Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 95694 October 9, 1997
VICENTE VILLAFLOR, !bt"t!te# b$ %" %e"r, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS &'# NASIPIT LUM(ER CO., INC., respondents.

PANGANI(AN, J.:
In this rather factuall co!plicated case, the "ourt reiterates the bindin# force and
effect of findin#s of speciali$ed ad!inistrative a#encies as %ell as those of trial courts
%hen affir!ed b the "ourt of &ppeals' re(ects petitioner)s theor of si!ulation of
contracts' and passes upon the *ualifications of private respondent corporation to
ac*uire disposable public a#ricultural lands prior to the effectivit of the +,-.
"onstitution.
The Case
/efore us is a petition for revie% on certiorari see0in# the reversal of the Decision
1
of
the "ourt of &ppeals, dated Septe!ber 1-, +,,2, in "&. 3.R "V No. 2,241, affir!in#
the dis!issal b the trial court of Petitioner Vicente Villaflor)s co!plaint a#ainst Private
Respondent Nasipit 5u!ber "o., Inc. The disposition of both the trial and the appellate
courts are *uoted in the state!ent of facts belo%.
The Facts
The facts of this case, as narrated in detail b Respondent "ourt of &ppeals, are as
follo%s6
)
The evidence, testi!onial and docu!entar, presented durin# the trial sho%
that on 7anuar +4, +,82, "irilo Piencenaves, in a Deed of &bsolute Sale
9e:h. &;, sold to <petitioner=, a parcel of a#ricultural land containin# an area of
>2 hectares,
*
!ore or less, and particularl described and bounded as
follo%s6
& certain parcel of a#ricultural land planted to abaca %ith
visible concrete !onu!ents !ar0in# the boundaries and
bounded on the NORTH b Public 5and no% Private Deeds
on the ?ast b Serafin Villaflor, on the SO@TH b Public
5and' and on the Aest b land clai!ed b H. Patete,
containin# an area of 42 hectares !ore or less, no% under
Ta: Dec. 1,8>+ in the 9sic; of said Vicente Villaflor, the
%hole parcel of %hich this particular parcel is onl a part, is
assessed at P11,>>2.22 under the above said Ta: Dec.
Nu!ber.
This deed states6
That the above described land %as sold to the said
VI"?NT? VI55&B5OR, . . . on 7une 11, +,.-, but no for!al
docu!ent %as then e:ecuted, and since then until the
present ti!e, the said Vicente Villaflor has been in
possession and occupation of 9the sa!e;' 9and;
That the above described propert %as before the sale, of
! e:clusive propert havin# inherited fro! ! lon# dead
parents and ! o%nership to it and that of ! <sic= lasted for
!ore than fift 9>2; ears, possessin# and occupin# sa!e
peacefull, publicl and continuousl %ithout interruption for
that len#th of ti!e.
&lso on 7anuar +4, +,82, "laudio Otero, in a Deed of &bsolute Sale 9e:h. ";
sold to Villaflor a parcel of a#ricultural land, containin# an area of 18 hectares,
!ore or less, and particularl described and bounded as follo%s6
& certain land planted to corn %ith visible concrete
!easure!ents !ar0in# the boundaries and bounded on the
North b Public 5and and Tun#ao "ree0' on the ?ast b
&#usan River' on the South b Serafin Villaflor and "irilo
Piencenaves' and on the Aest b land of Ber!in /acobo
containin# an area of 18 hectares !ore or less, under Ta:
Declaration No. 1,8>+ in the na!e alread of Vicente
Villaflor, the %hole parcel of %hich this particular land is onl
1
a part, is assessed at P11,>>2.22 under the above said Ta:
Declaration No. 1,8>+.
This deed states6
That the above described land %as sold to the said
VI"?NT? VI55&B5OR, . . . on 7une 11, +,.-, but no sound
docu!ent %as then e:ecuted, ho%ever since then and until
the present ti!e, the said Vicente Villaflor has been in open
and continuous possession and occupation of said land'
9and;
That the above described land %as before the sale, ! o%n
e:clusive propert, bein# inherited fro! ! deceased
parents, and ! o%nership to it and that of !
predecessors lasted !ore than fift 9>2; ears, possessin#
and occupin# the sa!e, peacefull, openl and interruption
for that len#th of ti!e.
5i0e%ise on 7anuar +4, +,82, Her!o#enes Patete, in a Deed of &bsolute
Sale 9e:h. D;, sold to Villaflor, a parcel of a#ricultural land, containin# an area
of 12 hectares, !ore or less, and particularl described and bounded as
follo%s6
& certain parcel of a#ricultural land planted to abaca and
corn %ith visible concrete !onu!ents !ar0in# the
boundaries and bounded on the North b Public 5and areaC
private Road' on the ?ast b land clai!ed b "irilo
Piencenaves' on the South b Public 5and containin# an
area of 12 hectares !ore or less, no% under Ta:
Declaration No. 1,8>+ in the na!e of Vicente Villaflor the
%hole parcel of %hich this particular parcel, is assessed at
P11,>>2.22 for purposes of ta:ation under the above said
Ta: Declaration No. 1,8>+.
This deed states6
. . . 9O;n 7une 11, +,.- but the for!al docu!ent %as then
e:ecuted, and since then until the present ti!e, the said
VI"?NT? VI55&B5OR has been in continuous and open
possession and occupation of the sa!e' 9and;
That the above described propert %as before the sale, !
o%n and e:clusive propert, bein# inherited fro! !
deceased parents and ! o%nership to it and that of !
predecessors lasted !ore than fift 9>2; ears, possessin#
and occupin# sa!e, peacefull, openl and continuousl
%ithout interruption for that len#th of ti!e.
On Bebruar +>, +,82, Ber!in /ocobo, in a Deed of &bsolute Sale 9e:h. /;,
sold to Villaflor, a parcel of a#ricultural land, containin# an area of +D hectares,
!ore or less, and particularl described and bounded as follo%s6
& certain parcel of a#ricultural land planted %ith abaca %ith
visible part !ar0in# the corners and bounded on the North
b the corners and bounded on the North b Public 5and'
on the ?ast b "irilo Piencenaves' on the South b
Her!o#enes Patete and Aest b Public 5and, containin# an
area of +D hectares !ore or less no% under Ta: Declaration
No. 1,8>+ in the na!e of Vicente Villaflor. The %hole parcel
of %hich this particular parcel is onl a part is assessed as
P11,>>2.22 for purposes of ta:ation under the above said
Ta: Declaration Nu!ber 9Deed of &bsolute Sale e:ecuted
b Ber!in /ocobo date Beb. +>, +,82;. This docu!ent %as
annotated in Re#istr of Deeds on Bebruar +4, +,82;.
This deed states6
That the above described propert %as before the sale of
! o%n e:clusive propert, bein# inherited fro! !
deceased parents, and ! o%nership to it and that of !
predecessors lasted !ore than fift 9>2; ears, possessin#
and occupin# the sa!e peacefull, openl and
continuousl %ithout interruption for that len#th of ti!e.
On Nove!ber D, +,84, Villaflor, in a 5ease &#ree!ent 9e:h. E;,
4
leased to
Nasipit 5u!ber "o., Inc. a parcel of land, containin# an area of t%o 91;
hectares, to#ether %ith all the i!prove!ents e:istin# thereon, for a period of
five 9>; ears fro! 7une +, +,84 at a rental of P122.22 per annum Fto cover
the annual rental of house and buildin# sites for thirt three 9..; houses or
buildin#s.F This a#ree!ent also provides6
5
.. Durin# the ter! of this lease, the 5essee is authori$ed
and e!po%ered to build and construct additional houses in
addition to the .. houses or buildin#s !entioned in the ne:t
2
precedin# para#raph, provided ho%ever, that for ever
additional house or buildin# constructed the 5essee shall
pa unto the 5essor an a!ount of fift centavos 9G>2; per
!onth for ever house or buildin#. The 5essee is
e!po%ered and authori$ed b the 5essor to sublot 9sic; the
pre!ises hereb leased or assi#n the sa!e or an portion
of the land hereb leased to an person, fir! and
corporation' 9and;
8. The 5essee is hereb authori$ed to !a0e an
construction andHor i!prove!ent on the pre!ises hereb
leased as he !a dee! necessar and proper thereon,
provided ho%ever, that an and all such i!prove!ents shall
beco!e the propert of the 5essor upon the ter!ination of
this lease %ithout obli#ation on the part of the latter to
rei!burse the 5essee for e:penses incurred in the
construction of the sa!e.
Villaflor clai!ed havin# discovered that after the e:ecution of the lease
a#ree!ent, that Nasipit 5u!ber Fin bad faith . . . surreptitiousl #rabbed and
occupied a bi# portion of plaintiff)s propert . . .F' that after a confrontation %ith
the corporate)s 9sic; field !ana#er, the latter, in a letter dated Dece!ber .,
+,-. 9e:h. R;,
6
stated recallin# havin# F!ade so!e sort of a#ree!ent for the
occupanc 9of the propert at &cacia, San Mateo;, but I no lon#er recall the
details and I had for#otten %hether or not %e did occup our land. /ut if, as
ou sa, %e did occup it, then 9he is ; sure that the co!pan is obli#ated to
pa the rental.F
On 7ul -, +,8D, in an F&#ree!ent to SellF 9e:h. 1;, Villaflor conveed to
Nasipit 5u!ber, t%o 91; parcels of land . . . described as follo%s6
7
PARCEL ONE
/ounded on the North b Public 5and and Tun#ao "ree0'
on the ?ast b &#usan River and Serafin Villaflor' on the
South b Public 5and, on the Aest b Public 5and.
I!prove!ents thereon consist of abaca, fruit trees,
coconuts and thirt houses of !i:ed !aterials belon#in# to
the Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan. Divided into 5ot Nos. >8+1,
>8+., >8DD, >8,2, >8,+, >8,1, >D>2, >D8,, >D42, >D>>,
>D>+, >D>8, >D>>, >D>,, >D>D, >D>-, >D>., and >D>1.
/oundaries of this parcel of land are !ar0ed b concrete
!onu!ents of the /ureau of 5ands. "ontainin# an area of
++1,222 hectares. &ssessed at P+-,+42.22 accordin# to Ta:
Declaration No. VC.+> dated &pril +8, +,84.
PARCEL TWO
/ounded on the North b Pa#udasan "ree0' on the ?ast b
&#usan River' on the South b Tun#ao "ree0' on the Aest
b Public 5and. "ontainin# an area of 8D,222 hectares !ore
or less. Divided into 5ot Nos. >8++, >8+2, >82,, and >.,,.
I!prove!ents +22 coconut trees, productive, and .22
cacao trees. /oundaries of said land are !ar0ed b
concrete !onu!ents of the /ureau pf 9sic; 5ands.
&ssessed value I P4,1,2.22 accordin# to Ta: No. .+-,
&pril +8, +,84.
This &#ree!ent to Sell provides6
.. That be#innin# toda, the Part of the Second Part shall
continue to occup the propert not an!ore in concept of
lessee but as prospective o%ners, it bein# the sense of the
parties hereto that the Part of the Second Part shall not in
an !anner be under an obli#ation to !a0e an
co!pensation to the Part of the Birst Part, for the use, and
occupation of the propert herein before described in such
concept of prospective o%ner, and it li0e%ise bein# the
sense of the parties hereto to ter!inate as the do hereb
ter!inate, effective on the date of this present instru!ent,
the "ontract of 5ease, other%ise 0no%n as Doc. No. 812,
Pa#e No. .4, /oo0 No. II, Series of +,84 of Notar Public
3abriel R. /anaa#, of the Province of &#usan.
8. That the Part of the Second Part has bound as it does
hereb bind itself, its e:ecutors and ad!inistrators, to pa
unto the part of the Birst Part the su! of Bive Thousand
Pesos 9P>,222.22;, Philippine "urrenc, upon presentation
b the latter to the for!er of satisfactor evidence that6
9a; The /ureau of 5ands %ill not have an
ob(ection to the obtain!ent b the Part of
the Birst Part of a "ertificate of Torrens
Title in his favor, either thru ordinar land
re#istration proceedin#s or thru
ad!inistrative !eans procedure.
3
9b; That there is no other private clai!ant
to the properties hereinbefore described.
>. That the Part of the Birst Part has bound as he does
hereb bind to underta0e i!!ediatel after the e:ecution of
these presents to secure and obtain, or cause to be secured
and obtained, a "ertificate of Torrens Title in his favor over
the properties described on Pa#e 9One; hereof, and after
obtain!ent of such "ertificate of Torrens Title, the said Part
of the Birst Part shall e:ecute a 9D;eed of &bsolute Sale
unto and in favor of the Part of the Second Part, its
e:ecutors, ad!inistrators and assi#ns, it bein# the sense of
the parties that the Part of the Second Part upon deliver
to it of such deed of absolute sale, shall pa unto the Part
of the Birst Part in cash, the su! of T%elve Thousand
9P+1,222.22; Pesos in Philippine "urrenc, provided,
ho%ever, that the Part of the Birst Part, shall be rei!bursed
b the Part of the Second Part %ith one half of the
e:penses incurred b the Part of the Birst Part for surve
and attorne)s fees' and other incidental e:penses not
e:ceedin# P.22.22.
