G.R. No. 98045. June 26, 1996.

* administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction

is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but even
DESAMPARADO VDA. DE NAZARENO and LETICIA NAZARENO TAPIA, petitioners, finality. Again, when said factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MR. & MRS. JOSE SALASALAN, MR. & MRS. LEO the same are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court.
RABAYA, AVELINO LABIS, HON. ROBERTO G. HILARIO, ROLLEO I. IGNACIO,
ALBERTO M. GILLERA and HON. ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., in their official and/or Public Lands; Property; Accretion; The requirement that the deposit should be
private capacities, respondents. due to the effect of the current of the river is indispensable.—In Republic v. CA,
this Court ruled that the requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect
Public Lands; Property; Accretion; Requisites of Accretion.—In the case of of the current of the river is indispensable. This excludes from Art. 457 of the Civil
Meneses v. CA, this Court held that accretion, as a mode of acquiring property Code all deposits caused by human intervention. Putting it differently, alluvion
under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, requires the concurrence of these requisites: (1) must be the exclusive work of nature. Thus, in Tiongco v. Director of Lands, et al.,
that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be where the land was not formed solely by the natural effect of the water current
the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and (3) that the land of the river bordering said land but is also the consequence of the direct and
where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers (or the sea coast). deliberate intervention of man, it was deemed a man-made accretion and, as
These are called the rules on alluvion which if present in such, part of the public domain.

__________________ Same; Same; Same; The dumping of boulders, soil and other filling materials into
* SECOND DIVISION.
the creek and river bounding the land, the same would still be part of the public
domain.—In the case at bar, the subject land was the direct result of the dumping
a case, give to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or streams any
of sawdust by the Sun Valley Lumber Co. consequent to its sawmill operations.
accretion gradually received from the effects of the current of waters.
Even if this Court were to take into consideration petitioners’ submission that the
accretion site was the result of the late Antonio Nazareno’s labor consisting in the
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Claimants, not having met the first and
dumping of boulders, soil and other filling materials into the Balacanas Creek and
second requirements of the rules on alluvion, cannot claim the rights of riparian
Cagayan River bounding his land, the same would still be part of the public
owner.—In Hilario v. City of Manila, this Court held that the word “current”
domain.
indicates the participation of the body of water in the ebb and flow of waters due
to high and low tide. Petitioners’ submission not having met the first and second
Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; When Bureau of Lands and Office of the
requirements of the rules on alluvion, they cannot claim the rights of a riparian
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources have jurisdiction over the land.—
owner.
Having determined that the subject land is public land, a fortiori, the Bureau of
Lands, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Administrative Law; When findings of administrative agencies are accorded not
have jurisdiction over the same in accordance with the Public Land Law.
only respect but finality.—This Court has often enough held that findings of

