"It is but proper and fitting that this Court commend the unfaltering and very able assistance rendered to the accused, seen from the excellent presentation made of his case, particularly by his defense counsel, Atty. Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr., of Davao City, who unstintedly and magnanimously contributed his legal talents and efforts in the hope that justice may ultimately prevail." X X X
Supreme Court Decision in 'People of the Philippines - versus- Lucio Lumayok' G.R. No. L-54016
Republic
of the
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN
BANC
G.R.
No. L-13385 April 28, 1960
SOCORRO KE. LADRERA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
BENGZON,
J.: chanrobles
virtual law library
Appeal from the decision of the Davao court
of first instance annulling, on certiorari, the award made by the respondent
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in conection with the sale of a
parcel of public land.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
Known as
On appeal, the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources ruled that Aportadera's bid being the
highest, should be accepted; that Ladrera may get the land if he equals
Aportadera's bid, and in the event of the former's inability or refusal to do
so, the lot will be awarded to the latter. Motions for reconsideration failed.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library
Wherefore, Ladrera filed this certiorari
proceeding to annul the Department's order on the ground of abuse of discretion. chanrobles virtual law library
Basis of the action is plaintiff's assertion
that the Secretary "disregarded the basic policies and philosophies behind
our Public Land Law", that Aportadera's bid was "exorbitant, unfair,
unreasonable and excessive, considering the prices at which surrounding public
lands had been sold, and that Aportadera acted in bad faith because he took
part in the auction sale solely to prejudice the petitioner. Explaining his
second contention, plaintiff said the Appraisal Committee had appraised the lot
at P50.00 a hectare, and that all the surrounding public land lots had been
disposed at public auction at P50.00 a hectare.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
In his answer, the Secretary maintained that
considering the condition of the land, the price offered by Aportadera was not
excessive, the price fixed by the Appraisal Committee being merely "the
basic price of the land upon which to start the auction of the same." He
said he only complied with the purpose of public bidding and the law's
directive of sale to the highest bidder.
chanrobles virtual law library
Aportadera, on the other hand, added other
defenses such as laches (complaint presented after about two years) and failure
to exhaust administrative remedies (no appeal to the President from the
Department's ruling).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
Overruling these two procedural defenses, the
judge upheld the theory of the plaintiff. Discounting the Secretary's highest
bidder defense, His Honor premised his conclusion (that the Secretary abused
his discretion) on the idea that profit making is not the purpose of the
Government in disposing of public lands, and that it is rather the policy of
"giving land to the landless". In his own words,
. . . the fact that
the law requires publicity in the bidding of public land in order that the
Government may get the best price obtainable therefor gives the defendant
Secretary the semblance of a justification to reject the P50.00 per hectare bid
of the plaintiff Ladrera, despite the fact that he was the applicant and in
possession of the public land in question, and to accept in lieu thereof the
higher bid of Aportadera on the basis of P980.00 per hectare, whatever his motive
might have been. It certainly would be to the pecuniary advantage of the
Government, who stands to profit at the rate of P930.00 per hectare, or a total
of P9,300.00, the area of the land in question being ten (10) hectares.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library
If profit-making
were the only guiding principle of the Government in the sale of public lands,
then the Government may just as well advertise itself as engaged in real-estate
business, and that in doing so, its primordial objective, like those in private
business of realty, is to make profit for itself, without any thought of
promoting and enchancing the people's general welfare.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
But that is not the
policy of the Government. The disposable public land of this country is
actually the property of the people, and the Government is merely their
trustee, charged with the administration and disposal thereof in the best
interest of the people's collective and general welfare. The state has embarked
and committed itself to the policy of giving "land to the landless"
in order to create a citizenry that is happy and contended. . . .
