This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-08-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As the CA correctly pointed out, the present case stemmed from the protest filed by the respondents against the petitioner's free patent application. In resolving this protest, the DENR, through the Bureau of Lands, had to resolve the issue of identity of the lot claimed by both parties. This issue of identity of the land requires a technical determination by the Bureau of Lands, as the administrative agency with direct control over the disposition and management of lands of the public domain. The DENR, on the other hand, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to manage and dispose of public lands, must likewise determine the applicant's entitlement (or lack of it) to a free patent. (Incidentally, the DENR Regional Office still has to determine the respondents' entitlement to the issuance of a free patent[31] in their favor since it merely ordered the exclusion of Lot 322 from the petitioner's own application.) Thus, it is the DENR which determines the respective rights of rival claimants to alienable and disposable public lands; courts have no jurisdiction to intrude on matters properly falling within the powers of the DENR Secretary and the Director of Lands,[32] unless grave abuse of discretion exists. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As a rule then, courts have no jurisdiction to intrude upon matters properly falling within the powers of the LMB.[25] | |||||