ORTUA v.

SINGSON ENCARNACION BUT: any action of the Director of Lands which is based upon a misconstruction of the law
No. 39919 / JAN 30, 1934 / MALCOLM, J /ADMIN – Extent of judicial review: questions of can be corrected by the courts. It certainly was not intended by the legislative body to
law/RLAurellano remove f rom the jurisdiction of courts all right to review decisions of the Bureau of Lands,
NATURE Appeak from an order of the CFI Cam Sur f or to do so would be to attempt something which could not be done legally. Giving f orce
PETITIONERS Fortunato Ortua to all possible intendments regarding the facts as found by the Director of Lands, yet so
RESPONDENTS Vicente Singson Encarnacion, Sec. of Agriculture and Commerce, et al much of the decision of the Director of Lands as relates to a question of law is in no sense
conclusive upon the courts, but is subject to review.
SUMMARY. Petitioner Ortua wants to buy public land but the Director of Lands did not allow
him because he is a Chinese citizen. This is based on findings of facts. SC says, we like you 2. WON Ortua is a Filipino citizen – YES, because he did not repudiate his Philippine
and you can do that, but you got it wrong brah, we gon’ change it k? SC held that Ortua is citizenship.
Filipino. When Ortua landed as Chinese, it was the natural thing to do, as it would facilitate entry and
DOCTRINE. A decision rendered by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of obviate complications. Re: boat registration, there can be many reasons
Agriculture and Commerce, upon a question of fact is conclusive and not subject to be
reviewed by the courts, in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in On the other hand, Ortua vigorously insists that he is a Filipino citizen
consequence of fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the  He has taken a Filipino name
value or effect of evidence, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with the preponderance  He has gone into business and improved his property here to a great extent
of the evidence, so long as there is some evidence upon which the finding in question could be  No implied renunciation of citizenship because he was domiciled in PH before he left for
made China
 He had always considered himself Filipino and elected to remain a PH citizen.
FACTS.
 Petitioner Ortua filed an application with the Bureau of Lands for the purchase of some In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the Director of Lands made an error in considering
public land in Cam Sur Ortua a Chinese citizen.
 Bureau of Lands: Application rejected because Ortua NOT a Filipino citizen, but he was
allowed to file a sale or lease application for the portion of land classified to be suitable for DECISION.
commercial purposes within 60 days and upon payment of Php 3k for accrued rent Order of the TC set aside, record remanded to court of origin
o Public Land Law requires that only Filipino citizens may purchase tracts of public
agricultural land
o Ortua was born in Cam Sur, mom is Pinay, dad is Chinese, went to China to study. While
in China, mom and dad were married.
 Returned to PH when he was 21
 Director of Lands: Ortua presumptively a Filipino citizen but certain acts demonstrate that
he had forfeited his PH citizenship:
o Ortua voluntarily applied for a landing Cert. of residence only given to Chinese people
o When Ortua applied for the registration of a boat, it was denied by the Insular Collector
of Customs because he was a Chinese citizen. Ortua submitted to this ruling.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON the findings of fact of the Director of Lands is conclusive – YES, but it can still
be corrected if it is based upon a misconstruction of the law.
A discretion is lodged by law in the Director of Lands which should not be interfered with.
The decisions of the Director of Lands on the construction of the Public Land Law are
entitled to great respect by the courts.

A decision rendered by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce, upon a question of fact is conclusive and not subject to be reviewed by the
courts, in the absence of a showing that such decision was rendered in consequence of
fraud, imposition, or mistake, other than error of judgment in estimating the value or effect
of evidence, regardless of whether or not it is consistent with the preponderance of the
evidence, so long as there is some evidence upon which the finding in question could be
made.