LEGAL OPINION
RE: INVESTIGATION REPORT REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS SALES
APPLICATION OF IILUMINADO FLAUTA OVER LOT NO. 150085-A, CSD-12-
010334-D WITH AN AREA OF 664 SQM. MORE OR LESS, LOCCATED AT
POBLACION 3. MIDSAYAP, COTABATO
Respectfully submitting the following legal opinions and/or comments on the
controversy between the Local Government of Midsayap and certain Illuminado
Flauta III in connection with the filing of Miscellaneous Sales Application of the
latter, to wit:
1. Well-settled is the rule that a Presidential Decree has the force and effect
of a law being a legal proclamation unless subsequently repealed or
amended. Hence, Presidential Decree No. 809, series of 1991 having not
repealed or amended by subsequent positive act of the government is
enforceable and its implementation cannot be impeded by mere series of
municipal resolutions;
2. The Local Government of Midsayap actions betray their claims when
Proclamation No. 809 was issued, it did not institute a proper action to
question its validity, using as cause of action its series of resolutions
vehemently opposing the Miscellaneous Sales Application on the mere
premise that it has pending appeals at the Office of the President
regarding the issuance of the said Proclamation. Stated otherwise, the
Sangguaniang Bayan relied merely on their resolutions in opposing the
implementation of the Proclamation No. 809, s.9991 and did not file suit
to invalidate it as they simply sat and waited for the good graces of the
government to fall on their laps. Simply waiting for the government to
grant their appeals;
3. The missteps of the Local Government of Midsayap in opposing the
implementation of the Proclamation No. 809, s.1991 cannot be sustained
as it is prejudicial to the rights of Mr. IIluminado Flauta III after all the
necessary requirements for the Miscellaneous Sales Applications has
been complied with. Further, the Midsayap’s Sannguniang Bayan should
not be allowed to trifle with the processes of the State. They cannot
resort to other remedies which are improper thereby capriciously
delaying the processes of the State;
4. It is peculiar to note, for the sake of argument that, while collection of
rent may be considered an attribute of an owner as argued by the Local
Government of Midsayap, it is not safe to assume that all who collect
rents are owners. Thus, it was held that the mere fact that a municipality
continued to collect revenues or rentals from the residents who occupy
any parcel of land comprised within its district is not proof that the said
municipality is the proprietor of such realty; it might be considered to be a
usufructuary of the land in question, but without right to enter it in the
proper rregistry (Municipality of Tacloban v. Director of Lands);
5. Finally, it is to borne in mind that it is well-settled principle that findings
of fact of administrative bodies charged with specific fields of expertise
are afforded great weight in the absence of substantial showing that such
findings are patently erroneous. It was held in various cases that, at any
rate the findings of fact of the DENR and its field offices,
admittedly and administrative agency which have acquired
expertise because of their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters like the processing, inspections, and/or investigation of
public land sale applications, are generally accorded respect, if
not finality (emphasis supplied). Hence, the findings of then Dir. Datu
Tungkol M. Saikol of DENR XII as well as the justifications made thereon
must be given weight.
Thus, in the light of foregoing premises, it is recommended that the
Miscellaneous Sales Application of Mr. Illuminado Flauta III should proceed in
accordance with the laws, policies and regulations as a mere formal opposition
through series of resolutions unsupported by appropriate action and forums
should not stop the jurisdiction of this body in acting upon the said
Miscellaneous Sales Application.