1
Accordingly, the court a quo dismissed petitioners’ complaint for non-exhaustion the Director of Lands has jurisdiction, authority and control over the same, as
of administrative remedies which ruling the Court of Appeals affirmed. mandated under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141) which
states, thus: “Sec. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be
Administrative Law; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; When administrative the exclusive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act through
remedies have been exhausted.—However, this Court agrees with petitioners the Director of Lands who shall act under his immediate control. Sec. 4. Subject to
that administrative remedies have been exhausted. Petitioners could not have said control, the Director of Lands shall have direct executive control of the
intended to appeal to respondent Ignacio as an Officer-In-Charge of the Bureau of survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or disposition
Lands. The decision being appealed from was the decision of respondent Hilario and management of the lands of the public domain, and his decisions as to
who was the Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands. Said decision was made questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of
“for and by authority of the Director of Lands.” It would be incongruous to appeal Agriculture and Natural Resources.”
the decision of the Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands acting for the
Director of the Bureau of Lands to an Officer-In-Charge of the Bureau of Lands. Same; Same; When the execution of the order was issued not arbitrarily and
capricious.—In connection with the second issue, petitioners ascribe whim,
Same; Same; When the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources may arbitrariness or capriciousness in the execution order of public respondent
modify, adopt, or set aside the orders or decisions of Director of Lands.—In any Abelardo G. Palad, the Director of Lands. This Court finds otherwise since said
case, respondent Rolleo Ignacio’s official designation was “Undersecretary of the decision was based on the conclusive finding that the subject land was public
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.” He was only an “Officer-In- land. Thus, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the Director of Lands
Charge” of the Bureau of Lands. When he acted on the late Antonio Nazareno’s acted within his rights when he issued the assailed execution order, as mandated
motion for reconsideration by affirming or adopting respondent Hilario’s decision, by the aforecited provisions.
he was acting on said motion as an Undersecretary on behalf of the Secretary of
the Department. In the case of Hamoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Same; Same; When Director of Lands is authorized to exercise executive control
Resources, this Court held that the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural of public domain.—As Director of Lands, respondent Palad is authorized to
Resources may modify, adopt, or set aside the orders or decisions of the Director exercise executive control over any form of concession, disposition and
of Lands with respect to questions involving public lands under the administration management of the lands of the public domain. He may issue decisions and
and control of the Bureau of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and orders as he may see fit under the circumstances as long as they are based on the
Natural Resources. He cannot, therefore, be said to have acted beyond the findings of fact.
bounds of his jurisdiction under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Commonwealth Act No.
141. Same; Same; When Director of Lands acts within his jurisdiction in disposing
public lands.—In the case of Calibo v. Ballesteros, this Court held that where, in
Public Lands; Property; Accretion; Jurisdiction; When Director of Lands has the disposition of public lands, the Director of Lands bases his decision on the
jurisdiction over the land.—As borne out by the administrative findings, the evidence thus presented, he clearly acts within his jurisdiction, and if he errs in
controverted land is public land, being an artificial accretion of sawdust. As such, appraising the evidence, the error is one of judgment, but not an act of grave
2
abuse of discretion annullable by certiorari. Thus, except for the issue of non- decision was rendered against private respondents, which decision was affirmed
exhaustion of administrative remedies, this Court finds no reversible error nor by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20.
grave abuse of discretion in the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The case was remanded to the municipal trial court for execution of judgment
PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals. after the same became final and executory. Private respondents filed a case for
annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Branch 24 which dismissed the same. Antonio Nazareno and petitioners again
moved for execution of judgment but private respondents filed another case for
     Manolo L. Tagarda, Sr. for petitioners. certiorari with prayer for restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
with the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 25 which was likewise
     Arturo R. Legaspi for private respondents. dismissed. The decision of the lower court was finally enforced with the private
respondents being ejected from portions of the subject lots they occupied.
ROMERO, J.:
Before he died, Antonio Nazareno caused the approval by the Bureau of Lands of
Petitioners Desamparado Vda. de Nazareno and Leticia Nazareno Tapia challenge the survey plan designated as Plan Csd-106-00571 with a view to perfecting his
the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ title over the accretion area being claimed by him. Before the approved survey
complaint by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 22. The plan could be released to the applicant, however, it was protested by private
complaint was for annulment of the verification, report and recommendation, respondents before the Bureau of Lands.
decision and order of the Bureau of Lands regarding a parcel of public land.
In compliance with the order of respondent District Land Officer Alberto M.
The only issue involved in this petition is whether or not petitioners exhausted Gillera, respondent Land Investigator Avelino G. Labis conducted an investigation
administrative remedies before having recourse to the courts. and rendered a report to the Regional Director recommending that Survey Plan
No. MSI-10-06-000571-D (equivalent to Lot No. 36302, Cad. 237) in the name of
The subject of this controversy is a parcel of land situated in Telegrapo, Puntod, Antonio Nazareno, be cancelled and that private respondents be directed to file
Cagayan de Oro City. Said land was formed as a result of sawdust dumped into appropriate public land applications.
the dried-up Balacanas Creek and along the banks of the Cagayan river.
Based on said report, respondent Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands
Sometime in 1979, private respondents Jose Salasalan and Leo Rabaya leased the Roberto Hilario rendered a decision ordering the amendment of the survey plan
subject lots on which their houses stood from one Antonio Nazareno, petitioners’ in the name of Antonio Nazareno by segregating therefrom the areas occupied by
predecessor-in-interest. In the latter part of 1982, private respondents allegedly the private respondents who, if qualified, may file public land applications
stopped paying rentals. As a result, Antonio Nazareno and petitioners filed a case covering their respective portions.
for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 4. A
3
Antonio Nazareno filed a motion for reconsideration with respondent Rolleo Natural Resources, the present case does not fall within the exception to the
Ignacio, Undersecretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Officer-in- doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. It also held that there was no
Charge of the Bureau of Lands who denied the motion. Respondent Director of showing of oppressiveness in the manner in which the orders
Lands Abelardo Palad then ordered him to vacate the portions adjudicated to
private respondents and remove whatever improvements they have introduced _________________
thereon. He also ordered that private respondents be placed in possession 1 Decision in CA-G.R. No. 22927 penned by Justice Segundino Chua, pp. 55-56, Rollo.

