Illustration: Doctrine of Exhaution of Administrative

Remedies
South Rental Properties (SRP) was the registered owner
of a parcel of land located along North Reclamation Street in
Sugbu City.
In 1994, SRP conceptualized the construction of a
residential condominium complex on the said parcel of land
called the Dell Macintosh Cluster consisting of a cluster
of six (6) four-storey buildings and one (1) seventeen (17)
storey tower.
SRP thereafter secured the necessary clearances,
licenses and permits for the condominium project issued,
among them were a Certificate of Locational Viability and a
Development Permit both issued by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board(HLURB)
Thereafter, construction of the condominium project
began, but on June 30, 1995, Milestone Organics
Association(MOA) filed a complaint before the Regional Trial
Court to annul SRPs clearance, licenses, and permits.
On July 20, 1995, SRP filed a Motion to Dismiss the case
for lack of cause of action and that jurisdiction over the case
was with the HLURB and not with the regular courts.
The trial court rendered a Decision in favor of MOA
declaring the said clearances, licenses and permits, void and
of no effect.
The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ruling
of the trial court.
The Supreme court affirmed the CAs decision stating
that MOA unjustifiably failed to exhaust the administrative
remedies available with the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) before seeking recourse with the
trial court.
Under the rules of the HLURB which were then in effect,
particularly Sections 4 and 6 of HLURB Resolution No. R-391,
Series of 1987 (Adopting the 1987 Rules of Procedure of the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board), a complaint to
annul any permit issued by the HLURB may be filed before
the Housing and Land Use Arbiter (HLA)

Topic: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Title: Rosito Bagunu vs. Spouses Francisco Aggabao and
Rosenda Acerit
G.R. 186487, August 15,
2011
FACTS: This controversy stemmed from spouses
Francisco Aggabao and Rosenda Acerits protest filed
against the petitioners free patent application over a
parcel of unregistered before the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Regional Office.
The subject land was previously owned by Marcos
Binag, who later sold it to Felicisimo Bautista In turn,
Bautista sold the subject land to Atty. Samson Binag.
Atty. Binag applied for a free patent over the subject
land with the Bureau of Lands (now Lands Management
Bureau). Atty. Binag then sold the subject land to the
petitioner Rosito Bagunu, who substituted for Atty. Binag
as the free patent applicant. The parties deed of sale
states that the land sold to the petitioner is the same lot
subject of Atty. Binags pending free patent application.
The deeds evidencing the successive sale of the
subject land, the Bureau of Lands survey, and the free
patent applications uniformly identified the subject land
as Lot322. The deeds covering the second and third sale
also uniformly identified the boundaries of the subject
land.
On December 28, 1992, the respondents filed a
protest against the petitioners free patent application. The
respondents asserted ownership over Lot 322 based on
the Deeds of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale executed in
their favor by the heirs of one Rafael Bautista.
The Office of the Regional Executive Director of the
DENR conducted an ocular inspection and formal
investigation. The DENR Regional Office found out that the
petitioner actually occupies and cultivates the area in
dispute including the area purchased by the respondents.

The DENR Regional Office ruled that the petitioner

wrongfully included Lot 322 in his free patent application
since this lot belongs to the respondents.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration. The DENR
Regional Office denied the motion ruling that in
determining the identity of a lot, the boundaries, and not
the lot number assigned to it - are controlling.
On appeal, the DENR Secretary affirmed the ruling of
the DENR Regional Office. The petitioner appealed to the
Court of Appeals who then affirmed the ruling of the DENR
Secretary.
Applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the CA
ruled that since questions on the identity of a land require
a technical determination by the appropriate
administrative body, the findings of fact of the DENR
Regional Office, as affirmed by the DENR Secretary, are
entitled to great respect, if not finality. The petitioner
assailed this ruling before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in applying the
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction.
RULING: NO. The Supreme Court affirms the decision
of the CA. The Court held that the DENR Secretarys
exclusion of Lot 322 from the petitioners free patent
application and his consequent directive for the
respondent spouses to apply for the same lot are within
the DENR Secretarys exercise of sound administrative
discretion.
RATIONALE: The reason underlying the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction applies to questions on the identity of
the disputed public land since this matter requires a
technical determination by the Bureau of Lands. Since this
issue precludes prior judicial determination, the courts
must stand aside even when they apparently have
statutory power to proceed, in recognition of the primary
jurisdiction of the administrative agency.