CASE 29: CALO VS.

FUERTES (JUNE 1962)

FACTS:
Petitioner Francisco Calo contested the homestead application of Delfin Fuertes. The Director of
Lands rendered an opinion denying Calos claim and ordered him to vacate the premises within
sixty days from receipt of the opinion. His request for reconsideration was denied.
Calo brought the matter to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Secretary
modified the opinion of the Director of Lands. The Secretary ordered Fuertes to reimburse Calo
the difference between the value of the improvements that Calo introduced and the value of the
consequential benefits derived by Calo from the land. Calo was not satisfied with the decision.
He appealed to the President of the Philippines. He withdrew his appeal before the President
could act on the case.
Calo filed a petition for writs of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with the CFI of
Agusan praying that the enforcement of the opinions be enjoined.
TC: DISMISSED: Failure to state a cause of action, lack of jurisdiction and non exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
ISSUE: Whether or not the TC committed error when it dismissed Calos petition on the basis of
Calos failure to exhaust all administrative remedies.
Held: NO.
Ratio:
Calo: The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is the alter ego of the president hence,
he need not appeal from the decision of the former to the latter.
The withdrawal of the appeal taken to the President of the Philippines is tantamount to not
appealing at all thereto. Such withdrawal is fatal, because the appeal to the President is the last
step he should take in an administrative case.
Furthermore, a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 67 of the Rules of
Court lies only when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law." In the case at bar, appeal from an opinion or order by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines is the plain, speedy and
adequate remedy available to the petitioner.