12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

 
 

G.R. No. 187186. June 6, 2018.*

 
ALICIA C. GALINDEZ, petitioner, vs. SALVACION FIRMALAN;
THE HON. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT THROUGH THE
HON. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; and THE
REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR-REGION IV,
respondents.

Civil Law; Sale of Public Lands; Persons Eligible to Purchase

Agricultural and Disposable Land.—When it comes to the sale of
public land, the Public Land Act provides that the following
persons are eligible to purchase agricultural and disposable land:
1) Filipino citizen of lawful age; 2) Filipino citizen not of lawful
age but is the head of a family; 3) A corporation or association
organized and constituted under the Philippine laws with at least
60% of its capital stock or interest in its capital belonging wholly
to Filipino citizens; and 4) Corporations organized and constituted
under Philippine laws who are allowed by their charters to
purchase tracts of public agricultural and disposable land.
Same; Land Registration; The Public Land Act provides that
the Director of Lands, under the immediate control of the Secretary
of Agriculture and Commerce, now the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary, has
executive control over the survey, classification, lease, concession,
disposition, and management

_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.

 
 
283

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 283

Galindez vs. Firmalan

of lands under the public domain.—The Public Land Act

further provides that the Director of Lands, under the immediate

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

control of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, now the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary,
has executive control over the survey, classification, lease,
concession, disposition, and management of lands under the
public domain. In pursuance of its functions, the Director of
Lands is empowered to put in place such rules and regulations,
which would best carry out the provisions of the Public Land Act.
The Public Land Act also states that the decisions of the Director
of Lands “as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.” This
respect accorded to the factual findings of an administrative body
is echoed in Rule 43, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Findings of Fact;
Rule 43, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
findings of fact of a quasi-judicial agency, when supported by
substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals
(CA). Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding
the findings of fact of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and of the Office of the President.—Rule 43,
Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that findings of
fact of a quasi-judicial agency, when supported by substantial
evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals. Consequently,
the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the findings of fact
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and of
the Office of the President.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Franklin Delano Sacmar for petitioner.
   Paciano Fallar, Jr. for respondents.

 
LEONEN, J.:
 
Findings of fact by the Director of Lands shall be
conclusive when approved by the Department of
Environment and Natu-
 
 

284

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

ral Resources Secretary and supported by substantial

evidence.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed

by Alicia C. Galindez (Alicia) assailing the Court of
Appeals’ November 27, 2008 Decision2 and March 13, 2009
Resolution3 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 95114, which upheld the
Office of the President’s January 31, 2006 Decision4 in O.P.
Case No. 05-D-118.
On May 16, 1949, Salvacion Firmalan (Firmalan) filed
an application with the Bureau of Lands for a 150-
m2  parcel of land in Barrio Capaclan, Romblon, Romblon.
Her application was docketed as Miscellaneous Sales
Application (MSA) No. V-7861.5
The District Land Office reported that the vacant lot
which Firmalan applied for was suited for residential
purposes and recommended the approval of her
application.6
On February 23, 1950, the Chief of the Public Land
Division directed the District Land Office to reappraise the
lot covered by Firmalan’s application. Records showed that
no action was taken on the order for reappraisal of
Firmalan’s application.7

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 11-35.

2 Id., at pp. 37-46. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Sixto
C. Marella, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G.
Tolentino and Japar B. Dimaampao of the Thirteenth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila.
3 Id., at pp. 48-49. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Sixto C. Marella, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G.
Tolentino and Japar B. Dimaampao of the Former Thirteenth Division,
Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id., at pp. 73-83. The Decision was penned by Undersecretary
Enrique D. Perez.
5  Id., at pp. 73-74.
6  Id., at p. 74.
7  Id.

 
 

285

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 285

Galindez vs. Firmalan

On April 25, 1967, or almost 18 years after filing her

first application, Firmalan filed another application. Her
second application was for Lot No. 915 Cad-311-D in

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

Romblon Cadastre and was docketed as MSA No. (V-6) 23.