On Dece!ber 1, +,8D, Villaflor filed Sales &pplication No.
VCD2-
+
9e:h. +; %ith the /ureau of 5ands, Manila, Fto purchase under the
provisions of "hapter V, JI or IJ of "o!!on%ealth &ct. No. +8+ 9The Public
5ands &ct;, as a!ended, the tract of public lands . . . and described as
follo%s6 FNorth b Public 5and' ?ast b &#usan River and Serafin Villaflor'
South b Public 5and and Aest b public land 95ot Nos. >.-,, >8D,, >8+1,
>8,2, >8,+, >8,1, >D8,, >D>2, >D>+, >8+., >8DD, >8D,, >D>1, >D>., >D>8,
>D>>, >D>4, >D>-, >D>D, >D>, and >D42 . . . containin# an area of +82
hectares . . . .F Para#raph 4 of the &pplication, states6 FI understand that this
application conves no ri#ht to occup the land prior to its approval, and I
reco#ni$ed 9sic; that the land covered b the sa!e is of public do!ain and
an and all ri#hts !a have %ith respect thereto b virtue of continuous
occupation and cultivation are hereb relin*uished to the 3overn!ent.F
9
9e:h.
+CD;
On Dece!ber -, +,8D, Villaflor and Nasipit 5u!ber e:ecuted an F&#ree!entF
9e:h .;.
1,
This contract provides6
+. That the Birst Part is the possessor since +,.2 of t%o 91;
parcels of land situated in sitio Tun#ao, /arrio of San Mateo,
Municipalit of /utuan, Province of &#usan'
1. That the first parcel of land above!entioned and
described in Plan P5SC,- filed in the office of the /ureau of
5ands is !ade up of 5ots Nos. >8+1, >8+., >8DD, >8,2,
>8,+, >8,1, >D8,, >D>2, >D>+, >D>1, >D>., >D>8, >D>>,
>D>4, >D>-, >D>D, >D>, and >D42 and the second parcel of
land is !ade of 5ots Nos. >.,,, >82,, >8+2 and >8++'
.. That on 7ul -, +,8D, a contract of &#ree!ent to Sell %as
e:ecuted bet%een the contractin# parties herein, coverin#
the said t%o parcels of land, cop of said &#ree!ent to Sell
is hereto attached !ar0ed as &nne: F&F and !ade an
inte#ral part of this docu!ent. The parties hereto a#ree that
the said &#ree!ent to Sell be !aintained in full force and
effect %ith all its ter!s and conditions of this present
a#ree!ent and in no %a be considered as !odified.
8. That para#raph 8 of the "ontract of &#ree!ent to Sell,
!ar0ed as anne:, F&F stipulates as follo%s6
Par. 8. That the Part of the Second Part
has bound as it does hereb bind itself, its
e:ecutors and ad!inistrators, to pa unto
the Part of the Birst Part of the su! of
BIV? THO@S&ND P?SOS 9P>,222.22;
Philippine "urrenc, upon presentation b
the latter to the for!er of satisfactor
evidence that6
a; The /ureau of 5ands %ill have an
ob(ection to the obtain!ent b Part of the
Birst Part of a favor, either thru ordinar
land re#istration proceedin#s or thru
ad!inistrative !eans and procedure.
b; That there is no other private clai!ant
to the properties hereinabove described.
>. That the Birst Part has on Dece!ber 1, +,8D, sub!itted
to the /ureau of 5ands, a Sales &pplication for the t%entC
t%o 911; lots co!prisin# the t%o above!entioned parcels of
land, the said Sales &pplication %as re#istered in the said
/ureau under No. VCD2-'
4
4. That in repl to the re*uest !ade b the Birst Part to the
/ureau of 5ands, in connection %ith the Sales &pplication
No. VCD2-, the latter infor!ed the for!er that action on his
re*uest %ill be e:pedited, as per letter of the "hief, Public
5and Division, dated Dece!ber 1, +,8D, cop of %hich is
hereto attached !ar0ed as anne: F/F and !ade an inte#ral
part of this a#ree!ent6
-. That for and in consideration of the pre!ises above
stated and the a!ount of TA?NTK BO@R THO@S&ND
9P18,222.22; P?SOS that the Second Part shall pa to the
Birst Part, b these presents, the Birst Part hereb sells,
transfers and conves unto the Second Part, its successors
and assi#ns, his ri#ht, interest and participation under, an9d;
b virtue of the Sales &pplication No. VCD2-, %hich he has or
!a have in the lots !entioned in said Sales &pplication No.
VCD2-'
D. That the a!ount of TA?NTK BO@R THO@S&ND
9P18,222.22; P?SOS, shall be paid b the Second Part to
the Birst Part, as follo%s6
a; The a!ount of S?V?N THO@S&ND
9P-,222.22; P?SOS, has alread been
paid b the Second Part to the Birst
Part upon the e:ecution of the
&#ree!ent to Sell, on 7ul -, +,8D'
b; The a!ount of BIV? THO@S&ND
9P>,222.22; P?SOS shall be paid upon
the si#nin# of this present a#ree!ent' and
c; The balance of TA?5V? THO@S&ND
9P+1,222.22; shall be paid upon the
e:ecution b the Birst Part of the
&bsolute Deed of Sale of the t%o parcels
of land in *uestion in favor of the Second
Part, and upon deliver to the Second
Part of the "ertificate of O%nership of
the said t%o parcels of land.
,. It is speciall understood that the !ort#a#e constituted b
the Birst Part in favor of the Second Part, as stated in the
said contract of &#ree!ent to Sell dated 7ul -, +,8D, shall
cover not onl the a!ount of S?V?N THO@S&ND
9P-,222.22; P?SOS as specified in said docu!ent, but shall
also cover the a!ount of BIV? THO@S&ND 9P>,222.22;
P?SOS to be paid as stipulated in para#raph D, subC
para#raph 9b; of this present a#ree!ent, if the Birst Part
should fail to co!pl %ith the obli#ations as provided for in
para#raphs 1, 8, and > of the &#ree!ent to Sell'
+2. It is further a#reed that the Birst Part obli#ates hi!self
to si#n, e:ecute and deliver to and in favor of the Second
Part, its successors and assi#ns, at anti!e upon de!and
b the Second Part such other instru!ents as !a be
necessar in order to #ive full effect to this present
a#ree!ent'
In the Report dated Dece!ber .+, +,8, b the public land inspector, District
5and Office, /ureau of 5ands, in /utuan, the report contains an Indorse!ent
of the aforesaid District 5and Officer reco!!endin# re(ection of the Sales
&pplication of Villaflor for havin# leased the propert to another even before
he had ac*uired trans!issible ri#hts thereto.
In a letter of Villaflor dated 7anuar 1., +,>2, addressed to the /ureau of
5ands, he infor!ed the /ureau Director that he %as alread occupin# the
propert %hen the /ureau)s &#usan River Valle Subdivision Pro(ect %as
inau#urated, that the propert %as for!erl clai!ed as private properties 9sic;,
and that therefore, the propert %as se#re#ated or e:cluded fro! disposition
because of the clai! of private o%nership. In a letter of Nasipit 5u!ber dated
Bebruar 11, +,>2 9e:h. J;
11
addressed to the Director of 5ands, the
corporation infor!ed the /ureau that it reco#ni$ed Villaflor as the real o%ner,
clai!ant and occupant of the land' that since 7une +,84, Villaflor leased t%o
91; hectares inside the land to the co!pan' that it has no other interest on the
land' and that the Sales &pplication of Villaflor should be #iven favorable
consideration.
::: ::: :::
On 7ul 18, +,>2, the scheduled date of auction of the propert covered b
the Sales &pplication, Nasipit 5u!ber offered the hi#hest bid of P8+.22 per
hectare, but since an applicant under "& +8+, is allo%ed to e*ual the bid of
the hi#hest bidder, Villaflor tendered an e*ual bid' deposited the e*uivalent of
+2L of the bid price and then paid the assess!ent in full.
5
::: ::: :::
On &u#ust +4, +,>2, Villaflor e:ecuted a docu!ent, deno!inated as a FDeed
of Relin*uish!ent of Ri#htsF 9e:h. N;,
1)
pertinent portion of %hich reads6
>. That in vie% of ! present business in Manila, and !
chan#e in residence fro! /utuan, &#usan to the "it of
Manila, I cannot, therefore, develope 9sic; or cultivate the
land applied for as pro(ected before'
4. That the Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan, Inc., a corporation
dul or#ani$ed . . . is ver !uch interested in ac*uirin# the
land covered b the aforecited application . . . '
-. That I believe the said co!pan is *ualified to ac*uire
public land, and has the !eans to develop 9sic; the aboveC
!entioned land'
::: ::: :::
AH?R?BOR?, and in consideration of the a!ount of BIV?
THO@S&ND P?SOS 9P>,222.22; to be rei!bursed to !e b
the afore!entioned Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan, Inc., after its
receipt of the order of a%ard, the said a!ount representin#
part of the purchase price of the land aforesaid, the value of
the i!prove!ents I introduced thereon, and the e:penses
incurred in the publication of the Notice of Sale, I, the
applicant, Vicente 7. Villaflor, hereb voluntaril renounce
and relin*uish %hatever ri#hts to, and interests I have in the
land covered b ! aboveC!entioned application in favor of
the Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan, Inc.
&lso on &u#ust +4, +,>2, Nasipit 5u!ber filed a Sales &pplication over the t%o
91; parcels of land, coverin# an area of +82 hectares, !ore or less. This
application %as also nu!bered VCD2- 9e:h. K;.
On &u#ust +-, +,>2 the Director of 5ands issued an FOrder of &%ardF
1*
in
favor of Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan, Inc., pertinent portion of %hich reads6
8. That at the auction sale of the land held on 7ul 18, +,>2
the hi#hest bid received %as that of Nasipit 5u!ber
"o!pan, Inc. %hich offered P8+.22 per hectare or
P>,-82.22 for the %hole tract, %hich bid %as e*ualed b
applicant Vicente 7. Villaflor, %ho deposited the a!ount of
P>-8.22 under Official Receipt No. /C+.-.D14 dated 7ul
18, +,>2 %hich is e*uivalent to +2L of the bid.
Subse*uentl, the said . . . Villaflor paid the a!ount of
P>,+42.22 in full pa!ent of the purchase price of the
aboveC!entioned land and for so!e reasons stated in an
instru!ent of relin*uish!ent dated &u#ust +4, +,>2, he
9Vicente 7. Villaflor; relin*uished his ri#hts to and interest in
the said land in favor of the Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan, Inc.
%ho filed the correspondin# application therefore.
In vie% of the fore#oin#, and it appearin# that the
proceedin#s had . . . %ere in accordance %ith la% and in
<sic= e:istin# re#ulations, the land covered thereb is hereb
a%arded to Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan, Inc. at P8+.22 per
hectare or P>,-82.22 for the %hole tract.
This application should be entered in the record of this
Office as Sales ?ntr No. VC82-.
It is Villaflor)s clai! that he onl learned of the Order of &%ard on 7anuar +4,
+,-8, or after his arrival to the Philippines, co!in# fro! Indonesia, %here he
staed for !ore than ten 9+2; ears' that he %ent to /utuan "it in the latter
part of +,-. upon the call of his brother Serafin Villaflor, %ho %as then sic0
and learned that Nasipit 5u!ber 9had; failed and refused to pa the a#reed
rentals, althou#h his brother %as able to collect durin# the earl ears' and
that Serafin died three das after his 9Vicente)s; arrival, and so no accountin#
of the rentals could be !ade' that on Nove!ber 1-, +,-., Villaflor %rote a
letter to Mr. 3.?.". Mears of Nasipit 5u!ber, re!indin# hi! of their verbal
a#ree!ent in +,>> . . . that Mr. Mears in a Repl dated Dece!ber ., +,-.,
appears to have referred the !atter to Mr. Norie#a, the corporate #eneral
!ana#er, but the ne% set of corporate officers refused to reco#ni$e 9Villaflor)s;
clai!, for Mr. Blorencio Ta!esis, the #eneral !ana#er of Nasipit 5u!ber, in a
letter dated Bebruar +,, +,-8, denied Villaflor)s ite!i$ed clai! dated 7anuar
>, +,-8 9e:h. V; to be %ithout valid and le#al basis. In the >th 7anuar, +,-8
letter, Villaflor clai!ed the total a!ount of P81-,222.22 . . . .
