G.R. No. L-5622 December 29, 1952
CUSTODIO MARI, represented by his attorney-in-fact, MARCELIANO MARI, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MARCIANO ADURAN, MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, and FRANCISCO ASUNCION, respondents.

FACTS

On March 12, 1946, Custodio Mari applied for a homestead patent over a six-hectare parcel of land in Mangatarem, Pangasinan. The Director of Lands preliminarily approved the application on June 12, 1946. Respondents Marciana Duran, Maximiano Asuncion, and Francisco Asuncion opposed the application. After an investigation and an ex-parte hearing on August 8, 1946 (where oppositors were absent), the Director of Lands overruled the oppositions and awarded the land to Custodio Mari on November 14, 1949. The oppositors filed an appeal to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources on March 30, 1950. Custodio Mari alleged the appeal signatures were forged. The National Bureau of Investigation confirmed the forgery, leading the Department to dismiss the appeal and protest on October 11, 1950, upholding the award to Custodio Mari. On May 15, 1951, the protestants requested the order be set aside, citing forgery by their attorney, misrepresentation about the hearing location, their 30-year possession, and fraud in obtaining a lease contract. On June 20, 1951, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources set aside the October 11, 1950 order and reinstated the appeal. On March 29, 1952, the Secretary remanded the case to the Bureau of Lands, set aside the 1949 decision, and ordered a new investigation. Custodio Mari filed this petition for prohibition, contending the Secretary acted without jurisdiction, exceeded jurisdiction, or committed abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted without jurisdiction, exceeded jurisdiction, or committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of June 20, 1951 and March 29, 1952, which set aside his prior order and the Director of Lands’ decision and ordered a reinvestigation of the homestead application.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for prohibition. The Court held that the administration and distribution of public lands is committed by law to the Director of Lands and ultimately to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Secretary acted within his authority under Lands Administrative Order No. 6, which allows relief from a decision or order taken against a party through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, default, or excusable neglect, provided application is made within a reasonable time (not exceeding one year). This regulation is valid and analogous to Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The Court found the Secretary’s acts came within the purview of this rule and was not convinced he acted with grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner had another adequate remedy: to appear at the reinvestigation, protect his interests, and if the decision is against him, to appeal to the Department. Since an adequate remedy was available, the writ of prohibition was not permissible.