Lot No. 915 had an area of 325 m2 and included the 150-
m2 lot subject of Firmalan’s first application.8
The Acting District Land Officer recommended the
approval of Firmalan’s second application.9
Alicia filed a protest to Firmalan’s second application.
She claimed that from November 1951, she and her family
had been in constant possession of a portion of the 325-
m2  lot covered by Firmalan’s second application. She also
claimed that she had built a house and planted coconut
trees on the lot which Firmalan applied for.10
Alicia stated that on February 20, 1964, she filed an
application over the lot occupied by her family and that her
application was docketed as MSA No. (V-6) 44.11
On June 23, 1968, the Acting District Land Officer
requested that all actions on Firmalan’s second application
be held in abeyance due to the protest filed against
it.12 The Director of Lands then ordered the Regional Land
Director to conduct a formal investigation on the matter.13
On July 11, 1978, Land Inspector Mabini Fabreo
(Inspector Fabreo) reported to the Director of Lands that
after conducting an ocular inspection and investigation, he
discovered that the lot covered by Firmalan’s second
application was occupied by Firmalan and Felipe Gaa, Sr.
(Gaa), with the lot equally divided between them. Inspector
Fabreo recommended that

_______________

8   Id., at pp. 38, 74.

9   Id., at p. 74.
10  Id.
11  Id.
12  Id.
13  Id., at p. 38.

 
 
286

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

the area occupied by Gaa be excluded from Firmalan’s

application.14
On March 20, 1981, Inspector Fabreo submitted a
second report15  where he corrected his earlier statement
that Firmalan occupied the lot covered by her second

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

application. He clarified that when he made his ocular

inspection, it was Elmer Galindez (Elmer), son of
Alicia,16  he saw occupying the lot beside Gaa, not
Firmalan.17
On May 5, 1982, Firmalan filed a complaint for forcible
entry against Elmer. This was docketed as Civil Case No.
110 before the Municipal Trial Court of Romblon,
Romblon.18
On February 1, 1984, the Municipal Trial
Court19  dismissed the complaint and declared that it was
only the Bureau of Lands that could determine who
between Firmalan and Elmer had the better right over the
disputed lot:

On the decisional rules and jurisprudence of our Supreme

Court already cited, this Court is legally powerless really to
determine as to who is entitled or as to who has the right to occupy
the lot in question — this, according to It, is committed to the
Bureau of Lands.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby orders
this case  DISMISSED. Let a copy of this decision be also
furnished the Bureau of Lands with the suggestion that the
applications of the parties be determined as soon as
possible. Without pronouncement as to costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.20 (Emphasis in the original)

_______________

14  Id., at p. 75.
15  Id., at p. 92.
16  Id., at p. 90.
17  Id., at p. 92.
18  Id., at p. 93.
19   Id., at pp. 93-95. The Decision was penned by Judge Jeoffrey N.
Fabic.
20  Id., at p. 95.

 
 
287

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 287

Galindez vs. Firmalan

On March 11, 1985, after receiving testimonies and

documentary evidence from the parties, Supervising Land
Examiner Dionico F. Gabay (Examiner Gabay) of the
Bureau of Lands submitted a report21 where he wrote that
there was no dispute as regards the area occupied by
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

Gaa.22 Nonetheless, Examiner Gabay opined that between

Firmalan and Alicia, Firmalan had the superior right over
the lot in question because she was the rightful applicant,
while Alicia obtained possession of the lot through trickery
and willful defiance of the law.23
Examiner Gabay then recommended that the portion
occupied by Gaa be segregated from the area subject of the
conflicting claims between Firmalan and Elmer, and for
Firmalan’s claims and that of Alicia, through Elmer, to be
resolved.24  His report was elevated to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.25
On August 27, 1990,26  the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Regional Executive Director (the
Regional Executive Director) concluded that Firmalan filed
her miscellaneous sales application over the disputed
portion of Lot No. 915 earlier than Alicia. The Regional
Executive Director upheld Firmalan’s right to acquire the
portion of Lot No. 915, reasoning out that Firmalan’s first
application on May 16, 1949 was given due course even if
records showed that no subsequent actions were taken. On
the other hand, Alicia was informed that the lot which she
was applying for was already covered by a subsisting
application. The Regional Executive Director emphasized
that a claim of actual ownership, no matter how long an
occupant has possessed a public land, will

