Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-29534 February 28, 19 !

ENGUET E"PLOR#T$ON, $NC., petitioner, vs. %EP#RTMENT OF #GR$CULTURE & N#TUR#L RESOURCES a'( SOF$# ). RE*ES, respondents. William H. Quasha & Associates for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General, for respondent DANR S. Fan onil & Associates for pri!ate respondent.

FERN#N%O, J: !ore e"tensive appraisal of the controllin# doctrine on the status of a depart!ent head as an alter e o of the President, $ith particular reference to the broad co!petence en%o&ed b& the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources in the disposition of the public lands and the $ealth it contains, and a !ore careful readin# of the specific provisions of the Minin# ct, 1 not to !ention the e"plicit recital in the order challen#e that the purpose thereof is to accord a part& the 'for!al hearin#' thereb& co!pl&in# $ith the procedural due process re(uisite, ou#ht to have cautioned a#ainst the filin# of this certiorari petition a#ainst the Depart!ent of #riculture and Natural Resources. Petitioner is, a do!estic !inin# corporation en#a#ed in the e"ploration and develop!ent of certain !ineral clai!s. )he records sho$ that private respondent Sofia V. Re&es filed $ith the *ureau of Mines an adverse clai! a#ainst petitioner+s ,ode ,ease pplication coverin# three !inin# clai!s in *en#uet, Mountain Province. 2 )hat $as countered b& a !otion to dis!iss, alle#in# as one of three le#al ob%ections the failure of such adverse clai! to co!pl& $ith the !andator& re(uire!ents of Section -. of the Minin# ct. 3 )he private respondent then sub!itted an opposition $ith the *ureau of Mines thereafter dis!issin# the adverse clai!. 4 )he !atter $as ta/en up on appeal to the Depart!ent of #riculture and Natural Resources, private respondent !aintainin# the sufficienc& of its adverse clai! under the la$, a point disputed b& petitioner, as could have been e"pected. 5 t first, the action ta/en b& respondent Depart!ent $as the dis!issal of such appeal, but on a second !otion for reconsideration, an order $as issued $ith its dispositive portion readin# thus0 'Order of the Director of Mines dated Septe!ber 12, 1344, and the Decision and Order of this Office dated 5ul& 61, 134- and Dece!ber 11, 134-, respectivel&, should be, as hereb& the& are, set aside7 and to abbreviate proceedin#s, tt&. 8Ro!ulo . Redula9 of this Office is hereb& directed to conduct a for!al hearin# of this case. + :ence this certiorari petition. s inti!ated at the outset, this petition lac/s !erit. It !ast be dis!issed. 1. Petitioner lost si#ht of the funda!ental doctrine set forth in Villena v. Secretar& of Interior, decided in 13.3, $here 5ustice ,aurel cate#oricall& declared that acts of a depart!ent head and the challen#ed order in this case ca!e fro! the then ctin# Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources, Isosceles Pascual,