In a for!al protest dated 7anuar .+, +,-8
14
%hich Villaflor filed %ith the
/ureau of 5ands, he protested the Sales &pplication of Nasipit 5u!ber,
clai!in# that the co!pan has not paid hi! P>,222.22 as provided in the
Deed of Relin*uish!ent of Ri#hts dated &u#ust +4, +,>2.
6
::: ::: :::
. . . 9T;hat in a Decision dated &u#ust D, +,-- 9e:h. D;, the Director of 5ands
found that the pa!ent of the a!ount of P>,222.22 in the Deed . . . and the
consideration in the &#ree!ent to Sell %ere dul proven, and ordered the
dis!issal of Villaflor)s protest and #ave due course to the Sales &pplication of
Nasipit 5u!ber. Pertinent portion of the Decision penned b Director of 5ands,
Ra!on "asanova, in the Matter of SP No. VCD2- 9"CVC82-; . . . reads6
::: ::: :::
Durin# the proceedin#s, Villaflor presented another clai!
entirel different fro! his previous clai! I this ti!e, for
recover of rentals in arrears arisin# fro! a supposed
contract of lease b Villaflor as lessor in favor of Nasipit as
lessee, and inde!nit for da!a#es supposedl caused
i!prove!ents on his other propert . . . in the sta##erin#
a!ount of Seventeen Million 9P+-,222,222.22; Pesos.
?arlier, he had also de!anded fro! N&SIPIT . . .
9P81-,222.22; . . . also as inde!nit for da!a#es to
i!prove!ents supposedl caused b N&SIPIT on his other
real propert as %ell as for rei!burse!ent of realt ta:es
alle#edl paid b hi! thereon.
::: ::: :::
It %ould see! that . . . Villaflor has sou#ht to in(ect so !an
collaterals, if not e:traneous clai!s, into this case. It is the
considered opinion of this Office that an clai! not %ithin
the sphere or scope of its ad(udicator authorit as an
ad!inistrative as %ell as *uasiC(udicial bod or an issue
%hich see0s to delve into the !erits of incidents clearl
outside of the ad!inistrative co!petence of this Office to
decide !a not be entertained.
There is no !erit in the contention of Villaflor that o%in# to
Nasipit)s failure to pa the a!ount of . . . 9P>,222.22; . . .
9assu!in# that Nasipit had failed; the deed of
relin*uish!ent beca!e null and void for lac0 of
consideration. . . . .
::: ::: :::
. . . The records clearl sho%, ho%ever, that since the
e:ecution of the deed of relin*uish!ent . . . Villaflor has
al%as considered and reco#ni$ed N&SIPIT as havin# the
(uridical personalit to ac*uire public lands for a#ricultural
purposes. . . . .
::: ::: :::
?ven this Office had not failed to reco#ni$e the (uridical
personalit of N&SIPIT to appl for the purchase of public
lands . . . %hen it a%arded to it the land so relin*uished b
Villaflor 9Order of &%ard dated &u#ust +-, +,>2; and
accepted its application therefor. &t an rate, the *uestion
%hether an applicant is *ualified to appl for the ac*uisition
of public lands is a !atter bet%een the applicant and this
Office to decide and %hich a third part li0e Villaflor has no
personalit to *uestion beond !erel callin# the attention
of this Office thereto.
::: ::: :::
Villaflor offered no evidence to support his clai! of nonC
pa!ent beond his o%n selfCservin# assertions and
e:pressions that he had not been paid said a!ount. &s
protestant in this case, he has the affir!ative of the issue.
He is obli#ed to prove his alle#ations, other%ise his action
%ill fail. Bor, it is a %ell settled principle 9); that if plaintiff
upon %ho! rests the burden of provin# his cause of action
fails to sho% in a satisfactor !anner the facts upon %hich
he bases his clai!, the defendant is under no obli#ation to
prove his e:ceptions or special defenses 9/elen vs. /elen,
+. Phil. 121' Mendo$a vs. Bul#encio, D Phil. 18.;.
::: ::: :::
"onse*uentl, Villaflor)s clai! that he had not been paid
!ust perforce fail.
On the other hand, there are stron# and co!pellin# reasons
to presu!e that Villaflor had alread been paid the a!ount
of Bive Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos.
7
First, . . . Ahat is surprisin#, ho%ever, is not so !uch his
clai!s consistin# of #i#antic a!ounts as his havin#
for#otten to adduce evidence to prove his clai! of nonC
pa!ent of the Bive Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos durin#
the investi#ation proceedin#s %hen he had all the ti!e and
opportunit to do so. . . . The fact that he did not adduce or
even atte!pt to adduce evidence in support thereof sho%s
either that he had no evidence to offer . . . that N&SIPIT had
alread paid hi! in fact. Ahat is %orse is that Villaflor did
not even bother to co!!and pa!ent, orall or in %ritin#, of
the Bive Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos %hich %as supposed
to be due hi! since &u#ust +-, +,>2, the date %hen the
order of a%ard %as issued to Nasipit, and %hen his cause of
action to recover pa!ent had accrued. The fact that he
onl !ade a co!!and 9sic; for pa!ent on 7anuar .+,
+,-8, %hen he filed his protest or t%entCfour 918; ears
later is i!!ediatel nu#ator of his clai! for nonCpa!ent.
/ut Villaflor !aintains that he had no 0no%led#e or notice
that the order of a%ard had alread been issued to N&SIPIT
as he had #one to Indonesia and he had been absent fro!
the Philippines durin# all those t%entCfour 918; ears. This
of course ta:es credulit. . . . .
Second, it should be understood that the condition that
N&SIPIT should rei!burse Villaflor the a!ount of Bive
Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos upon its receipt of the order of
a%ard %as fulfilled as said a%ard %as issued to N&SIPIT on
&u#ust +-, +,>2. The said deed of relin*uish!ent %as
prepared and notari$ed in Manila %ith Villaflor and N&SIPIT
si#nin# the instru!ent also in Manilaon &u#ust +4, +,>2 9p.
--, 9sic;;. The follo%in# da or barel a da after that, or on
&u#ust +-, +,>2, the order of a%ard %as issued b this
Office to N&SIPIT also in Manila. No%, considerin# that
Villaflor is presu!ed to be !ore assiduous in follo%in# up
%ith the /ureau of 5ands the e:peditious issuance of the
order of a%ard as the pa!ent of the Bive Thousand
9P>,222.22; Pesos 9consideration; %ould depend on the
issuance of said order to a%ard N&SIPIT, %ould it not be
reasonable to believe that Villaflor %as at hand %hen the
a%ard %as issued to N&SIPIT an &u#ust +-, +,>2, or barel
a da %hich 9sic; he e:ecuted the deed of relin*uish!ent on
&u#ust +4, +,>2, in ManilaM . . . .
Third, on the other hand, N&SIPIT has in his possession a
sort of ForderF upon itself I 9the deed of relin*uish!ent
%herein he 9sic; obli#ated itself to rei!burse or pa Villaflor
the . . . consideration of the relin*uish!ent upon its receipt
of the order of a%ard; for the pa!ent of the aforesaid
a!ount the !o!ent the order of a%ard is issued to it. It is
reasonable to presu!e that N&SIPIT has paid the Bive
Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos to Villaflor.
& person in possession of an order on
hi!self for the pa!ent of !one, or the
deliver of anthin#, has paid the !one
or delivered the thin# accordin#l.
9Section >90; /C+.+ Revised Rules of
"ourt.
It should be noted that N&SIPIT did not produce direct
evidence as proof of its pa!ent of the Bive Thousand
9P>,222.22; Pesos to Villaflor. Nasipit)s e:planation on this
point is found satisfactor.
. . . 9I;t %as virtuall i!possible for
N&SIPIT, after the lapse of the intervenin#
18 ears, to be able to cope up %ith all the
records necessar to sho% that the
consideration for the deed of
relin*uish!ent had been full paid. To
e:pect N&SIPIT to 0eep intact all records
pertinent to the transaction for the %hole
*uarter of a centur %ould be to re*uire
%hat even the la% does not. Indeed, even
the applicable la% itself 9Sec. ..-,
National Internal Revenue "ode; re*uires
that all records of corporations be
preserved for onl a !a:i!u! of five
ears.
N&SIPIT !a %ell have added that at an rate %hile Fthere
are transactions %here the proper evidence is i!possible or
e:tre!el difficult to produce after the lapse of ti!e . . . the
la% creates presu!ptions of re#ularit in favor of such
transactions 912 &!. 7ur. 1.1; so that %hen the basic fact is
established in an action the e:istence of the presu!ed fact
8
!ust be assu!ed b force of la%. 9Rule +., @nifor! Rules
of ?vidence' , Ai#!ore, Sec. 18,+;.
&nent Villaflor)s clai! that the +82Chectare land relin*uished
and a%arded to N&SIPIT is his private propert, little 9need;
be said. . . . . The trac0s of land referred to therein are not
identical to the lands a%arded to N&SIPIT. ?ven in the
assu!ption that the lands !entioned in the deeds of
transfer are the sa!e as the +82Chectare area a%arded to
N&SIPIT, their purchase b Villaflor 9or; the latter)s
occupation of the sa!e did not chan#e the character of the
land fro! that of public land to a private propert. The
provision of the la% is specific that public lands can onl be
ac*uired in the !anner provided for therein and not
other%ise 9Sec. ++, ".&. No. +8+, as a!ended;. The
records sho% that Villaflor had applied for the purchase of
the lands in *uestion %ith this Office 9Sales &pplication No.
VCD2-; on Dece!ber 1, +,8D. . . . . There is a condition in
the sales application si#ned b Villaflor to the effect that he
reco#ni$es that the land covered b the sa!e is of public
do!ain and an and all ri#hts he !a have %ith respect
thereto b virtue of continuous occupation and cultivation
are relin*uished to the 3overn!ent 9para#raph 4, Sales
&pplication No. VCD2- . . .; of %hich Villaflor is ver !uch
a%are. It also appears that Villaflor had paid for the
publication fees appurtenant to the sale of the land. He
participated in the public auction %here he %as declared the
successful bidder. He had full paid the purchase prive 9sic;
thereof 9sic;. It %ould be a 9sic; hei#ht of absurdit for
Villaflor to be buin# that %hich is o%ned b hi! if his clai!
of private o%nership thereof is to be believed. The !ost that
can be said is that his possession %as !erel that of a sales
applicant to %hen it had not been a%arded because he
relin*uished his interest therein in favor of N&SIPIT %ho
9sic; filed a sales application therefor.
::: ::: :::
. . . Durin# the investi#ation proceedin#s, Villaflor presented
as his ?:hibit F9sic;F 9%hich N&SIPIT adopted as its o%n
e:hibit and had it !ar0ed in evidence as ?:hibit F+F; a dul
notari$ed Fa#ree!ent to SellF dated 7ul -, +,8D, b virtue
of %hich Villaflor undertoo0 to sell to Nasipit the tracts of
land !entioned therein, for a consideration of T%entCBour
Thousand 9P18,222.22; Pesos. Said tracts of land have
been verified to be identical to the parcels of land for!erl
applied for b Villaflor and %hich the latter had relin*uished
in favor of N&SIPIT under a deed of relin*uish!ent
e:ecuted b hi! on &u#ust +4, +,>2. In another docu!ent
e:ecuted on Dece!ber -, +,8D . . . Villaflor as FBIRST
P&RTKF and N&SIPIT as FS?"OND P&RTKF confir!ed the
F&#ree!ent to SellF of 7ul -, +,8D, %hich %as !aintained
Fin full force and effect %ith all its ter!s and conditions . . .F
9?:h. F.DC&F;' and that Ffor and in consideration of . . .
TA?NTK BO@R THO@S&ND 9P18,222.22; P?SOS that the
Second Part shall pa to the Birst Part . . . the Birst Part
hereb sells, transfers and conves unto the Second
Part . . . his ri#ht interest and participation under and b
virtue of the Sales &pplication No. VCD2-F and, in its
para#raph D, it !ade stipulations as to %hen part of the said
consideration . . . was paid and %hen the balance was to be
paid, to %it6
a; the a!ount of S?V?N THO@S&ND . . .
P?SOS has alread been paid b the
Second Part to the First Part upon the
e!ecution o" the A#reement to Sell$ on
%ul &', +,8D'
b; the a!ount of BIV? THO@S&ND . . .
P?SOS shall be paid upon the si#nin# o"
this present a#reement' and
c; the a!ount of TA?5V? THO@S&ND . .
. P?SOS, shall be paid upon the
e:ecution b the Birst Part of the
&bsolute Sale of the T%o parcels of land
in *uestion in favor of the Second Part of
the "ertificate of O%nership of the said
t%o parcels of land. 9?:h. .DC/;.
