G.R. No. L-7954; March 31, 1959
The Heirs of B.A. Crumb, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Margarito Rodriguez, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On November 7, 1922, Burdett A. Crumb filed a lease application for public land in Digos, Santa Cruz, Davao. He died on June 29, 1924. On January 12, 1925, the Director of Lands awarded the lease to his heirs. On August 12, 1935, the Director of Lands, with the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce’s approval, cancelled the lease on grounds of alleged subleasing to disqualified aliens. The lessees sought reconsideration. After investigation, on July 30, 1948, the Director of Lands reinstated the lease, excluding certain lots found more suitable for commercial/residential use, and ordered squatters on other portions to vacate. Intervenors (including defendants) appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who denied their appeal and motion for reconsideration on March 3 and June 21, 1949. Their appeal to the President was denied on December 2, 1950. Before the lease’s expiration on January 12, 1950, the lessees applied for renewal. On June 5, 1951, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources renewed the lease for another 25 years, denying the intervenors’ opposition. The plaintiffs (heirs) filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Davao on March 18, 1952, alleging defendants unlawfully occupied parts of the leased land since January 1940, refused to vacate despite orders, and destroyed crops. They sought injunction, restitution, and damages. Defendants generally denied occupying the leased land, asserted possession predating the war, assailed the lease’s validity (because the original applicant died before award), claimed the lease expired and the land reverted to the state, alleged plaintiffs abandoned the land, and set up counterclaims for improvements. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and ordered them to pay defendants attorney’s fees and costs.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants are unlawfully occupying the land covered by the plaintiffs’ valid and renewed leasehold right, thereby entitling the plaintiffs to restitution of possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The lease awarded to the heirs of B.A. Crumb and its subsequent renewal by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources were valid and binding, as the power to lease and renew leases of public lands is vested in the Director of Lands and the Secretary, whose factual decisions are conclusive in the absence of fraud. The Court found the defendants’ possession to be illegal, as evidenced by their own tax declarations stating they were on “the land of B.A. Crumb Estate” or similar annotations. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to vacate the premises they respectively occupy and restore possession to the plaintiffs. No damages were awarded to the plaintiffs due to lack of definite proof, and no value for improvements was awarded to the defendants due to lack of indubitable proof supporting their counterclaim. No costs were awarded.