thereof.
were issued and executed.
Upon the denial of the late Antonio Nazareno’s motion for reconsideration,
petitioners Desamparado Vda. de Nazareno and Leticia Tapia Nazareno, filed a Hence, this petition.
case before the RTC, Branch 22 for annulment of the following: order of
investigation by respondent Gillera, report and recommendation by respondent Petitioners assign the following errors:
Labis, decision by respondent Hilario, order by respondent Ignacio affirming the
decision of respondent Hilario and order of execution by respondent Palad. The I.PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS IN A WHIMSICAL, ARBITRARY AND
RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies which CAPRICIOUS MANNER AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT WHICH IS
resulted in the finality of the administrative decision of the Bureau of Lands. CONTRARY TO THE PREVAILING FACTS AND THE LAW ON THE MATTER;
II.PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS IN A WHIMSICAL, ARBITRARY AND
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC dismissing the CAPRICIOUS MANNER AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT
complaint. Applying Section 4 of C.A. No. 141, as amended, it contended that the DISMISSING THE ORIGINAL CASE WHICH FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE
approval of the survey plan belongs exclusively to the Director of Lands. Hence, EXECUTION ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT ABELARDO G. PALAD, JR., DIRECTOR
factual findings made by the Metropolitan Trial Court respecting the subject land OF LANDS, MANILA, PRACTICALLY CHANGED THE DECISION OF PUBLIC
cannot be held to be controlling as the preparation and approval of said survey RESPONDENT ROBERTO HILARIO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LANDS,
plans belong to the Director of Lands and the same shall be conclusive when REGION 10, THUS MAKING THE CASE PROPER SUBJECT FOR ANNULMENT WELL
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.1 WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT.
The resolution of the above issues, however, hinges on the question of whether
Furthermore, the appellate court contended that the motion for reconsideration or not the subject land is public land. Petitioners claim that the subject land is
filed by Antonio Nazareno cannot be considered as an appeal to the Office of the private land being an accretion to his titled property, applying Article 457 of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as mandated by C.A. No. 141 Civil Code which provides:
inasmuch as the same had been acted upon by respondent Undersecretary
Ignacio in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Lands and not as “To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which
Undersecretary acting for the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. For they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.”
the failure of Antonio Nazareno to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and
4
In the case of Meneses v. CA,2 this Court held that accretion, as a mode of land, having been the subject of Survey Plan No. MSi-10-06-000571-D (Equivalent
acquiring property under Art. 457 of the Civil Code, requires the concurrence of to Lot No. 36302, Cad-237) which was conducted as a consequence of Antonio
these requisites: (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and Nazareno’s Miscellaneous Sales Application wherein said land was described as
imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or an orchard. Said description by Antonio Nazareno was, however, controverted by
sea); and (3) that the land where accretion takes respondent Labis in his investigation report to respondent Hilario based on the
findings of his ocular inspection that said land actually covers
___________________
2 246 SCRA 374 (1995). ____________________
3 Petition, p. 16, Rollo.
place is adjacent to the banks of rivers (or the sea coast). These are called the 4 19 SCRA 931 (1967).
5 Memorandum for Private Respondents, p. 118, Rollo.
rules on alluvion which if present in a case, give to the owners of lands adjoining
the banks of rivers or streams any accretion gradually received from the effects of a dry portion of Balacanas Creek and a swampy portion of Cagayan River. The
the current of waters. investigation report also states that, except for the swampy portion which is fully
planted to nipa palms, the whole area is fully occupied by a part of a big concrete
For petitioners to insist on the application of these rules on alluvion to their case, bodega of petitioners and several residential houses made of light materials,
the above-mentioned requisites must be present. However, they admit that the including those of private respondents which were erected by themselves
accretion was formed by the dumping of boulders, soil and other filling materials sometime in the early part of 1978.6
on portions of the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan River bounding their land.3 It
cannot be claimed, therefore, that the accumulation of such boulders, soil and Furthermore, the Bureau of Lands classified the subject land as an accretion area
other filling materials was gradual and imperceptible, resulting from the action of which was formed by deposits of sawdust in the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan
the waters or the current of the Balacanas Creek and the Cagayan River. In Hilario river, in accordance with the ocular inspection conducted by the Bureau of
v. City of Manila,4 this Court held that the word “current” indicates the Lands.7 This Court has often enough held that findings of administrative agencies
participation of the body of water in the ebb and flow of waters due to high and which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
low tide. Petitioners’ submission not having met the first and second matters are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.8 Again, when
requirements of the rules on alluvion, they cannot claim the rights of a riparian said factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the same are conclusive
owner. on the parties and not reviewable by this Court.9

