Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 136 views

    Calo vs. Fuertes, 5 SCRA 399

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Dionisio
    This case discusses whether an appeal to the President is required before appealing to the courts. The Supreme Court held that an appeal to the President is a condition precedent to appealing a decision by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The petitioner appealed a decision by the Secretary to the President but later withdrew the appeal. The Supreme Court found this withdrawal meant the petitioner did not actually appeal to the President, which was a necessary step. As the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies by appealing to the President, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Calo vs. Fuertes, 5 SCRA 399

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Dionisio
    136 views1 page
    This case discusses whether an appeal to the President is required before appealing to the courts. The Supreme Court held that an appeal to the President is a condition precedent to appealing a decision by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The petitioner appealed a decision by the Secretary to the President but later withdrew the appeal. The Supreme Court found this withdrawal meant the petitioner did not actually appeal to the President, which was a necessary step. As the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies by appealing to the President, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether an appeal to the President is required before appealing to the courts. The Supreme Court held that an appeal to the President is a condition precedent to appealing a decision by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The petitioner appealed a decision by the Secretary to the President but later withdrew the appeal. The Supreme Court found this withdrawal meant the petitioner did not actually appeal to the President, which was a necessary step. As the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies by appealing to the President, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    136 views1 page

    Calo vs. Fuertes, 5 SCRA 399

    Uploaded by

    Kyle Dionisio
    This case discusses whether an appeal to the President is required before appealing to the courts. The Supreme Court held that an appeal to the President is a condition precedent to appealing a decision by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The petitioner appealed a decision by the Secretary to the President but later withdrew the appeal. The Supreme Court found this withdrawal meant the petitioner did not actually appeal to the President, which was a necessary step. As the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies by appealing to the President, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Calo vs.

    Fuertes, 5 SCRA 399 ISSUE:


    Whether the appeal to the President is a condition precedent to
    FACTS: the appeal to the Courts of Justice. - YES
    In Cadastral Case No. 84, Butuan City entitled Francis C. Calo,
    claimant-contestant, vs. Delfin C. Fuertes, applicant- HELD:
    respondent, the Director of Lands rendered an opinion denying Yes. The appellant’s contention that, as the Secretary of
    and dismissing former's claim and contest against the Agriculture and Natural Resources is the alter ego of the
    homestead application of Delfin C. Fuertes and ordered him to President and his acts or decisions are also those of the latter,
    vacate the premises within 60 days from receipt of a copy of he need not appeal from the decision or opinion of the former
    the opinion and stating that, upon finality thereof, the to the latter, and that, such being the case, after he had appealed
    homestead patent would be issued to Fuertes. His request for to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from the
    reconsideration having been denied by the Director of Lands, decision or opinion of the Director of Lands, he had exhausted
    Francisco C. Calo brought to the Secretary of Agriculture and all the administrative remedies, is untenable. The withdrawal of
    Natural Resources the case, who modified the opinion of the the appeal taken to the President of the Philippines is
    Director of Lands, ordering Fuertes to reimburse Calo of the tantamount to not appealing at all thereto. Such withdrawal is
    difference between the value of the improvements that the fatal because the appeal to the President is the last step he
    latter introduced on the land in controversy and the value of the should take in an administrative case. Furthermore, a special
    consequential benefits derived by him therefrom. Still civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
    dissatisfied with the opinion, Calo appealed to the President of Rules of Court lies only when "there is no appeal, nor any
    the Philippines, but withdrew it before the President could act plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
    thereon. He later filed in the Court of First Instance of Agusan law." In the case at bar, appeal from an opinion or order by the
    a petition for writs of certiorari and prohibition with Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President
    preliminary injunction praying that the enforcement of the of the Philippines is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy
    opinions of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of available to the petitioner. Therefore, the judgment appealed
    Agriculture and Natural Resources be enjoined among others. from had already become final and cannot be reviewed. The
    For failure to state a cause of action, for lack of jurisdiction and appeal is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner-appellant.
    for not exhausting all the administrative remedies available to
    the petitioner in the ordinary course of law, the Court resolves
    to dismiss as it hereby dismisses the herein petition with costs
    against petitioner. The petitioner then appeals to the Supreme
    Court"

    You might also like