IRENEO ROQUE V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, G.R No. L-25373 July 1, 1976 (CASE DIGEST)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST

ISSUE: POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE

IRENEO ROQUE, petitioner-appellant, v. THE HONORABLE, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS; THE HONORABLE, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT and JOSE FACUN, respondents-appellees.

G.R. No. L-25373. July 1, 1976

FERNANDO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Roque allege that he had been in occupation of the disputed portion since 1937, for the whole of Lot No. 4507. Likewise Respondent Facun filed his homestead application on the same land in 1935 and submitted the final proof therefore in 1939.

In settling the dispute, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources decided in favor of Roque but upon re investigation it is found out that Roque submitted his sales application for the disputed portion in 1948, only during the course of the investigation of his protest and it was verified during the re investigation of this case that the appellee (Roque) entered upon the disputed portion in 1951 only. So the President, through respondent Assistant Executive Secretary awarded the land in favor of the respondent Facun.

The petitioner prayed that the order of the respondent Honorable Director of Lands and the decision of the respondent Honorable Assistant Executive Secretary, be set aside on the alleged ground that the said order of the Director of Lands was issued with grave abuse of discretion, consisting of unqualified reliance and the biased report and recommendation. And said that the decision of the Honorable Executive Secretary exceeded his jurisdiction and committed a grave abuse of discretion disregarding the sales award of the land in question in favor of the herein petitioner having already paid is for the price of the same, and praying further that the decision of the Honorable Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources be sustained.

Respondent Jose Facun, through Atty. Cipriano A. Tan, filed an answer to the petition denying specifically the allegation of abuse of discretion, arbitrariness and excess of jurisdiction of the Honorable Director of Lands and Assistant Executive Secretary is perfectly valid.

ISSUE:

      Whether or not Assistant Executive Secretary lacks the power to overrule the descision of Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources?

RULING:

No, to contend that the Office of the President, through respondent Assistant Executive Secretary, lacks the power to overrule the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources is to betray lack of awareness of the implications of what Justice Laurel referred to in Villena v. Secretary of the Interior as   "  As was further stressed by him: "Without minimizing the importance of the heads of the various departments, their personality is in reality but the projection of that of the President…. the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and Promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptive the acts of the Chief Executive.” 

            

The President has control of all the executive departments, bureaus or offices and under Pelaez v. Auditor General  "The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers."  Clearly then, there is nothing to prevent the President to disapprove the act of a department head.

Assistant Executive Secretary of the President is correct for sustaining the award by the Director of Lands of a homestead application and thus overruling the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, because it is in conformity with the policy of the law. Petitioner, himself a previous beneficiary of the statute, would seek to add to his holding by a sales application. The prevailing party, private respondent Jose Facun, on the other hand, had applied for the disputed lot as a homesteader as far back as 1935, and had submitted his final proof in 1948.

See Full Text Here: Full Text