Case Digest: RACHEL C. CELESTIAL v. JESSE CACHOPERO

RACHEL C. CELESTIAL v. JESSE CACHOPERO

               Petitioner Rachel Celestial is the sister of defendant Jesse Cachopero. They had a dispute over a piece of land which was a dried-up creek, as Cachopero was trying to obtain a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) alleging that he had been the owner of that land whereon he built a house and other improvements. However, Celestial protests that she has preferential right over the land because it is adjacent to and is the only outlet from her house. According to the Bureau of Land, the land in dispute was a creek and is therefore outside the commerce of man. The first MSA was denied by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) prompting Cachopero to obtain another MSA which was granted by the DENR. Due to conflicting interests of the parties, the land in dispute must be sold in a public auction.

          Cachopero then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the DENR with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) but was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC.

            Celestial contends that the RTC had no jurisdiction over Cachopero‘s petition for certiorari as it is in the nature of an appeal falling within the jurisdiction of the CA and that the Cachopero has not exhausted all administrative remedies.

ISSUE:

(a) Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition

(b) Whether or not the land in question owned by one of the parties when it is classified as outside the commerce of man

HELD:

RTCs have concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and SC over original petitions for certiorari, prohinition and mandamus.

Celestial has apparently confused the separate and distinct remedies of an appeal (i.e. through a petition for review of a decision of a quasi judicial agency under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court) and a special civil action for certiorari (i.e. through a petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court).

Concomitantly, appellate jurisdiction is separate and distinct from the jurisdiction to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari. An appellate jurisdiction refers to a process which is a continuation of the original suit and not a commencement of a new action. In contrast, to invoke a court’s jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari requires the commencement of a new and original action therefore, independent of the proceedings which gave rise to the questioned decision or order. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the RTCs have concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court over original petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Section 21 of B.P. 129.

The Court finds no reason to disturb the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the instant case falls under the recognized exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, which provides “that such is inapplicable if (1) it should appear that an irreparable injury or damage will be suffered by a party if he should await, before taking court action, the final action of the administrative official concerned on the matter as a result of a patently illegal order or (2) where appeal would not prove to be speedy and adequate remedy”.

This requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute, there being instances when it may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately, among which are: 1) when the question raised is purely legal; 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; and 9) in quo warranto proceedings.

A dried up creek is property of public dominion and not susceptible to acquisitive prescription

As for Celestial‘s claim of ownership over the subject land, admittedly a dried-up bed of the Salunayan Creek, based on (1) her alleged long term adverse possession and that of her predecessor-in-interest, Marcelina Basadre, even prior to October 22, 1966, when she purchased the adjoining property from the latter, and (2) the right of accession under Art. 370 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 and/or Article 461 of the Civil Code, the same must fail.

Since property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man and not susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription, the adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title in the confirmation of an imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public domain. It is only after the Government has declared the land to be alienable and disposable agricultural land that the year of entry, cultivation and exclusive and adverse possession can be counted for purposes of an imperfect title.