_______________

21  Id., at pp. 85-91.

22  Id., at p. 90.
23  Id., at pp. 90-91.
24  Id., at p. 91.
25  Id., at p. 39.
26  Id., at p. 73.

 
 
288

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

never ripen into ownership since public land can only be

acquired under the provisions of the Public Land Act.27
Alicia moved for the reconsideration of the Regional
Executive Director’s August 27, 1990 Order, but her motion
was denied in the subsequent Regional Executive Director’s
November 15, 1991 Order.28

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

Alicia then appealed her case before the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, but on June 29,
1998,29  the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Secretary affirmed the Regional Executive
Director’s Orders.
The dispositive portion of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources’ June 29, 1998 Decision read:
 

WHEREFORE, Miscellaneous Lease Application No. (IV-

A-9) 35 of Alicia Galindez is hereby, as it is ordered
REJECTED and whatever amount paid on account thereof
is forfeited in favor of the Government. Alicia Galindez
and/or Elmer Galindez is/are hereby ordered to vacate the
premises. The Miscellaneous Lease Application No. V-1612
of Felipe Gaa, Sr. is ordered REINSTATED and given due
course. The Miscellaneous Sales Application No. . . . V-7861
of Salvacion Firmalan is ordered REJECTED and her other
Miscellaneous Sales Application No. (V-6) 23 is ordered
amended to cover the other half-portion of Lot 915 and is
hereby given due course. Both applications, the M.L.A. V-
1612 of Felipe Gaa, Sr. and M.S.A. No. (V-6) 23 of Salvacion
Firmalan are subject to the road-right-of-way as suggested
by the Department of Public Works and Highways.30

_______________

27  Id., at p. 40.
28  Id., at pp. 40, 73.
29  Id., at p. 73. The Decision was docketed as DENR Case No. 7340.
30  Id.

 
 
289

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 289

Galindez vs. Firmalan

Alicia moved for the reconsideration of this Decision, but

on March 28, 2005,31 the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Secretary denied her motion.
On April 19, 2005,32  Alicia appealed the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources’ decisions before the
Office of the President.
On January 31, 2006, the Office of the President denied the
appeal and affirmed the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources’ decisions.33

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

The Office of the President brushed aside Alicia’s claim

that she was denied due process. It noted that she was
represented by counsel during the proceedings and that she
was able to present her evidence during the hearings.34
The Office of the President then upheld the findings of
fact of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and of its field officers that Firmalan filed her
application over Lot No. 915 ahead of Alicia.35 The fallo  of
the Office of the President’s Decision read:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant appeal

is hereby  DENIED. Accordingly, the appealed Decisions of the
Department of
Environment and Natural Resources are
hereby AFFIRMED.36 (Emphasis in the original)

 
Alicia moved for the reconsideration of the Office of the
President’s January 31, 2006 Decision, but on June 1, 2006,37

_______________

31  Id., at pp. 40-41.

32  Id., at p. 73.
33  Id., at pp. 73-83.
34  Id., at p. 82.
35  Id., at p. 83.
36  Id.
37 Id., at p. 84. The Resolution was penned by Undersecretary Enrique
D. Perez.