'perfor!ed and pro!ul#ated in the re#ular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated b& the Chief E"ecutive presu!abl& the acts of the Chief E"ecutive. 8 Not so lon# a#o in )ecson v. Salas, 9 it $as affir!ed that as far as the po$er of control over all e"ecutive depart!ents, bureaus and offices are concerned, 'the Villena doctrine applies $ith undi!inished force.' 1, Since then, t$o other decisions did reiterate such a principle. 11 Moreover, petitioner li/e$ise did not ta/e into account the doctrine announced b& the leadin# case of Ortua v. Sin#son Encarnacion. 12 s stated b& 5ustice Malcol!0 ' ccordin#l&, to paraphrase the authorities and decisions co!in# principall& fro! the ;nited States Supre!e Court, $e deduce the rule on the sub%ect to be, that a decision rendered b& the Director of ,ands and approved b& the Secretar& of #riculture and Co!!erce, upon a (uestion of fact is conclusive and not sub%ect to be revie$ed b& the courts, in the absence of a sho$in# that such decision $as rendered in conse(uence of fraud, i!position, or !ista/e, other than error of %ud#!ent in esti!atin# the value or effect of evidence, re#ardless of $hether or not it is consistent $ith the preponderance of the evidence, so lon# as there is so!e evidence upon $hich the findin# in (uestion could be !ade. 13 :ere such a sta#e has not been reached. Precisel&, the assailed order spo/e of no 'hearin# on the !erits, 8therefore9 it is but ri#ht and proper in the interest of %ustice that a for!al hearin# on the !erits be conducted. 14 )here is, therefore, an ele!ent of pre!aturit&. )hat alone $ould have sufficed for the dis!issal of this petition. 6. <hat appears to be the !otivation behind this !ove of petitioner is to preclude the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources fro! conductin# his o$n in(uir&. :e $ould thus be denied the po$er accorded a bureau director. In "inero #r. !. Director of $ands 15 this Court, in an opinion b& 5ustice *arredo, e"pressl& referrin# to the Re#alian doctrine, Pointed out that even a )orrens title is not a bar to the po$er of the Director of ,ands to investi#ate an alle#ation of fraud that could have led to the issuance of a free patent. s stated b& hi! 'It is to the public interest that one $ho succeeds in fraudulentl& ac(uirin# a title to a public land Should not be allo$ed to benefit therefro!, and the State should, therefore, have an ever=e"istin# authorit&, thru its dul& authori>ed officers, to in(uire into the circu!stances surroundin# the issuance of an& such title, to the end that the Republic, thru the Solicitor ?eneral or an& other officer $ho !a& be authori>ed b& la$, !a& file the correspondin# action for the reversion of the land involved to the public do!ain, sub%ect thereafter to disposal to other (ualified persons in accordance $ith la$. In other $ords, the indefeasibilit& of a title over land previousl& public is not a bar to an investi#ation b& the Director of ,ands as to ho$ such title has been ac(uired, if the purpose of such investi#ation is to deter!ine $hether or not fraud had been co!!itted in securin# such title in order that the appropriate action for reversion !a& be filed b& the ?overn!ent.' 1+ If petitioner $ould prevail, such po$er of in(uir& vested in a subordinate $ould be denied a depart!ent head. )hat is to disre#ard a $ell=settled concept in public la$. <hat is !ore, that is to be insensible to another facet the %ura re#alia concept b& virtue of $hich the Republic of the Philippines possessed of the attributes of imperium and dominium, actin# throu#h the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources, is #iven the ut!ost latitude in ascertainin# $hich part& shall en%o& the privile#e of e"ploitin# the $ealth that is found in its natural resources.1 If petitioner $ere to prevail, there $ould be an undue di!inution of the broad co!petence conferred on the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources, as reco#ni>ed in a host of cases notable for their nu!ber and unani!it&. 18 .. Petitioner $ould see/ to $ea/en the force of the above authoritative doctrines as applied to it b& the alle#ation that there is a failure to abide b& the statutor& re(uire!ents in the Minin# ct, as a!ended b& Republic ct No. @.AA. Reference is !ade to Sections 41 and -. as a!ended b& Republic ct No. @.AA. 19 )he pro!iso in the for!er section $hich is relevant to the present controvers& reads thus0 ' "ro!ided, )hat the decision or order of the Director of Mines !a& be appealed to the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources $ithin thirt& da&s fro! receipt of such decision or order. In case an& one of the parties should disa#ree fro! the decision or order of the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources, the !atter !a& be ta/en to the Court of ppeals or the Supre!e Court, as the case !a& be, $ithin thirt& da&s fro! the receipt of such decision or order, other$ise the said decision or order shall be final and bindin# upon the parties concerned. Bindin#s of facts in the decision or order of the Director of Mines $hen

