GR L 47788; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47788; April 28, 1941
DIEGO MARIANO y ANTONIO RELLEGUE, demandantes y apelantes, vs. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS e IRINEO CARLOS, demandados y apelados.
FACTS
On March 9, 1921, Irineo Carlos obtained from the Bureau of Lands the right to lease a parcel of land in Laur, Nueva Ecija, for 25 years. In 1931, an investigation was conducted to determine the value of the land, during which it was found that several homesteaders occupied the property. The appellants (Diego Mariano and Antonio Rellegue) were among these homesteaders and had applied for portions of Carlos’s land, making improvements despite his protest. Since the land had already been granted to Carlos, the appellants’ applications were denied and subsequently canceled. The appellants, two of the eight homesteaders, filed a motion for reconsideration with the Bureau of Lands, which was denied. They then appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, but this appeal was dismissed for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Subsequently, they filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The lower court, after considering a demurrer filed by the Director of Lands, dismissed the complaint because the appellants failed to amend it. The case was then elevated on appeal.
ISSUE
1. Whether the lower court erred in sustaining the demurrer on the ground of misjoinder of parties.
2. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court dismissing the complaint.
1. On Misjoinder of Parties: The Court found that the appellants had no common interest. Neither claimed a right over the land claimed by the other. Each had a distinct cause of action against the Director of Lands. Since they were interested in different portions of the contested land, the evidence supporting their respective claims would necessarily be different. Therefore, each appellant should have filed a separate complaint against the Director of Lands, in accordance with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. On Lack of Jurisdiction: The Court agreed with the lower court that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. The Director of Lands, as an organ of the Executive branch, is the sole authority to adjudicate the rights of the parties in a purely administrative matter like this one. The Court cannot review the acts of said official in this regard, unless excess of jurisdiction is alleged, which requires clear and convincing evidence. No such evidence existed in this case. Furthermore, the appellants themselves did not question the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands but only the exercise thereof. Given this, the remedy of certiorari does not lie; the proper remedy would have been an appeal. The appellants did attempt to appeal, but their appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time.
The appealed order was confirmed in all respects, with costs against the appellants.