 
 
290

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

the Office of the President denied her motion for

reconsideration.
Alicia filed an appeal38 before the Court of Appeals.
On November 27, 2008, the Court of Appeals39  denied
her appeal and upheld the decision of the Office of the
President.
The Court of Appeals found that Firmalan filed her application
over Lot No. 915 ahead of Alicia. It held that Firmalan’s failure to
occupy the lot should not be taken against her because she did so
in compliance with the terms of the miscellaneous sales
application.40

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

The Court of Appeals indicated that Alicia’s lengthy

possession of the disputed lot could not be taken in her
favor and could not vest her with preferential status on her
application because it violated the terms of the
miscellaneous sales application.41
The  fallo  of the Court of Appeals’ November 27, 2008
Decision read:

WHEREFORE, the petition is denied and the decision of

the Office of the President is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.42 (Emphasis in the original)

 
Alicia moved for the reconsideration of this decision, but
her motion was denied in the Court of Appeals’ March 13,
2009 Resolution.43
On May 4, 2009, Alicia filed a Petition for Review
on Certiorari before this Court.44

_______________

38  Id., at pp. 52-72.

39  Id., at pp. 37-46.
40  Id., at p. 43.
41  Id., at pp. 43-44.
42  Id., at p. 45.
43  Id., at pp. 48-49.
44  Id., at pp. 11-35.

 
 
291

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 291

Galindez vs. Firmalan

Petitioner Alicia does not deny that respondent

Firmalan filed a miscellaneous sales application over a
portion of Lot No. 915 on May 16, 1949, but she insists that
the application was treated as if it was never filed because
the lot had not yet been surveyed or appraised, and the
order for its appraisal was not complied with.45
Petitioner asserts that her family has freely and openly
occupied the lot as early as November 1, 1950 and has
declared it for taxation purposes in 1956. Furthermore, on
February 20, 1964, as the true occupants of the lot,
petitioner even filed a miscellaneous sales application over
a portion of Lot No. 915 with the Bureau of Lands.46

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

Petitioner also maintains that respondent’s daughter

admitted that respondent and her family entered the
disputed lot and fenced it after her mother filed an
application, thereby violating the terms of the
miscellaneous sales application.47
Petitioner concedes to also violating the miscellaneous
sales application when she and her family entered the lot
before their application was approved. Nonetheless, she
contends that between respondent, who admitted
occupying the lot at one time, and herself, who possessed
the same continuously for more than 50 years, her
application should have been given preference over that of
respondent’s.48
Petitioner likewise draws attention to her long years of
continued and uninterrupted stay over the disputed lot and
states that as its actual occupant, she should have been
given preferential status, as mandated by the Public Land
Act.49
Petitioner accuses respondent of applying for as many
lots as she could, regardless of whether there were actual
occupants on the lots being applied for and of having
“unlawful 

_______________

45  Id., at p. 15.
46  Id., at p. 16.
47  Id., at p. 24.
48  Id., at pp. 24-25.
49  Id., at p. 27.

 
 
292

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

support from some elements in the Bureau of Lands and

the [Department of Environment and Natural
50
Resources].”   Hence, their support led to the approval of
her applications.51
In her Comment,52  respondent stresses that the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals made
unanimous factual findings that she adhered to the terms
of her miscellaneous sales application. She points out that
the administrative bodies and the Court of Appeals all

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

ruled that petitioner acted in bad faith when she occupied

the disputed lot; hence, her possession of the lot will not
ripen into ownership.53
In her Reply,54  petitioner underscores that the
conclusion contained in the Bureau of Lands Report
submitted by Examiner Gabay — that respondent never
entered into or possessed the lot — contradicts the
testimony of respondent’s own daughter. She avers that the
testimony of respondent’s daughter was mentioned in
Examiner Gabay’s report, yet he still concluded that
respondent never occupied the disputed lot, showing his
undeniable bias in Firmalan’s favor.55
Petitioner repeats that as the longtime occupant of the
lot, she has a preferential status over it.56
The sole issue for this Court’s resolution is whether or
not petitioner Alicia Galindez’s application should have
been given preference over respondent Salvacion
Firmalan’s application, in light of the former’s longtime
possession of the disputed lot.
The Petition must fail.

