Francisco Calo contested Delfin Fuertes' homestead application. The Director of Lands denied Calo's claim and ordered him to vacate. Calo appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who modified the decision but did not satisfy Calo. Calo appealed to the President but withdrew his appeal. Calo then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the court, which dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The issue was whether the dismissal was proper given Calo withdrew his presidential appeal. The court held dismissal was proper as withdrawing the presidential appeal did not exhaust remedies, and certiorari was not available given the remedy of appeal to the president.
Francisco Calo contested Delfin Fuertes' homestead application. The Director of Lands denied Calo's claim and ordered him to vacate. Calo appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who modified the decision but did not satisfy Calo. Calo appealed to the President but withdrew his appeal. Calo then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the court, which dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The issue was whether the dismissal was proper given Calo withdrew his presidential appeal. The court held dismissal was proper as withdrawing the presidential appeal did not exhaust remedies, and certiorari was not available given the remedy of appeal to the president.
Francisco Calo contested Delfin Fuertes' homestead application. The Director of Lands denied Calo's claim and ordered him to vacate. Calo appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who modified the decision but did not satisfy Calo. Calo appealed to the President but withdrew his appeal. Calo then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the court, which dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The issue was whether the dismissal was proper given Calo withdrew his presidential appeal. The court held dismissal was proper as withdrawing the presidential appeal did not exhaust remedies, and certiorari was not available given the remedy of appeal to the president.
Francisco Calo contested Delfin Fuertes' homestead application. The Director of Lands denied Calo's claim and ordered him to vacate. Calo appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who modified the decision but did not satisfy Calo. Calo appealed to the President but withdrew his appeal. Calo then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the court, which dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The issue was whether the dismissal was proper given Calo withdrew his presidential appeal. The court held dismissal was proper as withdrawing the presidential appeal did not exhaust remedies, and certiorari was not available given the remedy of appeal to the president.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
CASE 29: CALO VS.
FUERTES (JUNE 1962)
FACTS: Petitioner Francisco Calo contested the homestead application of Delfin Fuertes. The Director of Lands rendered an opinion denying Calos claim and ordered him to vacate the premises within sixty days from receipt of the opinion. His request for reconsideration was denied. Calo brought the matter to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Secretary modified the opinion of the Director of Lands. The Secretary ordered Fuertes to reimburse Calo the difference between the value of the improvements that Calo introduced and the value of the consequential benefits derived by Calo from the land. Calo was not satisfied with the decision. He appealed to the President of the Philippines. He withdrew his appeal before the President could act on the case. Calo filed a petition for writs of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with the CFI of Agusan praying that the enforcement of the opinions be enjoined. TC: DISMISSED: Failure to state a cause of action, lack of jurisdiction and non exhaustion of administrative remedies. ISSUE: Whether or not the TC committed error when it dismissed Calos petition on the basis of Calos failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. Held: NO. Ratio: Calo: The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is the alter ego of the president hence, he need not appeal from the decision of the former to the latter. The withdrawal of the appeal taken to the President of the Philippines is tantamount to not appealing at all thereto. Such withdrawal is fatal, because the appeal to the President is the last step he should take in an administrative case. Furthermore, a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court lies only when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." In the case at bar, appeal from an opinion or order by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to the petitioner.
CASE #90 Securities and Exchange Commission (Sec) and Insurance Commission (Ic) vs. COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. No. 202052, March 7, 2018 Facts
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Regional Office No. 3, petitioner, vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA (RCAM), respondent. G.R. No. 192994. November 12, 2012.* SAMAHANG KABUHAYAN NG SAN LORENZO KKK, INC., represented by its Vice President Zenaida Turla, petitioner, vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, respondent. SAME SAME