If the above were excerpts from a speech in
Congress during deliberations on a bill amending the Public Land Law, none
would probably object to the same. But in the face of positive statutory
provisions, it is impossible to agree to it at the present time. Land for the
under-privileged is provided by the Public Land Law in its title on "
In the name of social justice, the court a
quo would in effect deprive the public treasury of P9,300.00 (P9,800.00 less
P500.00) to allow one man to retain this parcel of land so that he may
become a "happy and contented" citizen. Yet, that same amount could
and would be used by the Government in other ways to make hundreds of
citizens happy and contented: e. g. for teachers in school barrios; for
nurses to attend the sick; for drilling of artesian wells, etc. etc. In this
alternative, the choice1 is not doubtful. And even if
doubtful, the Secretary may not certainly be held to have abused his discretion
in choosing to benefit hundreds of citizens instead of one. Anyway, if
plaintiff does not get this land, he may still apply for other public
lands. It is write, "Look and you shall find". chanrobles virtual law library
After finding that there was animosity
between Ladrera and Aportadera, that there latter had not submitted any bid for
any of the adjoining lots, and that Aportadera's bid of P980.00 per hectare was
about twenty times more than the bid for practically all the surrounding lots,
the lower court reached the conclusion that Aportadera acted in bad faith,
since he was not acting with the honest intention alone of acquiring
public lands for development but mainly to harass his enemy Ladrera and
prevent him, if possible, from acquiring the land.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
Bearing in mind that at one time after the
last war, Aportadera occupied this lot (Exhibit F) (which was part of the
bigger public land leased to Pedro Monteverde), only to be defeated later by
Ladrera when the Government parceled out Monteverde's leased public land to
veterans, it is no wonder that when the lot was offered for sale, he
(Aportadera) bid for it, and not for other lots. It is certain, he knew the
conditions and values of the lot, and most probably he calculated that even at
P980.00 a hectare, he would still get a good bargain.2 chanrobles virtual law library
It may be true that in offering a high price3
Aportadera prejudiced his enemy; but that should be immaterial to the
Department. In every public bidding, the winner "prejudices" the
loser; yet that is no reason to disqualify him; that in itself is not bad
faith; he is exercising his right to buy, and if the result prejudices the
losers, these may not complain; damnun absque injuria. In deed, it would
be highly incongruous for the Government to disqualify a bidder precisely
because he offered a high bid.4
chanrobles virtual law library
"He intended merely to prejudice
me", argues plaintiff because at that price any buyer of the lot will
lose. Well, if that be true, plaintiff should let Aportadera go ahead, pay
P980.00 a hectare and lose his money: let him fall head-long into the pit he
has dug for his adversary. Anyway, except for "losing face" in the
competition, Ladrera suffers no actual loss, because the improvements he has
made on the land will be paid to him, in accordance with the order of the
Secretary. To insist that the land should be sold to him at P500.00 when the
Government could very well get P9,800.005 is to demand that
the Government give plaintiff a gift of P9,300.00 on the plea of "social
justice" or "land for the landless".chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
Now, then, because the Secretary has elected
to abide by the law expressly requiring the lot to be sold to the highest
bidder; and because he refused to sanction what otherwise would inflict a loss
of P9,300.00 to the Government; will the courts declare said official to have
abused his discretion, and to compel him to sell the lot at P50.00 per hectare?
No, indeed. That would be requiring him to donate the land, and to squander
public money or property. He is authorized to sell; he is not authorized
to donate. Knowingly to "sell" public property at one
twentieth of its price is not selling; it is "donating", and the courts
will, if called upon to do so, declare such 'sale" to be invalid, because
the officer, in "donating", has exceeded his power to
"sell".chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
In view of the foregoing, the appealed
decision is reversed and the complaint dismissed with costs against
plaintiff-appellee. So ordered.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
Paras, C. J. Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista
Angelo,
Endnotes:
1 In fact the land officers had no choice; the law
direct that the land be sold to the highest bidder.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
2 Here is what the Secretary found about the value of
the land:" chanrobles virtual law library
. . . in this
particular case under review, this Office has considered the fact that the land
in question was formerly covered by the rejected Lease Application No. 2680 of
Pedro Monteverde which was involved in the so-called Japanese dummy land
holdings. Lands so involved therein were among the best that could be had in
the
3 There were instances where lots were sold by the
Government at more than twenty times the price fixed by the Appraisal
Committee and/or the price paid for adjoining lots:
chanrobles virtual law library
"In Kidapawan
Townsite, Cotabato, a residential lot duly appraised at P.50 sq. m. was sold at
auction sale by the Bureau of Lands at P20.00 per sq. m., and that lot of 1,000
sq. m. was sold to the highest bidder for P20,000.00 while adjoining
residential lots of the same class were sold at only P500.00 for the lot of the
same area, 1,000 square meters.".chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library
4 Unless such high bid constitutes an indication that
bidder does not intend to pay; or unless the Government knows he cannot pay. chanrobles virtual law library
5 Aportadera "is genuinely interested in
purchasing and having the litigated property" as "the same will prove
a gaining ventur." (Brief for Appellant.)