9?!phasis ours;
It is thus clear fro! this subse*uent docu!ent !ar0ed
?:hibit F.D &N&5"OF that of the consideration of the
F&#ree!ent to SellF dated 7ul -, +,8D, involvin# the +82C
hectare area relin*uished b Villaflor in favor of N&SIPIT, in
the a!ount of T%entCBour Thousand 9P18,222.22; Pesos6
9
9+; the a!ount of Seven Thousand 9P-,222.22; Pesos was
alread paid upon the e:ecution of the F&#ree!ent to SellF
on 7ul -, +,8D, receipt of %hich incidentall %as ad!itted
b Villaflor in the docu!ent of Dece!ber -, +,8D'
91; the a!ount of Bive Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos was
paid %hen said docu!ent %as si#ned b Vicente 7. Villaflor
as the Birst Part and Nasipit thru its President, as the
Second Part, on Dece!ber -, +,8D' and
9.; the balance of T%elve Thousand 9P+1,222.22; Pesos to
be paid upon the e:ecution b the Birst Part of the &bsolute
Deed of Sale of the t%o parcels of land in favor of the
Second Part, and upon deliver to the Second Part of the
"ertificate of O%nership of the said t%o parcels of land.
Villaflor contends that N&SIPIT could not have paid Villaflor
the balance of T%elve Thousand 9P+1,222.22; Pesos . . .
consideration in the &#ree!ent to Sell %ill onl be paid to
applicantCassi#nor 9referrin# to Villaflor; upon obtainin# a
Torrens Title in his favor over the +82Chectare of land
applied for and upon e:ecution b hi! of a Deed of &bsolute
Sale in favor of Nasipit 5u!ber "o!pan, Inc. . . . .
Inas!uch as applicantCassi#nor %as not able to obtain a
Torrens Title over the land in *uestion he could not e:ecute
an absolute Deed of 9sic; Nasipit 5u!ber "o., Inc. Hence,
the &#ree!ent to Sell %as not carried out and no T%elve
Thousand 9P+1,222.22; Pesos %as overpaid either to the
applicantCassi#nor, !uch less to Ho%ard 7. Nell "o!pan.
9See M?MOR&ND@M BOR TH? &PP5I"&NTC&SSI3NOR,
dated 7anuar >, +,--;. . . .
. . . Villaflor did not adduce evidence in support of his clai!
that he had not been paid the . . . 9P+1,222.22; . . .
consideration of the &#ree!ent to Sell dated 7ul -, +,8D
9?:h. F.D N&5"OF; beond his !ere uncorroborated
assertions. On the other hand, there is stron# evidence to
sho% that said T%elve Thousand 9P+1,222.22; Pesos had
been paid b 9private respondent; to ?d%ard 7. Nell
"o!pan b virtue of the Deed of &ssi#n!ent of "redit
e:ecuted b Villaflor 9?:h. F8+ N&5"OF; for the credit of the
latter.
&tt. 3abriel /anaa#, resident counsel of N&SIPIT %ho is in
a position to 0no% the facts, testified for N&SIPIT. He
described that it %as he %ho notari$ed the F&#ree!ent to
SellF 9?:h. FBF;' that he 0ne% about the e:ecution of the
docu!ent of Dece!ber -, +,8D 9?:h. F.DF; confir!in# the
said F&#ree!ent to SellF havin# been previousl consulted
thereon b 7ose Bernande$, %ho si#ned said docu!ent on
behalf of N&SIPIT . . . that subse*uentl, in 7anuar +,8,,
Villaflor e:ecuted a Deed of &ssi#n!ent of credit in favor of
?d%ard 7. Nell "o!pan 9?:h. F8+ N&5"OF; %hereb
Villaflor ceded to the latter his receivable for N&SIPIT
correspondin# to the re!ainin# balance in the a!ount of
T%elve Thousand . . . Pesos of the total consideration . . .
stipulated in both the F&#ree!ent to SellF 9?:h. FBF; and the
docu!ent dated Dece!ber -, +,8D 9?:h. F.,F;'
. . . . He further testified that the said assi#n!ent of credit
%as co!!unicated to 9private respondent; under cover
letter dated 7anuar 18, +,8, 9?:h. F8+C&F; and not lon#
thereafter, b virtue of the said assi#n!ent of credit, 9private
respondent; paid the balance of T%elve Thousand . . . due
to Villaflor to ?d%ard 7. Nell "o!pan . . . . &tt. /anaa#)s
aforesaid testi!on stand unrebutted' hence, !ust be #iven
full %ei#ht and credit. . . . Villaflor and his counsel %ere
present %hen &tt. /anaa#)s fore#oin# testi!on %as
Villaflor did not de!ur, nor did he rebut the sa!e, despite
havin# been accorded full opportunit to do so.
::: ::: :::
Havin# found that both the Bive Thousand . . . consideration
of the deed of Relin*uish!ent . . . and that the re!ainin#
balance of
. . . 9P+1,222.22; to co!plete the T%entCBour Thousand
9P18,222.22; Pesos consideration of both the &#ree!ent to
Sell dated 7ul -, +,8D, and the docu!ent, dated Dece!ber
-, +,8D, e:ecuted b the for!er in favor of the latter, have
been paid Villaflor the issue on prescription and laches
beco!es acade!ic and needs no further discussion.
/ut !ore than all the *uestions thus far raised and resolved
is the *uestion %hether a sales patent can be issued to
N&SIPIT for the +82Chectare area a%arded to it in the li#ht
of Section ++, &rticle JIV of the ne% "onstitution %hich
provides in its pertinent portion to %it6
10
. . . No private corporation or association
!a hold alienable land of the public
do!ain e:cept b lease not to e:ceed one
thousand hectares in area . . . .
The Secretar of 7ustice had previous occasion to rule on
this point in his opinion No. +82, s. +,-8. Said the
Honorable 7ustice Secretar6
On the second *uestion, 9referrin# to the
*uestions %hen !a a public land be
considered to have been ac*uired b
purchase before the effectivit of the ne%
"onstitution posed b the Director of
5ands in his *uer on the effect on
pendin# applications for the issuance of
sales patent in the li#ht of Section ++, &rt.
JIV of the Ne% "onstitution aforecited;,
ou refer to this Office)s Opinion No. 48
series of +,-. in %hich I stated6
On the other hand, %ith respect to sales
applications read for issuance of sales
patent, it is ! opinion that %here the
applicant had, before the "onstitution too0
effect, full co!plied %ith all this
obli#ations under the Public 5and &ct in
order to entitle hi! to a Sales patent,
there %ould be no le#al or e*uitable
(ustification for refusin# to issue or release
the sales patent.
Aith respect to the point as to %hen the Sales applicant has
co!plied %ith all the ter!s and conditions %hich %ould
entitle hi! to a sales patent, the herein above Secretar of
7ustice %ent on6
That as to %hen the applicant has
co!plied %ith all the ter!s and conditions
%hich %ould entitle hi! to a patent is a
*uestioned 9sic; fact %hich our office
%ould be in the best position to deter!ine.
Ho%ever, relatin# this to the procedure for
the processin# of applications !entioned
above, I thin0 that as the applicant has
fulfilled the constructionHcultivation
re*uire!ents and has full paid the
purchase price, he should be dee!ed to
have ac*uired b purchase the particular
tract of land and 9sic; the area 9sic; in the
provision in *uestion of the ne%
constitution %ould not appl.
Bro! the decision of the Director of 5ands, Villaflor filed a Motion for
Reconsideration %hich %as considered as an &ppeal M.N.R. "ase 8.8+, to
the Ministr of Natural Resources.
On 7une 4, +,-,, the Minister of Natural Resources rendered a Decision 9e:h.
,;,
15
dis!issin# the appeal and affir!in# the decision of the Director of 5ands,
pertinent portions of %hich reads6
&fter a careful stud of the records and the ar#u!ents of the
parties, %e believe that the appeal is not %ell ta0en.
Birstl, the area in dispute is not the private propert of
appellant.
The evidence adduced b appellant to establish his clai! of
o%nership over the sub(ect area consists of deeds of
absolute sale e:ecuted in his favor on 7anuar +4, and
Bebruar +>, +,82, b four 98; different persons, na!el,
"irilo Piencenaves, Ber!in /alobo, "laudio Otero and
Her!o#enes Patete.
Ho%ever, an e:a!ination of the technical descriptions of the
tracts of land sub(ect of the deeds of sale %ill disclose that
said parcels are not identical to, and do not tall %ith, the
area in controvers.
It is a basic assu!ption of our polic that
lands of %hatever classification belon# to
the state. @nless alienated in accordance
%ith la%, it retains its ri#hts over the sa!e
as do!inus, 9Santia#o vs. de los Santos,
11
5C1218+, Nove!ber 11, +,-8, 4+ S"R&
+>1;.
Bor, it is %ellCsettled that no public land
can be ac*uired b private persons
%ithout an #rant, e:press or i!plied fro!
the #overn!ent. It is indispensable then
that there be sho%in# of title fro! the
state or an other !ode of ac*uisition
reco#ni$ed b la%. 95ee Hon# Ho0, et al.
vs. David, et al., 5C.2.D,, Dece!ber 1-,
+,-1, 8D S"R& .-,.;
It is %ellCsettled that all lands re!ain part of the public
do!ain unless severed therefro! b state #rant or unless
alienated in accordance %ith la%.
Ae, therefore, believe that the aforesaid deeds of sale do
not constitute clear and convincin# evidence to establish
that the contested area is of private o%nership. Hence, the
propert !ust be held to be public do!ain.
FThere bein# no evidence %hatever that
the propert in *uestion %as ever
ac*uired b the applicants or their
ancestors either b co!position title fro!
the Spanish 3overn!ent or b
possessor infor!ation title or b an
other !eans for the ac*uisition of public
lands, the propert !ust be held to be
public do!ain.F 95ee Hon# Ho0, et al., vs.
David , et al., 5C.2.D, Dece!ber 1-,
+,-1, 8D S"R& .-DC.-, citin# Heirs of
Datu Pendatun vs. Director of 5ands' see
also Director of 5ands vs. Rees, 5C
1->,8, Nove!ber 1D, +,->, 4D S"R&
+--;.
/e that as it !a, appellant, b filin# a sales application over
the controverted land, ac0no%led#ed une*uivocabl <sic=
that the sa!e is not his private propert.
F&s such sales applicant, appellant
!anifestl ac0no%led#ed that he does not
o%n the land and that the sa!e is a public
land under the ad!inistration of the
/ureau of 5ands, to %hich the application
%as sub!itted, . . . &ll of its acts prior
thereof, includin# its real estate ta:
declarations, characteri$ed its
possessions of the land as that of a Fsales
applicantF and conse*uentl, as one %ho
e:pects to bu it, but has not as et done
so, and is not, therefore, its o%ner.F
9Pala%an &#ricultural and Industrial "o.,
Inc. vs. Director of 5ands, 5C1>,+8, March
1+, +,-1, 88 S"R& 12, 1+;.
Secondl, appellant)s alle#ed failure to pa the
consideration stipulated in the deed of relin*uish!ent
neither converts said deed into one %ithout a cause or
consideration nor ipso "acto rescinds the sa!e. &ppellant,
thou#h, has the ri#ht to de!and pa!ent %ith le#al interest
for the dela or to de!and rescission.
::: ::: :::
Ho%ever, appellant)s cause of action, either for specific
perfor!ance or rescission of contract, %ith da!a#es, lies
%ithin the (urisdiction of civil courts, not %ith ad!inistrative
bodies.
::: ::: :::
5astl, appellee has ac*uired a vested ri#ht to the sub(ect
area and, therefore, is dee!ed not affected b the ne%
constitutional provision that no private corporation !a hold
alienable land of the public do!ain e:cept b lease.
::: ::: :::
I!ple!entin# the aforesaid Opinion No. 48 of the Secretar
of 7ustice, the then Secretar of &#riculture and Natural
12
Resources issued a !e!orandu!, dated Bebruar +D,
+,-8, %hich pertinentl reads as follo%s6
In the i!ple!entation of the fore#oin#
opinion, sales application of private
individuals coverin# areas in e:cess of 18
hectares and those of corporations,
associations, or partnership %hich fall
under an of the follo%in# cate#ories shall
be #iven due course and issued patents,
to %it6
+. Sales application for
fishponds and for
a#ricultural purposes
9SB&, S& and I3PS&;
%herein prior to 7anuar
+-, +,-.'
a. the
land
cover
ed
there
b
%as
a%ard
ed'
b.
cultiv
ation
re*uir
e!en
ts of
la%
%ere
co!pl
ied
%ith
as
sho%
n b
invest
i#atio
n
report
s
sub!i
tted
prior
to
7anua
r +-,
+,-.'
c.
land
%as
surve
ed
and
surve

return
s
alrea
d
sub!i
tted
to the
Direct
or of
5ands
for
verific
ation
and
appro
val'
and
d.
purch
ased
price
%as
13
full
paid.
