512 Phil. 864
QUISUMBING, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the F.P.A. No. (IV-3) 14661 of Angelita Morcal is hereby, as it is ordered, AMENDED to cover only one-half ½ of the lot applied for particularly the southern portion thereof, as recommended by Land Management Officer III Dan August S. Noche, after which the same shall be given further due course now in the name of Angelita and Ildefonsa Morcal, unless the latter executes a deed of transfer in favor of Angelita Morcal.In its second assailed Order, the DENR Regional Office denied for lack of merit petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the afore-quoted Order. Petitioner then filed with the Regional Trial Court a civil action to nullify the two Orders of the DENR Regional Office.
The F.P.A. No. 8-1917 filed by the Heirs of Petra Morcal is hereby as it is ordered rejected and whatever amount paid on account thereof is forfeited in favor of the Government. The Spouses Antonio and Teresita Laviña are directed to file the appropriate public land application covering the other half of the lot in question particularly the northern portion thereof.
SO ORDERED.[5]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the foregoing civil action is hereby ordered DISMISSED.Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its assailed Decision, the appellate court ruled:
Accordingly, the subject orders of the Regional Executive Director for Region IV of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, dated 10 August 1993 and 25 January 1994, are correspondingly SUSTAINED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the appealed decision, dated March 26, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon is hereby AFFIRMED.Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied in the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner then elevated the matter to this Court.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Petitioner contends the trial court is vested with the power to rule on the substantial rights of the parties in this case. She insists the issue of jurisdiction has been settled when the trial court issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondents. Petitioner alleges the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply because there is urgent need for judicial intervention and because what is involved is a small piece of agricultural land, all of 2,420 square meters. She adds she has lost trust in the DENR as a body, which she believes would not reverse itself.
- Whether or not the courts of justice can validly take cognizance over the issues in this case.
- Whether or not the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to the instant case.
- Whether or not the trial court was in error in dismissing the case without any pronouncement as to the rights of the parties over the land in suit.
- Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the lot in suit.[8]
1) when the question raised is purely legal;In this case, however, none of the foregoing exceptions may be availed of. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, we see no urgent need for judicial intervention. Note that the case arose from the protest filed by respondents against petitioner's free patent application for the subject unregistered agricultural land. Clearly, the matter comes within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of the DENR in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers. The impugned Orders of the DENR Regional Office are subject to review by the DENR Head Office. Petitioner cannot circumvent this procedure by simply invoking a supposed loss of faith in the said agency.
2) when the administrative body is in estoppel;
3) when the act complained of is patently illegal;
4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
5) when the claim involved is small;
6) when irreparable damage will be suffered;
7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
8) when strong public interest is involved;
9) when the subject of the controversy is private land; and
10) in quo warranto proceedings.[10]