albeit not yet final, administrative decision. The pendency of motions before the Bureau of Lands did not preclude the court from assuming jurisdiction over the possessory aspect. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the issue of possession.