Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27811)
Facts:
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. v. Jose Pano, Hon. Juan Pajo, Hon. Juan De G. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-27811, November 17, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellant Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. derived title by cession from Jose Magallanes to a 392.7569-hectare portion of a 1,103-hectare pasture in Tamlangon, Bansalan, Davao; the parcel had been a permit area since 1932, released from the forest zone and declared agricultural on April 13, 1954. In January–March 1955 multiple competing sales applications were filed: Jose Pano and nineteen others applied for 90 hectares, and on March 29, 1955 the plaintiff filed for the entire released area; Pano and companions protested, claiming actual occupancy of part of the land.
After investigation the Director of Lands ruled on July 31, 1956 in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed Pano's claim; reconsideration was denied. On July 5, 1957 the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Hon. Juan de G. Rodriguez) on appeal dismissed Pano's appeal, effectively affirming the Director's decision. Pano then elevated the controversy to the Office of the President.
On June 25, 1958 the Executive Secretary, Juan Pajo, "by authority of the President," modified the prior administrative rulings: he found it in the public interest to allocate the northern portion of the contested block to the actual occupants who had made improvements, directing subdivision and allocation to actual occupants while preserving the corporation's right to reimbursement for surveying costs. The Executive Secretary's decision drew on the factual findings in the administrative record.
Plaintiff took the Executive Secretary's action to the Court of First Instance of Davao (Special Civil Case No. 2792), seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources' decision had full force and effect and (2) the Executive Secretary's decision was contrary to law and void. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint. The matter was then certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals und...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, reverse a decision of the Director of Lands that has been affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources?
- Was the Executive Secretary's action in this case an undue delegation of the President's constitutional power such that it rendered the Executive...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)