_______________

50  Id., at p. 28.
51  Id.
52  Id., at pp. 135-139.
53  Id., at pp. 137-138.
54  Id., at pp. 142-152.
55  Id., at pp. 145-146.
56  Id., at p. 149.

 
 
293

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 293

Galindez vs. Firmalan

I
 
Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the Public Land Act,
enumerates the ways in which the State may dispose of
agricultural lands:

Section 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes

can be disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:
(1) For homestead settlement;
(2) By sale;
(3) By lease;
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

(4) By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:

(a) By judicial legalization;
(b) By administrative legalization (free
patent).

 
When it comes to the sale of public land, the Public Land
Act provides that the following persons are eligible to
purchase agricultural and disposable land:
 
1) Filipino citizen of lawful age;
2) Filipino citizen not of lawful age but is the head of a
family;
3) A corporation or association organized and constituted
under the Philippine laws with at least 60% of its
capital stock or interest in its capital belonging wholly
to Filipino citizens; and
4) Corporations organized and constituted under
Philippine laws who are allowed by their charters to
purchase tracts of public agricultural and disposable
land.57

_______________

57  Com. Act No. 141 (1936), Sec. 22 provides:

Section 22. Any citizen of lawful age of the Philippines, and
any such citizen not of lawful age who is a head of a family, and
any corporation or association of which at least

 
 
294

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

The Public Land Act further provides that the Director

of Lands, under the immediate control of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce, now the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Secretary, has
executive control over the survey, classification, lease,
concession, disposition, and management of lands under
the public domain.58  In pursuance of its functions, the
Director of Lands is empowered to put in place such rules
and regulations, which would best carry out the provisions
of the Public Land Act.59

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

sixty per centum of the capital stock or of any interest in said

capital stock belongs wholly to citizens of the Philippines, and
which is organized and constituted under the laws of the
Philippines, and corporate bodies organized in the Philippines
authorized under their charters to do so, may purchase any tract of
public agricultural land disposable under this Act, not to exceed one
hundred and forty-four hectares in the case of an individual and
one thousand and twenty-four hectares in that of a corporation or
association, by proceeding as prescribed in this chapter: Provided,
That partnerships shall be entitled to purchase not to exceed one
hundred and forty-four hectares for each member thereof, but the
total area so purchased shall in no case exceed the one thousand
and twenty-four hectares authorized in this section for associations
and corporations.
58  Com. Act No. 141 (1936), Secs. 3 and 4 provide:
Section 3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall be
the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of
this Act through the Director of Lands, who shall act under his
immediate control.
Section 4. Subject to said control, the Director of Lands shall
have direct executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale
or any other form of concession or disposition and management of
the lands of the public domain, and his decisions as to questions of
fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce.
59  Com. Act No. 141 (1936), Sec. 5 provides:
Section 5. The Director of Lands, with the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall prepare and issue
such forms, instructions, rules, and regulations consis-

 
 
295

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 295

Galindez vs. Firmalan

The Public Land Act also states that the decisions of the
Director of Lands “as to questions of fact shall be conclusive
when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce.”60 This respect accorded to the factual findings
of an administrative body is echoed in Rule 43, Section 10
of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

Section 10. Due course.—If upon the filing of the comment or

such other pleadings or documents as may be required or allowed
by the Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the period for the
filing thereof, and on the basis of the petition or the records the
Court of Appeals finds  prima facie  that the court or agency

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

concerned has committed errors of fact or law that would warrant

reversal or modification of the award, judgment, final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed, it may give due course to the
petition; otherwise, it shall dismiss the same. The findings of fact
of the court or agency concerned, when supported by substantial
evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.  (Emphasis
supplied)

 
II
 
Petitioner faults the Court of Appeals for upholding the
ruling of the Office of the President when it supposedly
showed bias and was unsubstantiated by evidence.
Petitioner fails to convince.
Bureau of Lands Examiner Gabay, after an ocular
inspection of Lot No. 915 and a formal hearing between the
parties, who were then represented by counsels and were
given the opportunity to present their
61
evidence,  concluded that there was no conflicting claim as
to the portion of the lot occupied

_______________

tent with this Act, as may be necessary and proper to carry into
effect the provisions thereof and for the conduct of proceedings
arising under such provisions.
60  Com. Act No. 141 (1936), Sec. 4.
61  Rollo, pp. 86-90.

