View full case

DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves petitioners Desamparado Vda. de Nazareno and Leticia Nazareno Tapia who filed a complaint for the annulment of the verification, report and recommendation, decision, and order of the Bureau of Lands regarding a parcel of public land. The subject land is a result of sawdust dumped into the dried-up Balacanas Creek and along the banks of the Cagayan river. Private respondents Salasalan and Rabaya leased the subject lots on which their houses stood from Antonio Nazareno, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest. After private respondents allegedly stopped paying rentals, a case for ejectment was filed against them and a decision was rendered in favor of the petitioners. Private respondents filed multiple cases for the annulment of judgment and for certiorari, but these were dismissed.

Antonio Nazareno, before he died, caused the approval of a survey plan to perfect his title over the accretion area. However, private respondents protested before the Bureau of Lands. After an investigation, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands rendered a decision ordering the amendment of the survey plan and the filing of public land applications by private respondents. Antonio Nazareno's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he was ordered to vacate the portions adjudicated to private respondents and remove their improvements.

Petitioners then filed a complaint for annulment of the administrative decisions, but it was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, stating that the approval of the survey plan belongs exclusively to the Director of Lands. Petitioners argue that the subject land is private land formed through accretion, applying Article 457 of the Civil Code.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the property in question qualifies as an alluvial deposit under Article 457 of the Civil Code.

  2. Whether or not petitioners are estopped from denying the public character of the subject land and the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands.

  3. Whether or not the administrative remedies have been exhausted.

  4. Whether the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted beyond the bounds of his jurisdiction in modifying the orders or decisions of the Director of Lands.

  5. Whether the Director of Lands acted whimsically, arbitrarily, or capriciously in issuing the execution order.

  6. Whether the execution order practically changed the decision of the Director of Lands.

  7. Whether the Director of Lands had the authority to issue the execution order.

RULING:

  1. The property in question does not qualify as an alluvial deposit under Article 457 of the Civil Code because it was formed through man-made or artificial means. The deposit of boulders, soil, and other filling materials into the Balacanas Creek and Cagayan River bounding the land was not gradual and imperceptible and did not result from the natural action of the waters or current. It was the direct result of human intervention, specifically the dumping of sawdust by the Sun Valley Lumber Co. Consequently, the property is part of the public domain.

  2. Petitioners are estopped from denying the public character of the subject land and the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. The mere filing of a Miscellaneous Sales Application by the late Antonio Nazareno constituted an admission that the land being applied for was public land. The investigation report of respondent Labis also contradicted the claim of petitioners that the land was an orchard. Moreover, the Bureau of Lands classified the land as an accretion area in accordance with its ocular inspection. The findings of administrative agencies, particularly those with expertise in specific matters, are generally given respect and even finality.

  3. The administrative remedies have been exhausted. Although the Court agreed with petitioners that they did not intend to appeal to an Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Lands, the decision being appealed from was that of the Regional Director acting for the Director of the Bureau of Lands. Therefore, the appeal made to the Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources was proper, as he was acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Department.

  4. The Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources did not act beyond the bounds of his jurisdiction in modifying the orders or decisions of the Director of Lands. The Court held in Hamoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources that the Undersecretary may modify, adopt, or set aside the orders or decisions of the Director of Lands relating to public lands.

  5. The Director of Lands did not act whimsically, arbitrarily, or capriciously in issuing the execution order. The order was based on the conclusive finding that the disputed land was public land, and thus, the Director of Lands acted within his rights in issuing the order.

  6. The execution order did not practically change the decision of the Director of Lands. It merely specified the segregation of the petitioners' titled lot from the subject land which was being occupied by the private respondents.

  7. The Director of Lands had the authority to issue the execution order. As Director of Lands, he is authorized to exercise executive control over any form of concession, disposition, and management of public lands.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Alluvion, as provided under Article 457 of the Civil Code, requires the gradual and imperceptible deposition of soil or sediment resulting from the action of water, and the land where the accretion takes place must be adjacent to a river or sea. Deposits caused by human intervention are excluded from this provision.

  • Estoppel may arise when a party's actions or admissions are inconsistent with a later claim.

  • Findings of administrative agencies, especially those with expertise in specific fields, are generally accorded respect and even finality.

  • The Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has the power to modify, adopt, or set aside the orders or decisions of the Director of Lands with respect to questions involving public lands.

  • The Director of Lands has jurisdiction, authority, and control over public lands.

  • The Director of Lands' decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

  • The Director of Lands may issue decisions and orders based on findings of fact and exercises administrative discretion in the execution of his duties.

  • Errors in the appraisal of evidence by the Director of Lands are errors of judgment and not acts of grave abuse of discretion annullable by certiorari.