Bro! the records, it is evident that the aforestated re*uisites
have been co!plied %ith b appellee lon# before 7anuar
+-, +,-., the effectivit of the Ne% "onstitution. To restate,
the disputed area %as a%arded to appellee on &u#ust +-,
+,>2, the purchase price %as full paid on 7ul 14, +,>+,
the cultivation re*uire!ents %ere co!plied %ith as per
investi#ation report dated Dece!ber .+, +,8,, and the land
%as surveed under PlsC,-.
On 7ul 4, +,-D, petitioner filed a co!plaint
16
in the trial court for FDeclaration of Nullit
of "ontract 9Deed of Relin*uish!ent of Ri#hts;, Recover of Possession 9of t%o
parcels of land sub(ect of the contract;, and Da!a#esF at about the sa!e ti!e that he
appealed the decision of the Minister of Natural Resources to the Office of the
President.
On 7anuar 1D, +,D., petitioner died. The trial court ordered his %ido%, 5ourdes D.
Villaflor, to be substituted as petitioner. &fter trial in due course, the then "ourt of Birst
Instance of &#usan del Norte and /utuan "it, /ranch III,
17
dis!issed the co!plaint on
the #rounds that6 9+; petitioner ad!itted the due e:ecution and #enuineness of the
contract and %as estopped fro! provin# its nullit, 91; the verbal lease a#ree!ents
%ere unenforceable under &rticle +82. 91; 9e; of the "ivil "ode, and 9.; his causes of
action %ere barred b e:tinctive prescription andHor laches. It ruled that there %as
prescription andHor laches because the alle#ed verbal lease ended in +,44, but the
action %as filed onl on 7anuar 4, +,-D. The si:Cear period %ithin %hich to file an
action on an oral contract per &rticle ++8> 9+; of the "ivil "ode e:pired in +,-1. The
decretal portion
1+
of the trial court)s decision reads6
AH?R?BOR?, the fore#oin# pre!ises dul considered, (ud#!ent is hereb
rendered in favor of the defendant and a#ainst the plaintiff. "onse*uentl, this
case is hereb ordered DISMISS?D. The defendant is hereb declared the
la%ful actual phsical possessorCoccupant and havin# a better ri#ht of
possession over the t%o 91; parcels of land in liti#ation described in par. +.1 of
the co!plaint as Parcel I and Parcel II, containin# a total area of One Hundred
Si:t 9+42; hectares, and %as then the sub(ect of the Sales &pplication No. VC
D2- of the plaintiff 9?:hibits +, +C&, +C/, pp. 81+ to 81+C&, Record;, and no% of
the Sales &pplication No. D2-, ?ntr No. VC82- of the defendant Nasipit
5u!ber "o!pan 9?:hibit K, pp. .>-C.>D, Record;. The &#ree!ents to Sell
Real Ri#hts, ?:hibits 1 to 1C", . to .C/, and the Deed of Relin*uish!ent of
Ri#hts, ?:hibits N to NC+, over the t%o parcels of land in liti#ation are hereb
declared bindin# bet%een the plaintiff and the defendant, their successors and
assi#ns.
Double the costs a#ainst the plaintiff.
The heirs of petitioner appealed to Respondent "ourt of &ppeals
19
%hich, ho%ever,
rendered (ud#!ent a#ainst petitioner via the assailed Decision dated Septe!ber 1-,
+,,2 findin# petitioner)s praers I 9+; for the declaration of nullit of the deed of
relin*uish!ent, 91; for the eviction of private respondent fro! the propert and 9.; for
the declaration of petitioner)s heirs as o%ners I to be %ithout basis. The decretal
portion
),
of the assailed 8,Cpa#e, sin#leCspaced Decision curtl reads6
AH?R?BOR?, the Decision appealed fro!, is hereb &BBIRM?D, %ith costs
a#ainst plaintiffCappellants.
Not satisfied, petitioner)s heirs filed the instant >-Cpa#e petition for revie% dated
Dece!ber -, +,,2. In a Resolution dated 7une 1., +,,+, the "ourt denied this petition
Ffor bein# late.F On reconsideration I upon plea of counsel that petitioners %ere FpoorF
and that a full decision on the !erits should be rendered I the "ourt reinstated the
petition and re*uired co!!ent fro! private respondent. ?ventuall, the petition %as
#ranted due course and the parties thus filed their respective !e!oranda.
The (ssues
Petitioner, throu#h his heirs, attributes the follo%in# errors to the "ourt of &ppeals6
I. &re the findin#s of the "ourt of &ppeals conclusive and bindin# upon the
Supre!e "ourtM
II. &re the findin#s of the "ourt of &ppeals fortified b the si!ilar findin#s !ade
b the Director of 5ands and the Minister of Natural Resources 9as %ell as b
the Office of the President;M
III. Aas there Fforu! shoppin#MF.
IV. &re the findin#s of facts of the "ourt of &ppeals and the trial court
supported b the evidence and the la%M
V. &re the findin#s of the "ourt of &ppeals supported b the ver ter!s of the
contracts %hich %ere under consideration b the said courtM
14
VI. Did the "ourt of &ppeals, in construin# the sub(ect contracts, consider the
conte!poraneous and subse*uent act of the parties pursuant to article +.-+
of the "ivil "odeM
VII. Did the "ourt of &ppeals consider the fact and the unrefuted clai! of
Villaflor that he never 0ne% of the a%ard in favor of NasipitM
VIII. Did the "ourt of &ppeals correctl appl the rules on evidence in its
findin#s that Villaflor %as paid the P>,222.22 consideration because Villaflor
did not adduce an proof that he %as not paidM
IJ. Is the "ourt of &ppeals) conclusion that the contract is not si!ulated or
fictitious si!pl because it is #enuine and dul e:ecuted b the parties,
supported b lo#ic or the la%M
J. Ma the prestations in a contract a#reein# to transfer certain ri#hts
constitute estoppel %hen this ver contract is the sub(ect of an action for
annul!ent on the #round that it is fictitiousM
JI. Is the "ourt of &ppeals) conclusion that the lease a#ree!ent bet%een
Villaflor is verbal and therefore, unenforceable supported b the evidence and
the la%M
&fter a revie% of the various sub!issions of the parties, particularl those of petitioner,
this "ourt believes and holds that the issues can be condensed into three as follo%s6
9+; Did the "ourt of &ppeals err in adoptin# or relin# on the factual findin#s of
the /ureau of 5ands, especiall those affir!ed b the Minister 9no% Secretar;
of Natural Resources and the trial courtM
91; Did the "ourt of &ppeals err in upholdin# the validit of the contracts to sell
and the deed of relin*uish!entM Other%ise stated, did the "ourt of &ppeals
err in findin# the deed of relin*uish!ent of ri#hts and the contracts to sell
valid, and not si!ulated or fictitiousM
9.; Is the private respondent *ualified to ac*uire title over the disputed
propertM
The Court)s Rulin#
The petition is bereft of !erit. It basicall *uestions the sufficienc of the evidence
relied upon b the "ourt of &ppeals, alle#in# that public respondent)s factual findin#s
%ere based on speculations, sur!ises and con(ectures. Petitioner insists that a revie%
of those findin#s is in order because the %ere alle#edl 9+; rooted, not on specific
evidence, but on conclusions and inferences of the Director of 5ands %hich %ere, in
turn, based on !isapprehension of the applicable la% on si!ulated contracts' 91;
arrived at %hi!sicall I totall i#norin# the substantial and ad!itted fact that petitioner
%as not notified of the a%ard in favor of private respondent' and 9.; #rounded on errors
and !isapprehensions, particularl those relatin# to the identit of the disputed area.
First (ssue6 Primar %urisdiction o" the *irector o" Lands and
Finalit o" Factual Findin#s o" the Court o" Appeals
@nderlin# the rulin#s of the trial and appellate courts is the doctrine of pri!ar
(urisdiction' i.e., courts cannot and %ill not resolve a controvers involvin# a *uestion
%hich is %ithin the (urisdiction of an ad!inistrative tribunal, especiall %here the
*uestion de!ands the e:ercise of sound ad!inistrative discretion re*uirin# the special
0no%led#e, e:perience and services of the ad!inistrative tribunal to deter!ine
technical and intricate !atters of fact.
)1
In recent ears, it has been the (urisprudential trend to appl this doctrine to cases
involvin# !atters that de!and the special co!petence of ad!inistrative a#encies even
if the *uestion involved is also (udicial in character. It applies F%here a clai! is ori#inall
co#ni$able in the courts, and co!es into pla %henever enforce!ent of the clai!
re*uires the resolution of issues %hich, under a re#ulator sche!e, have been placed
%ithin the special co!petence of an ad!inistrative bod' in such case, the (udicial
process is suspended pendin# referral of such issues to the ad!inistrative bod for its
vie%.F
))
In cases %here the doctrine of pri!ar (urisdiction is clearl applicable, the court cannot
arro#ate unto itself the authorit to resolve a controvers, the (urisdiction over %hich is
initiall lod#ed %ith an ad!inistrative bod of special co!petence.
)*
In Machete
+s. Court o" Appeals, the "ourt upheld the pri!ar (urisdiction of the Depart!ent of
&#rarian Refor! &d(udicator /oard 9D&R&/; in an a#rarian dispute over the pa!ent
of bac0 rentals under a leasehold contract.
)4
In "oncerned Officials of the Metropolitan
Waterwor,s and Sewera#e Sstem +s. -as.ue/,
)5
the "ourt reco#ni$ed that the
MASS %as in the best position to evaluate and to decide %hich bid for a %ater%or0s
pro(ect %as co!patible %ith its develop!ent plan.
The rationale underlin# the doctrine of pri!ar (urisdiction finds application in this
case, since the *uestions on the identit of the land in dispute and the factual
*ualification of private respondent as an a%ardee of a sales application re*uire a
technical deter!ination b the /ureau of 5ands as the ad!inistrative a#enc %ith the
15
e:pertise to deter!ine such !atters. /ecause these issues preclude prior (udicial
deter!ination, it behooves the courts to stand aside even %hen the apparentl have
statutor po%er to proceed, in reco#nition of the pri!ar (urisdiction of the
ad!inistrative a#enc.
)6
One thrust of the !ultiplication of ad!inistrative a#encies is that the
interpretation of contracts and the deter!ination of private ri#hts thereunder is
no lon#er a uni*uel (udicial function, e:ercisable onl b our re#ular courts.
)7
Petitioner initiated his action %ith a protest before the /ureau of 5ands and follo%ed it
throu#h in the Ministr of Natural Resources and thereafter in the Office of the
President. "onsistent %ith the doctrine of pri!ar (urisdiction, the trial and the appellate
courts had reason to rel on the findin#s of these speciali$ed ad!inistrative bodies.
The pri!ar (urisdiction of the director of lands and the !inister of natural resources
over the issues re#ardin# the identit of the disputed land and the *ualification of an
a%ardee of a sales patent is established b Sections . and 8 of "o!!on%ealth &ct No.
+8+, also 0no%n as the Public 5and &ct6
Sec. .. The Secretar of &#riculture and "o!!erce 9no% Secretar of Natural
Resources; shall be the e:ecutive officer char#ed %ith carrin# out the
provisions of this &ct throu#h the Director of 5ands, %ho shall act under his
i!!ediate control.
Sec. 8. Sub(ect to said control, the Director of 5ands shall have direct
e:ecutive control of the surve, classification, lease, sale or an other for! of
concession or disposition and !ana#e!ent of the lands of the public do!ain,
and his decision as to *uestions of fact shall be conclusive %hen approved b
the Secretar of &#riculture and "o!!erce.
Thus, the Director of 5ands, in his decision, said6
)+
. . . It is !erel %hether or not Villaflor has been paid the Bive Thousand
9P>,222.22; Pesos stipulated consideration of the deed of relin*uish!ent
!ade b hi! %ithout touchin# on the nature of the deed of relin*uish!ent.
The ad!inistration and disposition of public lands is pri!aril vested in the
Director of 5ands and ulti!atel %ith the Secretar of &#riculture and Natural
Resources 9no% Secretar of Natural Resources;, and to this end I
Our Supre!e "ourt has reco#ni$ed that the Director of
5ands is a *uasiC(udicial officer %ho passes on issues of
!i:ed facts and la% 9Ortua vs. /in#son ?ncarnacion, >,
Phil 882;. Sections . and 8 of the Public 5and 5a% thus
!ean that the Secretar of &#riculture and Natural
Resources shall be the final arbiter on *uestions of fact in
public land conflicts 9Heirs of Varela vs. &*uino, -+ Phil 4,'
7ulian vs. &postol, >1 Phil 881;.