 
 
296

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

by Gaa. The conflict was limited to the northern side of Lot No.
915, or the portion occupied by petitioner.62  Examiner Gabay
then opined that between petitioner and respondent, respondent
was the rightful applicant over the disputed lot:

The conflict between Salvacion Firmalan and Alicia Galindez

thru her son Elmer Galindez is a .  .  . case of an applicant as
Salvacion Firmalan, who did no[t] exercise actual occupation or
possession of the lot in question because of her sincere compliance
and faithful obedience of the conditions set forth by the Public
Land Law, providing among others, that, ‘‘Unless and until your
application is approved, you are not authorized to enter upon the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

land and introduced (sic) valuable improvements thereon as any

improvements that you may introduced (sic) will be at your own
risk.”
And here comes another claimant, thru trickery and
scheme and willful defiance of such provisions of the law
introduces his own improvements at his own risk and who
succeeded in actually exercising occupation of the land in
question despite the vehement objection and protest of the
applicant, as it is shown from the letter-protests of
Salvacion Firmalan addressed to the Provincial
Commander, Ministry of Public Works & Highways and to
the Ministry of Natural Resources, requesting for assistance
regarding the alleged entry and construction of a house on
the lot in question by certain P.C. Sgt. Elmer Galindez.
It is also worthy (sic) mentioning that on May 7, 1968,
Atty. Sydicious Panoy, the Actg. [District Land Officer] of
this Office had wrote (sic) a letter to the father of Elmer
Galindez, a certain Adriatico Galindez, informing him of his
liability under the provisions of RA 947, providing among
others as follows: Sec. 1. “It shall be unlawful for any
person, corporation or association to enter or occupy
through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth any
public agricultural land including such public

______________

62  Id., at p. 90.

 
 
297

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 297

Galindez vs. Firmalan

land as are granted to private individual[s] under the provis[i]ons

of the Public Land Act.”63

The Bureau of Lands Report was elevated to the

Regional Executive Director who found that respondent
filed two (2) applications for the same lot in 1949 and 1967,
and paid the required guaranty fees for both applications.
Respondent’s applications were both acknowledged and
recommended for approval by the District Land Officer.64
As for petitioner, the Regional Executive Director
pointed out that the records belied her assertion that she
filed a miscellaneous sales application on February 20,
1964. Petitioner was advised to file an application, which
she did on July 16, 1970. However, she was informed that
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

the lot she was applying for was already covered by

respondent’s application and that even if her application
was converted into a miscellaneous lease application, it
would still conflict with respondent’s miscellaneous sales
application.65
The Regional Executive Director then concluded that
petitioner never occupied the disputed lot continuously, as
she claimed, because in 1971, petitioner sold to Margie
Royo the house that her husband built in 1951. Thus,
petitioner vacated the premises. The house was then sold
to Florentino Mendez who, thereafter, sold it to Toribio
Firmalan, respondent’s husband.66
Sometime in 1982, Elmer built a house on the disputed
lot.67  The Regional Executive Director held that this was
made in bad faith, since possession of the lot had, by then,
passed on to respondent. The construction of the house also
violated the terms of petitioner’s application.68

_______________

63  Id., at pp. 90-91.

64  Id., at p. 78.
65  Id.
66  Id., at pp. 78, 86-87.
67  Id., at p. 87.
68  Id., at pp. 78-79.

 
 
298

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

The Regional Executive Director confirmed that

respondent had a better right than petitioner over the
disputed lot because respondent filed her miscellaneous
sales application ahead of petitioner and complied with the
rules and regulations governing her application.69
On appeal, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Secretary affirmed the Regional Executive
Director’s Orders and denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.70
The Office of the President likewise upheld the findings
of fact of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources officers, which, it emphasized, were arrived at
after conducting “ocular inspections, investigations and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

hearings on the subject land.”71 The Office of the President

stated:

