Title
Aureus vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
Case
G.R. No. L-2367
Decision Date
Nov 11, 1949
Dispute over public land in Naga: Abiog, a prewar permittee, retained preferential rights despite wartime evacuation; Aureus’ application denied. SC upheld Secretary’s discretion, favoring Abiog.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2367)

Facts:

Background of the Case:
The case revolves around a dispute over a parcel of public land in Naga, Camarines Sur. Feliciano Aureus and Jovetillo Abiog both sought to occupy the land under revocable permits issued by the Bureau of Lands.

Jovetillo Abiog’s Occupation:
On March 7, 1931, Jovetillo Abiog obtained revocable permit No. 3008 for the temporary occupation and use of the land, where he had already constructed a residential house. He continuously occupied the land until 1942, when his house was burned during the war, forcing him to evacuate. He returned on June 8, 1945, with the intention of reoccupying the land.

Feliciano Aureus’ Claim:
On June 25, 1945, Feliciano Aureus began constructing a house on the same land despite Abiog’s verbal and written protests. On August 17, 1945, Aureus filed an application for a revocable permit to occupy the land. This was opposed by Abiog, who claimed a better right as the prewar permittee and occupant.

Legal Proceedings:
The district land officer initially ruled in favor of Abiog, allowing him to reoccupy the land upon payment of back rentals. Aureus’ application was rejected, and he was ordered to vacate the premises. However, upon Aureus’ motion for reconsideration, the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Lands canceled Abiog’s permit and declared the land vacant. Abiog appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, who reinstated Abiog’s right to the land. Aureus then filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.

Trial Court Decision:
The trial court granted the petition for prohibition, annulling the Secretary’s decision, but denied the mandamus, stating that the Secretary had discretion in such matters. The court based its decision on the grounds that Abiog had abandoned the land and failed to renew his permit or pay the required fees.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce acted with grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Jovetillo Abiog’s right to occupy the land.
  2. Whether Feliciano Aureus acquired any legal right over the land by filing an application for a revocable permit.
  3. Whether the land in question was vacant and disposable under Lands Administrative Order No. 8-3.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.