affir!ed b& the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources shall be final and conclusive, and the a##rieved part& or parties desirin# to appeal fro! such decision or order shall file in the Supre!e Court a petition for revie$ $herein onl& (uestions of la$ !a& be raised.' <hat cannot be sufficientl& stressed is that onl& upon the affir!ance of the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources does the findin#s of fact beco!e conclusive, leavin# onl& (uestions of la$ for this Court to decide. In the order co!plained of, the ctin# Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources co!!endabl& sou#ht to have a rational basis for the acceptance or re%ection of the conclusion reached b& the Director of Mines. <hat $as ob%ected to $as that it could no lon#er be done as the !atter had reached the sta#e of finalit&, such order co!in# onl& after a second !otion for reconsideration. Petitioner $ould thus i#nore the basic principle that unless the ad!inistrative procedure follo$ed confor!s $ith the re(uire!ent of procedural due process the actuation could be sti#!ati>ed as void, a hearin# bein# dee!ed of the essence of such proceedin#. s a !atter of fact its absence $ould result in the loss of %urisdiction. s $as state b& Chief 5ustice %oncepcion in& 'da. de %ua(con !. 'da de Sen )enco, 2, acts $hether of Con#ress or of the E"ecutive, can den& due process onl& under pain of nullit&, ... 21 s a !atter of la$, to accept petitioner+s clai! that in thus issuin# such an order the ctin# Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources failed to abide b& the re(uire!ents of the la$ $ould be precisel& to cast doubt on the validit& of such sections of the Minin# ct $hen all that $as re(uired b& hi! $as co!pliance $ith the re(uisite of a for!al hearin#. )hat $ould be to incur the vice of the construction #iven such sections bein# repu#nant to the due process clause. Certainl&, bet$een t$o lines of interpretation, one of $hich $ould #ive it life and the other $hich $ould be fatal to its validit&, the for!er should prevail. )hus petitioner+s first t$o errors assi#ned, $hich could be su!!ed up in the proposition that Secretar& Pascual should not have passed upon the second !otion for reconsideration are clearl& $ithout !erit. @. It is thus apparent that the third error assi#ned to the effect that the Depart!ent of #riculture and Natural Resources acted in e"cess of its %urisdiction $hen it arro#ated the function of hearin# the adverse clai!s is even !ore bereft of support in la$. )he ver& provision of the Minin# ct upon, as previousl& set forth, spea/s of the findin#s of facts of the Director of Mines '$hen affir!ed b& the Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources bein# final and conclusive,' in $hich case the a##rieved part& !a& file a petition for revie$ $ith this Court $here onl& (uestions of la$ !a& be raised. 22 )o sustain the contention of petitioner $ould be to run counter to $hat $as held in the leadin# case of An *i)a( !. %ourt of +ndustrial Relations. 23 5ustice ,aurel specificall& spo/e of 'cardinal pri!ar& ri#hts' e!braced in 'the funda!ental and essential re(uire!ents of due process in trials and investi#ations of an ad!inistrative character. 24 :ere precisel&, vital and essential facts re!ained at issue. It $as the considered %ud#!ent of the ctin# Secretar& of #riculture and Natural Resources that a hearin# should be held to ascertain the truth of the !atter. s set forth in the challen#ed order0 'It is but ri#ht and proper in the interest of %ustice that a for!al hearin# on the !erits of this case be conducted. 25 In a subse(uent para#raph, such point of vie$ $as reiterated0 ')he reason for this rulin# is that the proceedin#s before this Office is ad!inistrative in character, and, therefore, the parties to the case !ust be #iven all the opportunit& to be heard. 2+ :ence, the dispositive portion directin# a certain Ro!ulo . Redula presu!abl& of the staff of the Depart!ent of #riculture and Natural Resources, 'to conduct a for!al hearin# of this case and to sub!it his report relative thereto $ithin thirt& C.DE da&s fro! the ter!ination thereof. 2 Clearl&, to repeat, the alle#ation in the last assi#n!ent of error that there $as an arro#ation of the Po$er on the part of respondent depart!ent is devoid of an& le#al %ustification. Moreover had Petitioner ta/en into consideration the aforesaid land!ar/ opinion of 5ustice ,aurel in n# )iba& v. Court of Industrial Relations on the indispensabilit& of co!pl&in# $ith the due process re(uire!ent in an ad!inistrative proceedin#, it $ould have noted that one of the doctrines relied upon b& this Court in that case is an opinion of %hief #ustice Hu hes in ,or an !. -nited States. 28 It ou#ht to be affir!ed that in the t$o subse(uent Mor#an cases, the stress beca!e even !ore e!phatic on the indispensabilit& of co!pl&in# $ith the due process !andate, characteri>ed as 'the rudi!entar& re(uire!ents of fair pla&.' 29 )he

relevance of the Mor#an decisions should be evident, dealin# as the& do $ith the e"ercise of po$ers #ranted the Secretar& of #riculture of the ;nited States. <:EREBORE, the petition is dis!issed for lac/ of !erit. .arredo, Antonio, A/uino and %oncepcion #r., ##., concur.