At any rate, the findings of fact of the DENR and its field
offices, admittedly an administrative agency which have acquired
expertise because [of] their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters like the processing, inspections and/or investigation of
public land sale applications, are generally accorded respect, if not
finality. . . .
It must be borne in mind that this Office is persuaded
strongly by the principle that findings of fact of
administrative bodies charged with specific field[s] of
expertise are afforded great weight in the absence of
substantial showing that such findings are patently
erroneous. Considering therefore that the findings of facts
by the DENR as well as the justifications made thereon are
given weight and respect, and absent any error of abuse of
discretion, this Office finds the same to be in order.72

_______________

69  Id., at p. 80.
70  Id., at pp. 40-41.
71  Id., at p. 82.
72  Id., at p. 83.

 
 
299

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 299

Galindez vs. Firmalan

In Solid Homes v. Payawal,73 this Court explained that

administrative agencies are considered specialists in the
fields assigned to them; hence, they can resolve problems in
their respective fields “with more expertise and dispatch
than can be expected from the legislature or the courts of
justice.”74 Thus, this Court has consistently accorded
respect and even finality to the findings of fact of
administrative bodies, in recognition of their expertise and
technical knowledge over matters falling within their
jurisdiction.75
Moreover, Rule 43, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that findings of fact of a quasi-judicial
agency, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be
binding on the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Court
of Appeals did not err in upholding the findings of fact of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

and of the Office of the President.
Petitioner likewise faults the Court of Appeals for ruling
in respondent’s favor despite admission from respondent’s
daughter that respondent occupied and fenced in the lot
after filing her first application in 1949, thereby
contradicting the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources’ finding that respondent never entered or
introduced improvements on the lot she applied for.76
Petitioner further claims that since she and respondent
both did not abide with the undertakings in their
respective applications, her application should be given
preference as

_______________

73  257 Phil. 914; 177 SCRA 72 (1989) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
74  Id., at p. 921; p. 79.
75   JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 439
Phil. 1, 10-11; 390 SCRA 223, 230 (2002) [Per J. Corona, Third Division];
Calvo v. Vergara, 423 Phil. 939, 947; 372 SCRA 650, 656-657 (2001) [Per
J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., 538
Phil. 348, 397; 508 SCRA 498, 548 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First
Division].
76  Rollo, pp. 23-24.

 
 
300

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

she was the first to occupy the lot and has continuously
done so with her family.77
Again, petitioner fails to convince.
There is nothing in the miscellaneous sales application
which forbade the applicant from entering into or
occupying the lot being applied for. Instead, what the
miscellaneous sales application provides is an
acknowledgment from the applicant that he or she has no
right over the lot while the application is still pending and
while the lease contract has not yet been executed:

6. I understand that this application conveyed no right to

me to enter upon, occupy, cultivate, to make clearing on the
land until the same has been finally approved and a lease
contract executed, and that any lease applicant who shall
willfully and knowingly submit false statements or execute
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

false affidavit in connection with the foregoing application

shall be deemed guilty of perjury and punished by a fine of
not more than two thousand pesos and . . . by imprisonment
for not more than five years, in addition there, his
application shall be cancelled and all amount paid on
account thereof forfeited to the Government, and they shall
not be entitled to apply for any public land in the
Philippines.78 (Emphasis supplied)

 
The miscellaneous sales application warns the applicant
that submission of a false statement or false affidavit in
support of an application may cause the cancellation of the
application, forfeiture of all amounts paid and prohibition
from applying for any public land. However, there is no
similar warning or an equally dire consequence for
applicants who prematurely enter or occupy the lot applied
for. At most, it is merely implied that applicants bear the
risk of introducing improvements to a lot that has not yet
been awarded to them