In any case, this court agrees with private respondents that petitioners are It is this Court’s irresistible conclusion, therefore, that the accretion was man-
estopped from denying the public character of the subject land, as well as the made or artificial. In Republic v. CA,10 this Court ruled that the requirement that
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands when the late Antonio Nazareno filed his the deposit should be due to the effect of the current of the river is indispensable.
Miscellaneous Sales Application MSA (G-6) 571.5 The mere filing of said This excludes from Art. 457 of the Civil Code all deposits caused by human
Application constituted an admission that the land being applied for was public intervention. Putting it differently, alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature.
5
Thus, in Tiongco v. Director of Lands, et al.,11 where the land was not formed Director of the Bureau of Lands. Said decision was made “for and by authority of
solely by the natural effect of the water current of the river bordering said land the Director of Lands.”14 It would be incongruous to appeal the decision of the
but is also the consequence of the direct and deliberate intervention of man, it Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands acting for the Director of the Bureau of
was deemed a man- Lands to an Officer-In-Charge of the Bureau of Lands.

__________________ In any case, respondent Rolleo Ignacio’s official designation was “Undersecretary
6 Annex “C,” Investigation Report, p. 30, Rollo. of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.” He was only an
7 Appendices “D” and “E,” pp. 33-37, Rollo.
8 COCOFED v. Trajano, 241 SCRA 362 (1995). “Officer-In-Charge” of the Bureau of Lands. When he acted on the late Antonio
9 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. CA, 229 SCRA 533 (1994). Nazareno’s motion for reconsideration by affirming or adopting respondent
10 132 SCRA 514 (1984).
Hilario’s decision, he was acting on said motion as
11 16 C.A. Rep. 211.

made accretion and, as such, part of the public domain. __________________

12 Investigation Report, Appendix “C,” p. 30, Rollo.
13 Petition, p. 16, Rollo.
In the case at bar, the subject land was the direct result of the dumping of 14 Appendix “D,” p. 33, Rollo.

