G.R. No. L-81188 August 30, 1988
TAGUM DOCTORS ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. GREGORIO APSAY, THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, BUREAU OF LANDS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tagum Doctors Enterprises (TDEI) filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application for two lots in 1967, and an award was issued in its favor in 1972. Private respondent Gregorio Apsay filed a protest in 1972, claiming actual possession of one lot. In 1980, the Director of Lands dismissed Apsay’s protest but canceled TDEI’s award, holding the corporation was disqualified from acquiring public land under the 1973 Constitution. This was affirmed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 1987.
Following a series of motions, the MNR Minister, acting on Apsay’s second motion for reconsideration, issued an order in May 1986 setting aside the 1980 decision, declaring the public bidding null and void, canceling TDEI’s award due to its disqualification, and ordering rebidding. TDEI received a copy on May 29, 1986, but filed its appeal to the Office of the President only on August 8, 1986. The Deputy Executive Secretary dismissed the appeal for being filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period.

ISSUE

Whether public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) dismissing TDEI’s appeal for tardiness; and (2) canceling the original award to TDEI on grounds of invalid sale and constitutional ineligibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural issue, the Court upheld the factual finding of the Deputy Executive Secretary that TDEI’s appeal was filed 54 days after receipt of the MNR’s May 1986 order, well beyond the 30-day period. The Court rejected TDEI’s claim that no second motion for reconsideration was allowed, noting the applicable administrative orders governed decisions of the Director of Lands and the Office of the President, not the MNR itself; thus, the Minister’s acceptance of the second motion was discretionary.
On the substantive issue, the Court affirmed the cancellation of the award. First, it found no arbitrariness in the MNR’s determination of irregularities in the public bidding, such as an anomalous certification regarding the posting of the notice. Second, and decisively, the Court ruled TDEI was constitutionally disqualified from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. Article XIV, Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution, applicable at the time, allowed private corporations to hold such lands only by lease, not by purchase. This prohibition is maintained under Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution . Consequently, TDEI could not acquire a vested right from the 1972 award, as it was granted in violation of a constitutional mandate. The award was thus invalid from its inception.