G.R. No. 142595 - Celestial vs. Cachopero

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142595)

Summary of Dispute and Initial Proceedings

Respondent Jesse Cachopero filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) with the Bureau of Lands for a 415-square-meter parcel of land that was formerly the Salunayan Creek bed, alleging occupancy since 1968 and improvements including his residence. Petitioner Rachel Celestial, an adjacent landowner, protested citing a preferential right as the land included the only outlet from her property to the public highway. The Bureau of Lands conducted an ocular inspection and concluded that the land remained part of the public domain—outside commerce and not subject to private acquisition—due to government interest in future public improvements. Consequently, the Bureau dismissed respondent’s MSA, allowed petitioner a road right of way, and ordered respondent to apply for revocable permit instead. Petitioner then instituted an ejectment action against respondent and his wife based on a compromise judgment wherein the respondents agreed to vacate and move their residence.

Subsequent Application and DENR’s Findings

Respondent filed a second MSA in 1991 covering a reduced area (334 square meters) of the same land, this time supported by certifications from local government and Public Works authorities affirming that the land was suitable for residential purposes and not needed for public use. Petitioner again protested, claiming preferential right and emergency access concerns. After a reinvestigation, the DENR Regional Executive Director ruled the land suitable for residential use but ordered sale by public auction due to unresolved conflicting interests, effectively dismissing respondent’s MSA. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the acting DENR Regional Executive Director.

Judicial Proceedings on Certiorari and Jurisdictional Issues

Respondent challenged the DENR orders before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Midsayap, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and set aside the RTC decision, holding that the RTC had concurrent jurisdiction over certiorari petitions and that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply under the circumstances, upholding respondent’s right to immediate judicial intervention via special civil action for certiorari. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Jurisdiction and Doctrine on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The Supreme Court clarified that petitions for certiorari (Rule 65) to correct grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction are distinct from appeals (Rule 43) that address errors of judgment. RTCs and the Court of Appeals have concurrent original jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The Court emphasized that exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required but exceptions exist, particularly where the act is patently illegal, jurisdictionally flawed, or where irreparable injury would result from delay. Respondent’s certiorari petition alleging grave abuse of discretion by the DENR fell within these exceptions; thus, the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction.

Legal Framework for Public Land Disposition and Application to the Case

The involved land is public domain property, a former creek bed, initially classified as not alienable or disposable due to anticipated government use. Under Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), the general rule for disposition of such public lands is by public bidding. However, Republic Act No. 730 provides an exception allowing qualified Filipino citizens to purchase public residential lands not exceeding 1,000 square meters by private sale without public auction, provided certain conditions including bona fide residence and residence construction on the lot are met.

Error of DENR in Applying Public Land Laws

The DENR Regional Executive Director erred by disregarding RA 730 and ordering the land’s sale through public auction under Section 67 of the Public Land Act. The Director justified this on grounds of “equity” and continuing protest conflicts, neither of which legally disqualify application of RA 730. The Court held that equity cannot override express statutory law, and the pendency of protests does not preclude the preference granted under RA 730 to occupants meeting the law’s criteria. The DENR’s failure to process respondent’s MSA per RA 730, conduct an investigation of material facts, and instead summarily order disposal by public auction constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, justifying the issuance of the writ of certiorari.

Petitioner’s Claim of Ownership over the Former Creek Bed Land

Petitioner’s claims b

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 142595)

Nature and Background of the Case

The case is an appeal by Rachel Cachopero Celestial challenging the February 15, 1999 Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 45927, which reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Midsayap, Cotabato’s dismissal of respondent Jesse C. Cachopero’s petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
The Court of Appeals ordered the Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region XII, to process respondent’s Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) under DENR Claim No. XII-050-90, which petitioner had protested.
Respondent, petitioner’s brother, filed an MSA for a 415 square meter parcel of land in Barrio 8, Midsayap, Cotabato, which he claimed to have occupied since 1968, building a residential house and improvements.
Petitioner protested, claiming preferential right over the land as it borders and serves as the only exit of her dwelling situated on Lot No. 2586-G-28 (LRC) Psd-105462.
Initial proceedings by the Bureau of Lands dismissed respondent’s MSA for being outside the commerce of man due to the land being part of the dry Salunayan Creek bed from irrigation canal construction, and government needs for future public improvements.

Initial Administrative and Judicial Proceedings

The Bureau of Lands found the land in question to be a dried portion of Salunayan Creek, certified as partly used for a service road but generally required for future government infrastructure.
The Bureau of Lands rejected respondent’s MSA and permitted only temporary occupancy subject to rights-of-way adjustments and government needs.
Petitioner filed a civil ejectment case (Civil Case No. 711) based on a compromise that required respondent and his wife to vacate and transfer the house within eight months, grant a two-meter wide exit alley to petitioner, and remove improvements by specific deadlines.
Respondent filed a second MSA for 334 square meters covering part of the same parcel, supported by certifications indicating the land was now suitable for residential use and no longer needed by government for public service.
Petitioner again protested based on preferential right and right of way claim.
DENR Regional Executive Director ordered the cancellation of respondent’s second MSA and disposition of the land by public auction under Section 67, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 due to conflicting interests.
Respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied; thereafter he filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the RTC claiming grave abuse of discretion by DENR officials in their orders.

Jurisdictional Issues and Procedural Postures

Petitioner contended the RTC lacked jurisdiction over respondent’s certiorari petition, arguing it was an appeal within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under B.P. 129, Sec. 9(3).
Additionally, petitioner claimed respondent did not exhaust administrative remedies by failing to appeal to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources.
The Court differentiated between appeals (Rule 43) and special civil actions for certiorari (Rule 65), noting that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and that RTCs have concurrent original jurisdiction over writs of certiorari