The rulin# of this Office in its order dated Septe!ber +2, +,->, is %orth
reiteratin#, thus6
. . . it is our opinion that in the e:ercise of his po%er of
e:ecutive control, ad!inistrative disposition and alle#ation
of public land, the Director of 5ands should entertain the
protest of Villaflor and conduct for!al investi#ation . . . to
deter!ine the follo%in# points6 9a; %hether or not the Nasipit
5u!ber "o!pan, Inc. paid or rei!bursed to Villaflor the
consideration of the ri#hts in the a!ount of P>,222.22 and
%hat evidence the co!pan has to prove pa!ent, the
relin*uish!ent of ri#hts bein# part of the ad!inistrative
process in the disposition of the land in *uestion . . . .
. . . . /esides, the authorit of the Director
of 5ands to pass upon and deter!ine
*uestions considered inherent in or
essential to the efficient e:ercise of his
po%ers li0e the incident at issue, i.e. ,
%hether Villaflor had been paid or not, is
conceded bla%.
Reliance b the trial and the appellate courts on the factual findin#s of the Director of
5ands and the Minister of Natural Resources is not !isplaced. / reason of the special
0no%led#e and e:pertise of said ad!inistrative a#encies over !atters fallin# under
their (urisdiction, the are in a better position to pass (ud#!ent thereon' thus, their
findin#s of fact in that re#ard are #enerall accorded #reat respect, if not finalit,
)9
b
the courts.
*,
The findin#s of fact of an ad!inistrative a#enc !ust be respected as lon#
as the are supported b substantial evidence, even if such evidence !i#ht not be
over%hel!in# or even preponderant. It is not the tas0 of an appellate court to %ei#h
once !ore the evidence sub!itted before the ad!inistrative bod and to substitute its
o%n (ud#!ent for that of the ad!inistrative a#enc in respect of sufficienc of
evidence.
*1
Ho%ever, the rule that factual findin#s of an ad!inistrative a#enc are accorded
respect and even finalit b courts ad!its of e:ceptions. This is true also in assessin#
factual findin#s of lo%er courts.
*)
It is incu!bent on the petitioner to sho% that the
16
resolution of the factual issues b the ad!inistrative a#enc andHor b the trial court
falls under an of the e:ceptions. Other%ise, this "ourt %ill not disturb such findin#s.
**
Ae !ention and *uote e:tensivel fro! the rulin#s of the /ureau of 5ands and the
Minister of Natural Resources because the points, *uestions and issues raised b
petitioner before the trial court, the appellate court and no% before this "ourt are
basicall the sa!e as those brou#ht up before the aforesaid speciali$ed ad!inistrative
a#encies. &s held b the "ourt of
&ppeals6
*4
Ae find that the contentious points raised b appellant in this action, are
substantiall the sa!e !atters he raised in /5 "lai! No. D-. 9N;. In both
actions, he clai!ed private o%nership over the land in *uestion, assailed the
validit and effectiveness of the Deed of Relin*uish!ent of Ri#hts he
e:ecuted in &u#ust +4, +,>2, that he had not been paid the P>,222.22
consideration, the value of the i!prove!ents he introduced on the land and
other e:penses incurred b hi!.
In this instance, both the principle of pri!ar (urisdiction of ad!inistrative a#encies and
the doctrine of finalit of factual findin#s of the trial courts, particularl %hen affir!ed b
the "ourt of &ppeals as in this case, !ilitate a#ainst petitioner)s cause. Indeed,
petitioner has not #iven us sufficient reason to deviate fro! the!.
Land in *ispute (s Public Land
Petitioner ar#ues that even if the technical description in the deeds of sale and those in
the sales application %ere not identical, the area in dispute re!ains his private propert.
He alle#es that the deeds did not contain an technical description, as the %ere
e:ecuted prior to the surve conducted b the /ureau of 5ands' thus, the properties
sold %ere !erel described b reference to natural boundaries. His private o%nership
thereof %as also alle#edl attested to b private respondent)s for!er field !ana#er in
the latter)s Bebruar 11, +,>2 letter, %hich contained an ad!ission that the land leased
b private respondent %as covered b the sales application.
This contention is specious. The lac0 of technical description did not prove that the
findin# of the Director of 5ands lac0ed substantial evidence. Here, the issue is not so
!uch %hether the sub(ect land is identical %ith the propert purchased b petitioner.
The issue, rather, is %hether the land covered b the sales application is private or
public land. In his sales application, petitioner e:pressl ad!itted that said propert
%as public land. This is for!idable evidence as it a!ounts to an ad!ission a#ainst
interest.
In the e:ercise of his pri!ar (urisdiction over the issue, Director of 5ands "asanova
ruled that the land %as public6
*5
. . . ?ven 9o;n the assu!ption that the lands !entioned in the deeds of
transfer are the sa!e as the +82Chectare area a%arded to Nasipit, their
purchase b Villaflor 9or; the latter)s occupation of the sa!e did not chan#e
the character of the land fro! that of public land to a private propert. The
provision of the la% is specific that public lands can onl be ac*uired in the
!anner provided for therein and not other%ise 9Sec. ++, ".&. No. +8+, as
a!ended;. The records sho% that Villaflor had applied for the purchase of
lands in *uestion %ith this Office 9Sales &pplication No. VCD2-; on Dece!ber
1, +,8D. . . . There is a condition in the sales application . . . to the effect that
he reco#ni$es that the land covered b the sa!e is of public do!ain and an
and all ri#hts he !a have %ith respect thereto b virtue of continuous
occupation and cultivation are relin*uished to the 3overn!ent 9para#raph 4,
Sales &pplication No. VCD2- of Vicente 7. Villaflor, p. 1+, carpeta; of %hich
Villaflor is ver !uch a%are. It also appears that Villaflor had paid for the
publication fees appurtenant to the sale of the land. He participated in the
public auction %here he %as declared the successful bidder. He had full paid
the purchase prive 9sic; thereor 9sic;. It %ould be a 9sic; hei#ht of absurdit for
Villaflor to be buin# that %hich is o%ned b hi! if his clai! of private
o%nership thereof is to be
believed. . . . .
This findin# %as affir!ed b the Minister of Natural Resources6
*6
Birstl, the area in dispute is not the private propert of appellant 9herein
petitioner;.
The evidence adduced b 9petitioner; to establish his clai! of o%nership over
the sub(ect area consists of deeds of absolute sale e:ecuted in his favor . . . .
Ho%ever, an e:a!ination of the technical descriptions of the tracts of land
sub(ect of the deeds of sale %ill disclose that said parcels are not identical to,
and do not tall %ith, the area in controvers.
It is a basic assu!ption of our polic that lands of %hatever
classification belon# to the state. @nless alienated in
accordance %ith la%, it retains its ri#hts over the sa!e as
do!inus. 9Santia#o vs. de los Santos, 5C1218+, Nove!ber
11, +,-8, 4+ S"R& +>1;.
17
Bor it is %ellCsettled that no public land can be ac*uired b
private persons %ithout an #rant, e:press or i!plied fro!
the #overn!ent. It is indispensable then that there be
sho%in# of title fro! the state or an other !ode of
ac*uisition reco#ni$ed b la%. 95ee Hon# Ho0, et al. vs.
David, et al., 5C.2.D,, Dece!ber 1-, +,-1, 8D S"R& .-,;.
::: ::: :::
Ae, therefore, believe that the aforesaid deeds of sale do not constitute clear
and convincin# evidence to establish that the contested area is of private
o%nership. Hence, the propert !ust be held to be public do!ain.
There bein# no evidence %hatever that the propert in
*uestion %as ever ac*uired b the applicants or their
ancestors either b co!position title fro! the Spanish
3overn!ent or b possessor infor!ation title or b an
other !eans for the ac*uisition of public lands, the propert
!ust be held to be public do!ain.
/e that as it !a, <petitioner=, b filin# a sales application over the
controverted land, ac0no%led#ed une*uivocabl <sic= that the sa!e is not his
private propert.
&s such sales applicant !anifestl ac0no%led#ed that he
does not o%n the land and that the sa!e is a public land
under the ad!inistration of the /ureau of 5ands, to %hich
the application %as sub!itted, . . . &ll of its acts prior
thereof, includin# its real estate ta: declarations,
characteri$ed its possessions of the land as that of a Fsales
applicantF. &nd conse*uentl, as one %ho e:pects to bu it,
has not as et done so, and is not, therefore, its o%ner.F
9Pala%an &#ricultural and Industrial "o., Inc. vs. Director of
5ands, 5C1>,+8, March 1+, +,-1, 88 S"R& +>;.
"learl, this issue falls under the pri!ar (urisdiction of the Director of 5ands because
its resolution re*uires Fsurve, classification, . . . disposition and !ana#e!ent of the
lands of the public do!ain.F It follo%s that his rulin#s deserve #reat respect. &s
petitioner failed to sho% that this factual findin# of the Director of 5ands %as
unsupported b substantial evidence, it assu!es finalit. Thus, both the trial and the
appellate courts correctl relied on such findin#.
*7
Ae can do no less.
Second (ssue6 No Simulation o" Contracts Pro+en
Petitioner insists that contrar to &rticle +.-+
*+
of the "ivil "ode, Respondent "ourt
erroneousl i#nored the conte!poraneous and subse*uent acts of the parties' hence, it
failed to ascertain their true intentions. Ho%ever, the rule on the interpretation of
contracts that %as alluded to b petitioner is used in affir!in#, not ne#atin#, their
validit. Thus, &rticle +.-.,
*9
%hich is a con(unct of &rticle +.-+, provides that, if the
instru!ent is susceptible of t%o or !ore interpretations, the interpretation %hich %ill
!a0e it valid and effectual should be adopted. In this li#ht, it is not difficult to
understand that the le#al basis ur#ed b petitioner does not support his alle#ation that
the contracts to sell and the deed of relin*uish!ent are si!ulated and fictitious.
Properl understood, such rules on interpretation even ne#ate petitioner)s thesis.
/ut let us indul#e the petitioner a%hile and deter!ine %hether the cited
conte!poraneous and subse*uent acts of the parties support his alle#ation of
si!ulation. Petitioner asserts that the relin*uish!ent of ri#hts and the a#ree!ents to
sell %ere si!ulated because, "irst, the lan#ua#e and ter!s of said contracts ne#ated
private respondent)s ac*uisition of o%nership of the land in issue' and second,
conte!poraneous and subse*uent co!!unications bet%een hi! and private
respondent alle#edl sho%ed that the latter ad!itted that petitioner o%ned and
occupied the t%o parcels' i.e., that private respondent %as not applin# for said parcels
but %as interested onl in the t%o hectares it had leased, and that private respondent
supported petitioner)s application for a patent.
Petitioner e:plains that the &#ree!ent to Sell dated Dece!ber -, +,8D did not and
could not transfer o%nership because para#raph D 9c; thereof stipulates that the
Fbalance of t%elve thousand pesos 9+1,222.22; shall be paid upon the e:ecution b the
Birst Part <petitioner= of the &bsolute Deed of Sale of the t%o parcels of land in
*uestion in favor of the Second Part, and upon deliver to the Second Part <private
respondent= of the "ertificate of O%nership of the said t%o parcels of land.F The
!ort#a#e provisions in para#raphs 4 and - of the a#ree!ent state that the P-,222.22
and P>,222.22 %ere Fearnest !one or a loan %ith antichresis b the free occupanc
and use #iven to Nasipit of the +82 hectares of land not an!ore as a lessee.F If the
a#ree!ent to sell transferred o%nership to Nasipit, then %h %as it necessar to
re*uire petitioner, in a second a#ree!ent, to !ort#a#e his propert in the event of
nonfulfill!ent of the prestations in the first a#ree!entM
True, the a#ree!ent to sell did not absolutel transfer o%nership of the land to private
respondent. This fact, ho%ever, does not sho% that the a#ree!ent %as si!ulated.
Petitioner)s deliver of the "ertificate of O%nership and e:ecution of the deed of
absolute sale %ere suspensive conditions, %hich #ave rise to a correspondin#
obli#ation on the part of the private respondent, i.e., the pa!ent of the last install!ent
of the consideration !entioned in the Dece!ber -, +,8D &#ree!ent. Such conditions
18
did not affect the perfection of the contract or prove si!ulation. Neither did the
!ort#a#e.
Si!ulation occurs %hen an apparent contract is a declaration of a fictitious %ill,
deliberatel !ade b a#ree!ent of the parties, in order to produce, for the purpose of
deception, the appearance of a (uridical act %hich does not e:ist or is different fro! that
%hich %as reall e:ecuted.
4,
Such an intention is not apparent in the a#ree!ents. The
intent to sell, on the other hand, is as clear as dali#ht.
Petitioner alle#es further that the deed of relin*uish!ent of ri#ht did not #ive full effect
to the t%o a#ree!ents to sell, because the preli!inar clauses of the deed alle#edl
served onl to #ive private respondent an interest in the propert as a future o%ner
thereof and to enable respondent to follo% up petitioner)s sales application.
