Facts:

The case involves Rachel C. Celestial as the petitioner and Jesse Cachopero as the respondent. The appeal was taken from the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on February 15, 1999, in CA-G.R. SP No. 45927, regarding Jesse C. Cachopero v. Regional Executive Director of DENR, Region XII and Rachel C. Celestial. The case originated from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Midsayap, Cotabato, Branch 18, which dismissed Cachopero’s petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. The RTC's decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which mandated the Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region XII to process Cachopero’s Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) under DENR Claim No. XII-050-90, against which Celestial filed a protest.

The facts reveal that Cachopero filed an MSA for a 415-square meter parcel of land located at Barrio 8, Midsayap, formerly part of the Salunayan Creek. He claimed a long-term occupancy s

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Petitioner: Rachel C. Celestial, who protested against her brother’s actions.
• Respondent: Jesse C. Cachopero, who filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) for a parcel of land.
• Familial Relation: Petitioner and respondent are siblings, with the petitioner asserting a preferential right over the disputed parcel.

Land and MSA Details

• First MSA
• The respondent filed an MSA (Plan No. (XII-6)-1669) with the Bureau of Lands covering a 415‑square‑meter parcel located at Barrio 8, Midsayap, Cotabato.
• The land was formerly part of Salunayan Creek and allegedly occupied by the respondent since 1968, on which he built his residential house and other improvements.
• Petitioner filed a protest against the MSA, asserting her preferential right to the land as it served as the only access outlet to her residential property (Lot No. 2586-G-28).

Lower Court Proceedings and Administrative Actions

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Midsayap dismissed the respondent’s petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus regarding the first MSA.
• A subsequent ejectment action was instituted by the petitioner and resolved via a compromise agreement involving:
• The transfer of an old house from respondent’s property.
• The creation of a road-right-of-way from petitioner’s lot.
• On May 21, 1991, the respondent filed a second MSA covering a 334‑square‑meter portion of the same lot, this time supported by local certifications stating that the land was suitable for residential purposes and had been released by the municipal government.

DENR and Administrative Orders

• DENR Regional Executive Director’s Order (February 17, 1994):
• After another investigation, the order declared the subject land suitable for residential use but ordered its disposition via public auction pursuant to Section 67 of the Public Land Act due to conflicting interests.
• The order mandated a segregation survey to create a five‑meter easement as an access road for petitioner’s property.
• Motion for Reconsideration:
• The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 17, 1994 order.
• This motion was denied by an Order dated February 27, 1995 by the OIC Regional Executive Director.

Petition for Certiorari and Appellate Proceedings

• The respondent subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the RTC, challenging the DENR orders on the basis of alleged grave abuse of discretion.
• The RTC denied the petition citing lack of merit and non‑exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision and ordered the DENR to process the respondent’s MSA.
• Petitioner’s subsequent petition for review before the Supreme Court contended that:
• The RTC did not have jurisdiction (the issue being an appeal better suited for the Court of Appeals).
• The exhaustion of administrative remedies was a requisite, and the land in dispute was public domain.

Factual and Legal Controversies

• Statutory Conflict:
• Whether the sale of the land should follow Section 67 of the Public Land Act (requiring public auction) or be processed under Republic Act No. 730 (which permits private sale for residential purposes on parcels not exceeding 1,000 square meters).
• Jurisdictional Issues:
• The proper forum for reviewing the administrative actions (RTC versus Court of Appeals) and whether the petitioner’s claims regarding the non‑exhaustion of administrative remedies hold merit.
• Adverse Possession and Accession Claims:
• Petitioner also asserted a claim of ownership based on long‑term adverse possession and the right of accession over the dried‑up creek bed, raising issues as to whether such claims can prevail over the public domain doctrine.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Remedies

• Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over respondent’s petition for certiorari given the dual remedies available (appeal versus certiorari).
• Whether the administrative remedy exhaustion rule should be strictly applied or can be waived in cases of patently illegal or arbitrary acts.

Application of Statutory Provisions for Land Disposition

• Whether the DENR Regional Executive Director should have processed the respondent’s second MSA under Republic Act No. 730, allowing a private sale, or whether the application of Section 67 of the Public Land Act (mandating public auction) was proper.

Validity of the Petitioner’s Claims over the Subject Land

• Whether the petitioner’s claim of a preferential right—including assertions of adverse possession and the right of accession—is valid against the statutory provisions governing public domain lands.

Determination of the Public versus Private Character of the Land

• Whether the subject land, as a dried‑up portion of Salunayan Creek (modified by man‑made irrigation works), remains part of the public domain and thus not susceptible to private acquisition.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)