_______________

77  Id., at p. 25.
78  Id., at p. 43.

 
 
301

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 301

Galindez vs. Firmalan

since the application may be denied or the lot may be

awarded to some other applicant.
As it is, the facts are not disputed that respondent filed
her application for a portion of Lot No. 915 on May 16,
1949. Meanwhile, petitioner only built a house on that
same portion of Lot No. 915 on November 1, 1950 and filed
her own application on February 20, 1964.79 Clearly, the
Bureau of Lands did not err in favorably endorsing
respondent’s applications:

Based on the foregoing factual backdrop, the [Regional

Executive Director] pointed out that Firmalan filed her
Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA No. 7861) on May 16,
1949 and paid the corresponding Guaranty Fee in the
amount of P5.00 under Postal Money Order No. 1064-8820
dated May 18, 1949; that on February 23, 1950, the former

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

Chief of the Public Lands Division (Vicente Tordesillas),

Bureau of Lands, Manila, directed the District Land Officer
in Bacolod City, to reappraise the land covered by the said
application, and referred on June 26, 1950 to the Provincial
Land Officer in Capiz, Capiz for compliance. According to
the [Regional Executive Director], this is a clear indication
that the said application of Firmalan was given due
recognition; however, records do not show that subsequent
actions were taken thereon.
Moreover the [Regional Executive Director] noted that on
April 25, 1967, Firmalan again filed a Miscellaneous Sales
Application (MSA No. [V-6] 23) covering Lot 915, Cad-311-
D, Romblon Cadastre with an area of 325 square meters
which included the area first applied for by her; that the
investigation of the lot was conducted and a report was
submitted by the Public Land Inspector (Alexander M.
Diola), and attested to by the Municipal Treasurer of
Romblon, Casareo Mangao; that another report of appraisal
was submitted on August 22, 1967 by the same Land
Inspector and also attested to by the same Municipal
Treasurer; and that the said report of ap-

_______________

79  Id., at p. 16.

 
 
302

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galindez vs. Firmalan

praisal was favorably endorsed to the Director of Lands by then

Acting District Land Officer in Odiongan, Romblon, Sudicious F.
Panoy, per 1st Indorsement dated November 18, 1967.80
(Emphasis supplied)

In Castillo v. Rodriguez,81 this Court affirmed the ruling

of the Director of Lands and of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Secretary upholding
Elias L. Casals’ miscellaneous sales application over that of
Andres Castillo, because the facts showed that the former
filed his application ahead of the latter:

As a matter of fact, the very numbers and dates of the contestants’

miscellaneous sales applications conclusively show that Elias L.
Casals filed his application way ahead of the petitioner. The former
filed his M.S.A. No. 16888 on June 4, 1952 while the latter’s

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

application, M.S.A. No. 19124, was filed only on May 19, 1953.
Neither has Elias L. Casals been shown by the petitioner or the
records to be suffering from any legal disqualification to be
awarded the lot in dispute. Consequently, and conformably with
settled jurisprudence, We shall not disturb the decisions of the
Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources on the matter.82 (Emphasis supplied)

 
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition
is  DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals’ November 27, 2008
Decision and March 13, 2009 Resolution in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
95114 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Martires  and

Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

_______________

80  Id., at p. 76.
81  121 Phil. 1107; 14 SCRA 344 (1965) [Per J. Regala, En Banc].
82  Id., at pp. 1111-1112; pp. 348-349.

 
 
303

VOL. 864, JUNE 6, 2018 303

Galindez vs. Firmalan

Petition dismissed, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—The Director of Lands, subject to review by the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Secretary, has exclusive jurisdiction over the
disposition and management of public lands. (Mendoza vs.
Valte, 769 SCRA 226 [2015])
The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free
patent to lands that have ceased to be public in character
and have passed to private ownership. (Heirs of Delfin and
Maria Tappa vs. Heirs of Jose Bacud, 788 SCRA 13 [2016])

 
——o0o——

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22
12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 864

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f0fc071a915e87d33003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22