Ae disa#ree. Such an intention is not indicated in the deed. On the contrar, a real and
factual sale is evident in para#raph 4 thereof, %hich states6 FThat the Nasipit 5u!ber
"o., Inc., . . . is ver !uch interested in ac*uirin# the land covered b the aforecited
application to be used for purposes of !echani$ed, far!in#F and the penulti!ate
para#raph statin#6 F. . . VI"?NT? 7. VI55&B5OR, hereb voluntaril renounce and
relin*uish %hatever ri#hts to, and interests I have in the land covered b ! aboveC
!entioned application in favor of the Nasipit 5u!ber "o., Inc.F
Ae also hold that no si!ulation is sho%n either in the letter, dated Dece!ber ., +,-.,
of the for!er field !ana#er of private respondent, 3eor#e Mear. & pertinent portion of
the letter reads6
9a;s re#ards our propert at &cacia, San Mateo, I recall that %e !ade so!e
sort of a#ree!ent for the occupanc, but I no lon#er recall the details and I
had for#otten %hether or not %e actuall did occup our land. /ut if, as ou
sa, %e did occup it, then I a! sure that the "o!pan is obli#ated to pa a
rental.
The letter did not contain an e:press ad!ission that private respondent %as still
leasin# the land fro! petitioner as of that date. &ccordin# to Mear, he could no lon#er
recall the details of his a#ree!ent %ith petitioner. This cannot be read as evidence of
the si!ulation of either the deed of relin*uish!ent or the a#ree!ents to sell. It is
evidence !erel of an honest lac0 of recollection.
Petitioner also alle#es that he continued to pa realt ta:es on the land even after the
e:ecution of said contracts. This is i!!aterial because pa!ent of realt ta:es does
not necessaril prove o%nership, !uch less si!ulation of said contracts.
41
Nonpament o" the Consideration
*id Not Pro+e Simulation
Petitioner insists that nonpa!ent of the consideration in the contracts proves their
si!ulation. Ae disa#ree. Nonpa!ent, at !ost, #ives hi! onl the ri#ht to sue for
collection. 3enerall, in a contract of sale, pa!ent of the price is a resolutor condition
and the re!ed of the seller is to e:act fulfill!ent or, in case of a substantial breach, to
rescind the contract under &rticle ++,+ of the "ivil "ode.
4)
Ho%ever, failure to pa is
not even a breach, but !erel an event %hich prevents the vendor)s obli#ation to
conve title fro! ac*uirin# bindin# force.
4*
Petitioner also ar#ues that Respondent "ourt violated evidentiar rules in upholdin# the
rulin# of the Director of 5ands that petitioner did not present evidence to sho% private
respondent)s failure to pa hi!. Ae disa#ree. Prior to the a!end!ent of the rules on
evidence on March +8, +,D,, Section +, Rule +.+, states that each part !ust prove
his or her o%n affir!ative alle#ations.
44
Thus, the burden of proof in an cause rested
upon the part %ho, as deter!ined b the pleadin#s or the nature of the case, asserts
the affir!ative of an issue and re!ains there until the ter!ination of the
action.
45
&lthou#h nonpa!ent is a ne#ative fact %hich need not be proved, the part
see0in# pa!ent is still re*uired to prove the e:istence of the debt and the fact that it is
alread due.
46
Petitioner sho%ed the e:istence of the obli#ation %ith the presentation of the contracts,
but did not present an evidence that he de!anded pa!ent fro! private respondent.
The de!and letters dated 7anuar 1 and >, +,-8 9?:hs. F7F and F@F;, adduced in
evidence b petitioner, %ere for the pa!ent of bac0 rentals, da!a#es to
i!prove!ents and rei!burse!ent of ac*uisition costs and realt ta:es, not pa!ent
arisin# fro! the contract to sell.
Thus, %e cannot fault Respondent "ourt for adoptin# the findin# of the Director of
5ands that petitioner Foffered no evidence to support his clai! of nonpa!ent beond
his o%n selfCservin# assertions,F as he did not even de!and Fpa!ent, orall or in
%ritin#, of the five thousand 9P>,222.22; pesos %hich %as supposed to be due hi!
since &u#ust +-, +,>2, the date %hen the order of a%ard %as issued to Nasipit, and
%hen his cause of action to recover pa!ent had accrued.F Nonpa!ent of the
consideration in the contracts to sell or the deed of relin*uish!ent %as raised for the
first ti!e in the protest filed %ith the /ureau of 5ands on 7anuar .+, +,-8. /ut this
protest letter %as not the de!and letter re*uired b la%.
Petitioner alle#es that the assi#n!ent of credit and the letter of the for!er field
!ana#er of private respondent are conte!poraneous and subse*uent acts revealin#
the nonpa!ent of the consideration. He !aintains that the P+1,222.22 credit assi#ned
pertains to the P>,222.22 and P-,222.22 initial pa!ents in the Dece!ber -, +,8D
19
&#ree!ent, because the balance of P+1,222.22 %as not et Fdue and accruin#.F This is
consistent, he ar#ues, %ith the representation that private respondent %as not
interested in filin# a sales application over the land in issue and that Nasipit %as
instead supportin# petitioner)s application thereto in Mear)s letter to the Director of
5ands dated Bebruar 11, +,>2 9?:h. FJF;
47
This ar#u!ent is too strained to be acceptable. The assi#n!ent of credit did not
establish the nondeliver of theseinitial pa!ents of the total consideration. First, the
assi#n!ent of credit happened on 7anuar +,, +,8,, or a !onth after the si#nin# of the
Dece!ber -, +,8D &#ree!ent and al!ost si: !onths after the 7ul -, +,8D &#ree!ent
to Sell. Second, it does not overco!e the recitation in the &#ree!ent of Dece!ber -,
+,8D6 F. . . a; The a!ount of S?V?N THO@S&ND 9P-,222.22; P?SOS has alread
been paid b the Second Part to the Birst Part upon the e:ecution of the &#ree!ent
to Sell, on 7ul -, +,8D' b; The a!ount of BIV? THO@S&ND 9P>,222.22; P?SOS shall
be paid upon the si#nin# of this present a#ree!ent' . . . . F
&side fro! these facts, the Director of 5ands found evidence of #reater %ei#ht sho%in#
that pa!ent %as actuall !ade6
4+
. . . 9T;here is stron# evidence to sho% that said . . . 9P+1,222.22; had been
paid b N&SIPIT to ?d%ard 7. Nell "o!pan b virtue of the Deed of
&ssi#n!ent of "redit e:ecuted b Villaflor 9?:h. F8+ N&5"OF; for the credit of
the latter.
&tt. 3abriel /anaa#, resident counsel of N&SIPIT . . . declared that it %as he
%ho notari$ed the F&#ree!ent to SellF 9?:h. FBF;' . . . that subse*uentl, in
7anuar +,8,, Villaflor e:ecuted a Deed of &ssi#n!ent of credit in favor of
?d%ard 7. Nell "o!pan 9?:h. F8+ N&5"OF; %hereb Villaflor ceded to the
latter his receivable for N&SIPIT correspondin# to the re!ainin# balance in
the a!ount of . . . 9P+1,222.22; . . . of the total consideration . . . . ' He further
testified that the said assi#n!ent . . . %as co!!unicated to N&SIPIT under
cover letter dated 7anuar 18, +,8, 9?:h. F8+C&F; and not lon# thereafter, b
virtue of the said assi#n!ent of credit, N&SIPIT paid the balance . . . to
?d%ard 7. Nell "o!pan 9p. >D, ibid;. &tt. /anaa#)s aforesaid testi!on
stand unrebutted' hence, !ust be #iven full %ei#ht and credit.
::: ::: :::
The Director of 5ands also found that there had been pa!ent of the consideration in
the relin*uish!ent of ri#hts6
49
On the other hand, there are stron# and co!pellin# reasons to presu!e that
Villaflor had alread been paid the a!ount of Bive Thousand 9P>,222.22;
Pesos.
Birst, . . . Ahat is surprisin#, ho%ever, is not so !uch his clai!s consistin# of
#i#antic a!ounts as his havin# for#otten to adduce evidence to prove his
clai! of nonCpa!ent of the Bive Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos durin# the
investi#ation proceedin#s %hen he had all the ti!e and opportunit to do
so. . . . . The fact that he did not adduce or even atte!pt to adduce evidence
in support thereof sho%s either that he had no evidence to offer of that
N&SIPIT had alread paid hi! in fact. Ahat is %orse is that Villaflor did not
even bother to co!!and pa!ent, orall or in %ritin#, of the Bive Thousand
9P>,222.22; Pesos %hich %as supposed to be due hi! since &u#ust +-, +,>2,
the date %hen the order of a%ard %as issued to Nasipit, and %hen his cause
of action to recover pa!ent had accrued. The fact that he onl !ade a
co!!and for pa!ent on 7anuar .+, +,-8, %hen he filed his protest or
t%entCfour 918; ears later is i!!ediatel nu#ator of his clai! for nonC
pa!ent.
/ut Villaflor !aintains that he had no 0no%led#e or notice that the order of
a%ard had alread been issued to N&SIPIT as he had #one to Indonesia and
he had been absent fro! the Philippines durin# all those t%entCfour 918;
ears. This of course ta:es credulit. . . .
. . . It is !ore in 0eepin# %ith the ordinar course of thin#s
that he should have ac*uired infor!ation as to %hat %as
transpirin# in his affairs in Manila . . . .
Second, it should be understood that the condition that N&SIPIT should
rei!burse Villaflor the a!ount of Bive Thousand 9P>,222.22; Pesos upon its
receipt of the order of a%ard %as fulfilled as said a%ard %as issued to
N&SIPIT on &u#ust +-, +,>2. The said deed of relin*uish!ent %as prepared
and notari$ed in Manila %ith Villaflor and N&SIPIT si#nin# the instru!ent also
in Manila. No%, considerin# that Villaflor is presu!ed to be !ore assiduous in
follo%in# up %ith the /ureau of 5ands the e:peditious issuance of the order of
a%ard as the 9consideration; %ould depend on the issuance of said order to
a%ard N&SIPIT, %ould it not be reasonable to believe that Villaflor %as at hand
%hen the a%ard %as issued to N&SIPIT on &u#ust +-, +,>2, or barel a da
%hich he e:ecuted the deed of relin*uish!ent on &u#ust +4, +,>2, in
ManilaM . . . .
Third, on the other hand, N&SIPIT has in his possession a sort of ForderF upon
itself I 9the deed of relin*uish!ent %herein he9sic; obli#ated itself to
20
rei!burse or pa Villaflor the . . . consideration of the relin*uish!ent upon its
receipt of the order of a%ard; for the pa!ent of the aforesaid a!ount the
!o!ent the order of a%ard is issued to it. It is reasonable to presu!e that
N&SIPIT has paid the 9consideration; to Villaflor.
::: ::: :::
. . . 9I;t %as virtuall i!possible for N&SIPIT, after the lapse of the intervenin#
18 ears, to be able to cope up %ith all the records necessar to sho% that the
consideration for the deed of relin*uish!ent had been full paid. To e:pect
N&SIPIT to 0eep intact all records pertinent to the transaction for the %hole
*uarter of a centur %ould be to re*uire %hat even the la% does not. Indeed,
even the applicable la% itself 9Sec. ..-, National Internal Revenue "ode;
re*uires that all records of corporations be preserved for onl a !a:i!u! of
five ears.
N&SIPIT !a %ell have added that at an rate %hile there are transactions
%here the proper evidence is i!possible or e:tre!el difficult to produce after
the lapse of ti!e . . . the la% creates presu!ptions of re#ularit in favor of
such transactions 912 &!. 7ur. 1.1; so that %hen the basic fact is established
in an action the e:istence of the presu!ed fact !ust be assu!ed b force of
la%. 9Rule +., @nifor! Rules of ?vidence' , Ai#!ore, Sec. 18,+;.
The "ourt also notes that Mear)s letter of Bebruar 11, +,>2 %as sent si: !onths prior
to the e:ecution of the deed of relin*uish!ent of ri#ht. &t the ti!e of its %ritin#, private
respondent had not perfected its o%nership of the land to be able to *ualif as a sales
applicant. /esides, althou#h he %as a part to the 7ul -, +,8D &#ree!ent to Sell,
Mear %as not a si#nator to the Deed of Relin*uish!ent or to the Dece!ber -, +,8D
&#ree!ent to Sell. Thus, he cannot be e:pected to 0no% the e:istence of and the
a!end!ents to the later contracts. These circu!stances e:plain the !ista0en
representations, not !isrepresentations, in said letter.
Lac, o" Notice o" the Award
Petitioner insists that private respondent suppressed evidence, pointin# to his not
havin# been notified of the Order of &%ard dated &u#ust +-, +,>2.
