Plaintiffs brought this action in the Court of First Instance of  Rizal for  the annulment of a certain document whereby  Juana Fariñas Vda. de Baclig released in favor of defendant a portion of public agricultural land which was the subject of a sales  application then pending consideration by the Bureau of Lands.

Plaintiffs are the heirs of one  Eustaquio  Baclig,  Sr., who died in 1944.  They alleged that in 1932 Baclig filed a sales application  to buy a parcel  of public  agricultural land  situated in Kiañgan,  Mt.  Province; that  in  1934 Baclig placed defendant as his overseer  to take  care of the cultivation  of  the  land  having acted  as  such continuously up to June, 1956; that on November 4, 1954, after the death  of Baclig, defendant requested his widow to be allowed to apply with  the  Bureau  of Lands for a  free patent of a portion of  the land covered  by their sales application containing  an area of 30 hectares to which the widow, moved by his appeal was prevailed upon to agree provided  that the  portion  to be released be taken  from the uncultivated part of the land,  and  to  that effect she executed the  deed of release Annex A on November 4, 1954; that sometime in 1956, the widow sent a representative to visit the land which  was under the supervision of defendant  and it was only then that she  discovered  that the portion of land described in the deed of release was the cultivated portion  contrary  to  the agreement and representations made by defendant;  and that defendant, acting in bad  faith,  has caused his  wife and daughter  to  file free patent applications for the parcel of land covered by the deed of release  which are now causing delay  in  the approval of the sales application of plaintiffs because of the conflict occasioned by the aforesaid  free patent applications.

Defendant,  in his  answer, admitted  that he acted as overseer of plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest in the land covered  by their  sales  application,  but denied that the deed  of release Annex  A has  been  executed by the widow through false representation on his part.   He averred that said  deed was executed by  her  because of their agreement to transfer to him  a portion of the land covered by their application in consideration  of the sum of P1,000.00 which was actually received by her in Manila sometime in 1954,  and that  if such consideration does  not appear in the  deed, it was due to fraud  committed by  the widow.  Defendant also set up a counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees.

When the case  was called  for trial,  defendant moved for the  dismissal of  the  complaint on the ground that it does not state  a cause of action,  whereupon the court allowed  defendant to  submit evidence in support  thereof.

At this juncture, plaintiffs  admitted that the portion of land covered by the deed of release sought to be annulled is  part  of the public agricultural land  covered by their sales application pending in the  Bureau of Lands  which was then under consideration.  In view of this admission, defendant desisted from  presenting  further evidence  and submitted his motion for  resolution.  Thereupon, the court issued an order sustaining the  motion and dismissing the complaint.  Hence the present appeal.

The reasons given by the trial  court in dismissing the complaint  are  as follows:

"The only question to be determined in this case is whether the plaintiffs,  under the above facts  stipulated by  the  parties,  can maintain  a  separate and  simultaneous  action in  Court against the herein defendant in whose favor was executed the deed of release to the portion of public land before the Bureau of  Lands which was likewise applied with Free Patent Applications of the defendant's representatives,  now  pending action  and approval  by said  office.

"In this connection,  it may not  be  amiss  to state  that  the Bureau of Lands is a quasi-judicial tribunal having exclusive  jurisdiction over the disposition of public  domain and  charged with the administration of all laws relative thereto.  It  appearing that the Bureau of Lands has taken cognizance of the case,  the determination of which  depends the present  action, the  Court believes that it cannot divest of  it  until after  exhausting the  exercise  of its authority."

It  would  appear that the  trial court  considered  itself without  jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case for the only  reason that the portion  of  land covered by the  deed of release which  is  sought to be annulled is part  of a public agricultural land covered  by  sales application filed by plaintiffs as well as by the free patent application filed by defendant with the Bureau of Lands which were  then pending consideration by said office.   The  court reasoned out that because  said Bureau has  exclusive  jurisdiction over  disposition  of public lands, the  conflict  can  not be passed upon by the trial court without the  parties having first  exhausted their administrative remedies,  or  without said conflict having first been determined by  the Bureau of Lands.

We believe  this  to be an error.   While  it is true that the Bureau  of Lands has exclusive jurisdiction to act on matters  which concern the sale,  lease  or  other disposition of public  lands, and that any conflict that may arise in relation  thereto comes  under its authority, the question herein involved is one that comes under the jurisdiction of the regular courts, for  it merely concerns  the annulment of a  private contract even if it covers  a  portion of the public domain.   Here  it  appears that plaintiffs  applied for a sales application of a large tract of public agricultural land  with the Bureau of Lands, and while the same was pending consideration,  an  agreement  was  entered into between Juana Fariñas  widow of Baclig and defendant whereby the latter was allowed to apply for himself a portion thereof containing an area of 30 hectares.  On the strength of this  agreement,  defendant was able to  file with the  Bureau  of Lands in  behalf of  his wife  and daughter a free patent application covering that  portion which during the  pendency of this case was  also under the consideration of said Bureau.  It developed however that the agreement was entered into  through  fraud  and misrepresentation  on the part of  defendant,  as claimed in the complaint, for which reason the present action was instituted.  As a consequence, the widow wants  now to annul the  agreement in  order  that the free patent application submitted by defendant in behalf of his wife  and daughter will not be given due course.  This gave rise to a conflict  between the sales application of the widow on one hand,  and the free patent application of the defendant, on the  other.  It therefore  becomes necessary  to first determine the validity  of  the  agreement in  order to  resolve that conflict.  This is  not the concern of the Bureau of Lands.   This comes  within the  province  of the  regular courts.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside.  The case is remanded to  the lower court for further proceedings.  Costs against  appellee.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador,  Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.