sawdust by the Sun Valley Lumber Co. consequent to its sawmill operations.12
Even if this Court were to take into consideration petitioners’ submission that the an Undersecretary on behalf of the Secretary of the Department. In the case of
accretion site was the result of the late Antonio Nazareno’s labor consisting in the Hamoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,15 this Court held that
dumping of boulders, soil and other filling materials into the Balacanas Creek and the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources may modify, adopt, or
Cagayan River bounding his land,13 the same would still be part of the public set aside the orders or decisions of the Director of Lands with respect to
domain. questions involving public lands under the administration and control of the
Bureau of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. He
Having determined that the subject land is public land, a fortiori, the Bureau of cannot, therefore, be said to have acted beyond the bounds of his jurisdiction
Lands, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.16
have jurisdiction over the same in accordance with the Public Land Law.
Accordingly, the court a quo dismissed petitioners’ complaint for non-exhaustion As borne out by the administrative findings, the controverted land is public land,
of administrative remedies which ruling the Court of Appeals affirmed. being an artificial accretion of sawdust. As such, the Director of Lands has
jurisdiction, authority and control over the same, as mandated under Sections 3
However, this Court agrees with petitioners that administrative remedies have and 4 of the Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141) which states, thus:
been exhausted. Petitioners could not have intended to appeal to respondent
Ignacio as an Officer-In-Charge of the Bureau of Lands. The decision being “Sec. 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be the exclusive
appealed from was the decision of respondent Hilario who was the Regional officer charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act through the Director of
Lands who shall act under his immediate control.
6
Sec. 4. Subject to said control, the Director of Lands shall have direct executive While private respondents may not have filed their application over the land
control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of concession or occupied by them, they nevertheless filed their protest or opposition to
disposition and management of the lands of the public domain, and his decisions petitioners’ Miscellaneous Sales Application, the same being preparatory to the
as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of filing of an application as they were in fact directed to do so. In any case,
Agriculture and Natural Resources.” respondent Palad’s execution order merely implements respondent Hilario’s
order. It should be noted that petitioners’ own application still has to be given
In connection with the second issue, petitioners ascribe whim, arbitrariness or due course.17
capriciousness in the execution order of public respondent Abelardo G. Palad, the
Director of Lands. This Court finds otherwise since said decision was based on the As Director of Lands, respondent Palad is authorized to exercise executive control
conclusive finding that the subject land was public land. Thus, this Court agrees over any form of concession, disposition and management of the lands of the
with the Court of Appeals that the public domain.18 He may issue decisions and orders as he may see fit under the
circumstances as long as they are based on the findings of fact.
___________________ ____________________
15 106 Phil. 1046 (1960). 17 Appendix “D,” p. 35, Rollo.
16 Hamoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, supra. 18 Pineda v. CFI of Davao, 1 SCRA 1020.

Director of Lands acted within his rights when he issued the assailed execution In the case of Calibo v. Ballesteros,19 this Court held that where, in the
order, as mandated by the aforecited provisions. disposition of public lands, the Director of Lands bases his decision on the
evidence thus presented, he clearly acts within his jurisdiction, and if he errs in
Petitioners’ allegation that respondent Palad’s execution order directing them to appraising the evidence, the error is one of judgment, but not an act of grave
vacate the subject land practically changed respondent Hilario’s decision is abuse of discretion annullable by certiorari. Thus, except for the issue of non-
baseless. It is incorrect for petitioners to assume that respondent Palad awarded exhaustion of administrative remedies, this Court finds no reversible error nor
portions of the subject land to private respondents Salasalans and Rabayas as grave abuse of discretion in the decision of the Court of Appeals.
they had not yet been issued patents or titles over the subject land. The execution
order merely directed the segregation of petitioners’ titled lot from the subject WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
land which was actually being occupied by private respondents before they were
ejected from it. Based on the finding that private respondents were actually in SO ORDERED.
possession or were actually occupying the subject land instead of petitioners,
respondent Palad, being the Director of Lands and in the exercise of his      Regalado (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
administrative discretion, directed petitioners to vacate the subject land on the
ground that private respondents have a preferential right, being the occupants Petition dismissed.
thereof.
7
Notes.—Director of Lands has no authority to grant a free patent over land that
has passed to private ownership and which has thereby ceased to be public land.
Any title thus issued or conveyed by him would be null and void. (Ferrer vs.
Bautista, 231 SCRA 257 [1994])

It is only after the issuance of a Free Patent and title that the Government is
divested of its ownership of the land subject of said grant. (Javier vs. Court of
Appeals, 231 SCRA 498 [1994])

——o0o——

___________________

19 15 SCRA 37 (1965).

603

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. Vda. de Nazareno
vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 589, G.R. No. 98045 June 26, 1996