5,
&t the botto! of
pa#e 1 of the order, petitioner %as not listed as one of the parties %ho %ere to be
furnished a cop b Director of 5ands 7ose P. Dans. Petitioner also posits that Public
5and Inspector Sulpicio &. Tae$a irre#ularl received the copies for both private
respondent and the cit treasurer of /utuan "it. The lac0 of notice for petitioner can be
easil e:plained. Plainl, petitioner %as not entitled to said notice of a%ard fro! the
Director of 5ands, because b then, he had alread relin*uished his ri#hts to the
disputed land in favor of private respondent. In the headin# of the order, he %as
referred to as sales applicantCassi#nor. In para#raph nu!ber 8, the order stated that,
on &u#ust +4, +,>2, he relin*uished his ri#hts to the land sub(ect of the a%ard to
private respondent. Bro! such date, the sales application %as considered to be a
!atter bet%een the /ureau of 5ands and private respondent onl. "onsiderin# these
facts, the failure to #ive petitioner a cop of the notice of the a%ard cannot be
considered as suppression of evidence.
51
Burther!ore, this order %as in fact available
to petitioner and had been referred to b hi! since 7anuar .+, +,-8 %hen he filed his
protest %ith the /ureau of 5ands.
5)
Third (ssue6 Pri+ate Respondent 0uali"ied
"or an Award o" Public Land
Petitioner asserts that private respondent %as le#all dis*ualified fro! ac*uirin# the
parcels of land in *uestion because it %as not authori$ed b its charter to ac*uire
disposable public a#ricultural lands under Sections +1+, +11 and +1. of the Public
5and &ct, prior to its a!end!ent b P.D. No. -4.. Ae disa#ree. The re*uire!ents for a
sales application under the Public 5and &ct are6 9+; the possession of the *ualifications
re*uired b said &ct 9under Section 1,; and 91; the lac0 of the dis*ualifications
!entioned therein 9under Sections +1+, +11, and +1.;. Ho%ever, the transfer of
o%nership via the t%o a#ree!ents dated 7ul - and Dece!ber -, +,8D and the
relin*uish!ent of ri#hts, bein# private contracts, %ere bindin# onl bet%een petitioner
and private respondent. The Public 5and &ct finds no relevance because the disputed
land %as covered b said &ct onl after the issuance of the order of a%ard in favor of
private respondent. Thus, the possession of an dis*ualification b private respondent
under said &ct is i!!aterial to the private contracts bet%een the parties thereto. 9Ae
are not, ho%ever, su##estin# a departure fro! the rule that la%s are dee!ed %ritten in
contracts.; "onsideration of said provisions of the &ct %ill further sho% their
inapplicabilit to these contracts. Section +1+ of the &ct pertains to ac*uisitions of
public land b a corporation fro! a #rantee, but petitioner never beca!e a #rantee of
the disputed land. On the other hand, private respondent itself %as the direct #rantee.
Sections +11 and +1. dis*ualif corporations, %hich are not authori$ed b their charter,
fro! ac*uirin# public land' the records do not sho% that private respondent %as not so
authori$ed under its charter.
&lso, the deter!ination b the Director of 5ands and the Minister of Natural Resources
of the *ualification of private respondent to beco!e an a%ardee or #rantee under the
&ct is persuasive on Respondent "ourt. In Espinosa +s.Ma,alintal,
5*
the "ourt ruled
that, b la%, the po%ers of the Secretar of &#riculture and Natural Resources
re#ardin# the disposition of public lands I includin# the approval, re(ection, and
reinstate!ent of applications I are of e:ecutive and ad!inistrative nature. 9Such
po%ers, ho%ever, do not include the (udicial po%er to decide controversies arisin# fro!
disa#ree!ents in civil or contractual relations bet%een the liti#ants.; "onse*uentl, the
deter!ination of %hether private respondent is *ualified to beco!e an a%ardee of
public land under ".&. +8+ b sales application is included therein.
21
&ll told, the onl dis*ualification that can be i!puted to private respondent is the
prohibition in the +,-. "onstitution a#ainst the holdin# of alienable lands of the public
do!ain b corporations.
54
Ho%ever, this "ourt earlier settled the !atter, rulin# that said
constitutional prohibition had no retroactive effect and could not prevail over a +ested
ri#ht to the land. In Ao# +s. Cusi$ %r.,
55
this "ourt declared6
Ae hold that the said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application
to the sales application of /iNan Develop!ent "o., Inc. because it had alread
ac*uired a vested ri#ht to the land applied for at the ti!e the +,-. "onstitution
too0 effect.
That vested ri#ht has to be respected. It could not be abro#ated b the ne%
"onstitution. Section 1, &rticle JIII of the +,.> "onstitution allo%s private
corporations to purchase public a#ricultural lands not e:ceedin# one thousand
and t%entCfour hectares. Petitioner)s prohibition action is barred b the
doctrine of vested ri#hts in constitutional la%.
F& ri#ht is vested %hen the ri#ht to en(o!ent has beco!e the propert of
so!e particular person or persons as a present interest.F 9+4 ".7.S. ++-.;. It
is Fthe privile#e to en(o propert le#all vested, to enforce contracts, and
en(o the ri#hts of propert conferred b e:istin# la%F 9+1 ".7. ,>>, Note 84,
No. 4; or Fso!e ri#ht or interest in propert %hich has beco!e fi:ed and
established and is no lon#er open to doubt or controversF 9Do%ns vs. /lount,
+-2 Bed. +>, 12, cited in /alboa vs. Barrales, >+ Phil. 8,D, >21;.
The due process clause prohibits the annihilation of vested ri#hts. F& state
!a not i!pair vested ri#hts b le#islative enact!ent, b the enact!ent or b
the subse*uent repeal of a !unicipal ordinance, or b a chan#e in the
constitution of the State, e:cept in a le#iti!ate e:ercise of the police po%erF
9+4 ".7.S. ++--C-D;.
It has been observed that, #enerall, the ter! Fvested ri#htF e:presses the
concept of present fi:ed interest, %hich in ri#ht reason and natural (ustice
should be protected a#ainst arbitrar State action, or an innatel (ust an
i!perative ri#ht %hich an enli#htened free societ, sensitive to inherent and
irrefra#able individual ri#hts, cannot den 9+4 ".7.S. ++-8, Note -+, No. >,
citin# Pennslvania 3rehound 5ines, Inc. vs. Rosenthal, +,1 &tl. 1nd >D-;.
Secretar of 7ustice &bad Santos in his +,-. opinion ruled that %here the
applicant, before the "onstitution too0 effect, had full co!plied %ith all his
obli#ations under the Public 5and &ct in order to entitle hi! to a sales patent,
there %ould see! to be no le#al or e*uitable (ustification for refusin# to issue
or release the sales patent 9p. 1>8, Rollo;.
In Opinion No. +82, series of +,-8, he held that as soon as the applicant had
fulfilled the construction or cultivation re*uire!ents and has full paid the
purchase price, he should be dee!ed to have ac*uired b purchase the
particular tract of land and to hi! the area li!itation in the ne% "onstitution
%ould not appl.
In Opinion No. +D>, series of +,-4, Secretar &bad Santos held that %here
the cultivation re*uire!ents %ere fulfilled before the ne% "onstitution too0
effect but the full pa!ent of the price %as co!pleted after 7anuar +-, +,-.,
the applicant %as, nevertheless, entitled to a sales patent 9p. 1>4, Rollo;.
Such a conte!poraneous construction of the constitutional prohibition b a
hi#h e:ecutive official carries #reat %ei#ht and should be accorded !uch
respect. It is a correct interpretation of section ++ of &rticle JIV.
In the instant case, it is incontestable that prior to the effectivit of the +,-.
"onstitution the ri#ht of the corporation to purchase the land in *uestion had
beco!e fi:ed and established and %as no lon#er open to doubt or
controvers.
Its co!pliance %ith the re*uire!ents of the Public 5and 5a% for the issuance
of a patent had the effect of se#re#atin# the said land fro! the public do!ain.
The corporation)s ri#ht to obtain a patent for that land is protected b la%. It
cannot be deprived of that ri#ht %ithout due process 9Director of 5ands vs. "&,
+1. Phil. ,+,;.
The Minister of Natural Resources ruled, and %e a#ree, that private respondent %as
si!ilarl *ualified to beco!e an a%ardee of the disputed land because its ri#hts to it
vested prior to the effectivit of the +,-. "onstitution6
56
5astl, appellee has ac*uired a vested ri#ht to the sub(ect area and, therefore,
is dee!ed not affected b the ne% constitutional provision that no private
corporation !a hold alienable land of the public do!ain e:cept b lease.
It !a be recalled that the Secretar of 7ustice in his Opinion No. 48, series of
+,-., had declared, to %it6
On the other hand, %ith respect to sales application read
for issuance of sales patent, it is ! opinion that %here the
applicant had, before, the constitution too0 effect, full
co!plied %ith all his obli#ations under the Public 5and act in
order to entitle hi! to sales patent, there %ould see! to be
22
not le#al or e*uitable (ustification for refusin# to issue or
release the sales patent.
I!ple!entin# the aforesaid Opinion No. 48 . . . , the then Secretar of
&#riculture and Natural Resources issued a !e!orandu!, dated Bebruar
+D, +,-8, %hich pertinentl reads as follo%s6
In the i!ple!entation of the fore#oin# opinion, sales
application of private individuals coverin# areas in e:cess of
18 hectares and those of corporations, associations, or
partnership %hich fall under an of the follo%in# cate#ories
shall be #iven due course and issued patents, to %it6
Sales application for fishponds and for
a#ricultural purposes 9SB&, S& and
I3PS&; %herein prior to 7anuar +-,
+,-.,
a. the land covered
thereb %as a%arded'
b. cultivation
re*uire!ents of la%
%ere co!plied %ith as
sho%n b investi#ation
reports sub!itted prior
to 7anuar +-, +,-.'
c. land %as surveed
and surve returns
alread sub!itted to the
Director of 5ands for
verification and
approval' and
d. purchase price %as
full paid.
Bro! the records, it is evident that the aforestated re*uisites have been
co!plied %ith b appellee lon# before 7anuar +-, +,-., the effectivit of the
Ne% "onstitution. To restate, the disputed area %as a%arded to appellee on
&u#ust +-, +,>2, the purchase price %as full paid on 7ul 14, +,>+, the
cultivation re*uire!ents %ere co!plied %ith as per investi#ation report dated
Dece!ber .+, +,8,, and the land %as surveed under PlsC,-.
The sa!e findin# %as earlier !ade b the Director of 5ands6
57
It is further contended b Villaflor that Nasipit has no (uridical personalit to
appl for the purchase of public lands for a#ricultural purposes. The records
clearl sho%, ho%ever, that since the e:ecution of the deed of relin*uish!ent
of &u#ust +4, +,>2, in favor of Nasipit, Villaflor has al%as considered and
reco#ni$ed Nasipit as havin# the (uridical personalit to ac*uire public lands
for a#ricultural purposes. In the deed of relin*uish!ent . . . , it is stated6
4. That the Nasipit 5u!ber "o., Inc., a corporation dul
or#ani$ed in accordance %ith the la%s of the Philippines, . . .
.
?ven this Office had not failed to reco#ni$e the (uridical personalit of Nasipit
to appl for the purchase of public lands . . . %hen it a%arded to it the land so
relin*uished b Villaflor 9Order of &%ard dated &u#ust +-, +,>2; and accepted
its application therefor. &t an rate, the *uestion %hether an applicant is
*ualified to appl for the ac*uisition of public lands is a !atter bet%een the
applicant and this Office to decide and %hich a third part li0e Villaflor has no
personalit to *uestion beond !erel callin# the attention of this Office
thereto.
Needless to sa, %e also a#ree that the Nove!ber D, +,84 5ease &#ree!ent bet%een
petitioner and private respondent had been ter!inated b the a#ree!ents to sell and
the relin*uish!ent of ri#hts. / the ti!e the verbal leases %ere alle#edl !ade in +,>+
and +,>>,
5+
the disputed land had alread been ac*uired and a%arded to private
respondent. In an event, petitioner)s cause of action on these alle#ed lease
a#ree!ents prescribed lon# before he filed "ivil "ase No. 12-1CIII, as correctl found
b the trial and appellate courts.
59
Thus, it is no lon#er i!portant, in this case, to pass
upon the issue of %hether or not a!end!ents to a lease contract can be proven b
parol evidence. The sa!e holds true as re#ards the issue of foru!Cshoppin#.
&ll in all, petitioner has not provided us sufficient reason to disturb the co#ent findin#s
of the Director of 5ands, the Minister of Natural Resources, the trial court and the "ourt
of &ppeals.
AH?R?BOR?, the petition is hereb DISMISS?D.
SO ORD?R?D.
23