The plaintiffs Maria L. Hernandez and Antonio Hernandez  instituted  in the justice of the peace court of Tagum, Davao, an  action for forcible entry and detainer against the  defendants  Hilarion Clapis, Sixto  Pielago, Ponciano Albeldia, Alejandro Arcena, Consorcio Pregora and Roberto Rebortara, wherein  a judgment was rendered  in favor of the  plaintiffs and against the defendants.  The latter  appealed to the Court of First Instance of Davao wherein they were declared in default and a decision was  accordingly rendered on' December  24,  1947, the  dispositive part of which reads as follows.:

"In the light op the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, as follows:  (a) Ordering the defendants, Hilarion Clapis, Ponciano Albeldia, Alejandro Areena, Consoreio Pregora, Roberto  Rebortera,  and Sixto  Pielago  and/or their agents,  to  vacate the land in question (lot 2806, Tagum, B. h. Cad. No. 276), situated at Nanyo, Tagum, Davao and to restore the same to the immediate possession of the plaintiffs, Maria L. Hernandez and Antonio Hernandez;  (b) Sentencing said defendants to  pay, jointly and severally,  onto the  plaintiffs, the sum of P2,786  and Pl,078.50, by way  of damages, with the corresponding obligation on the part of said plaintiffs to turn over the said sum of P1,087.50 to the Bureau of Lands,  as the latter participation in the produce; and  (e) to pay  the costs."

The  defendants again appealed to this Court which, on October  3,  1950, affirmed the  judgment of  the Court of First Instance  of  Davao.  The  decision of  this  Court having  become  final, the plaintiffs filed in  the Court of First Instance of Davao on December 15, 1950, a motion praying that a writ of execution be issued and that the bond filed by the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc., to stay execution be levied upon to satisfy the damages and costs awarded in favor of  the plaintiffs.  On January 25, 1951, the defendants filed an opposition to the motion for execution, alleging that the land in question is public agricultural land under the control and disposal of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources arid that in a decision rendered by the Secretary of said Department dated March 5, 1949, plaintiffs' right to  possess and administer the land was revoked, and the defendants were given the preference to apply for and occupy the same.   The plaintiffs filed on February 9,1951 a reply to defendants' opposition. The defendants in turn filed a supplemental opposition to the motion for execution, followed by a memorandum in opposition to the execution.  After the plaintiffs had filed two supplemental replies, one dated March. 7 and another dated April 10, 1951,  the  court issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of execution, on the ground that it was ministerial and mandatory  for said court  to do so, the decision involved having become final.  Having failed to secure a reconsideration, the defendants have taken the present appeal to this Court.  .

The land in question is admittedly of the public domain. It was covered by sales application No. 8297 pf Santiago. Santos which was  cancelled by the Director of  Lands on October 5,1935, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, for the reason that the applicant was a dummy of the Japanese.  In 1947, plaintiff Maria L. Hernandez filed a sales application for. a portion containing an area of 50 hectares, while her husband, plaintiff Antonio Hernandez, filed  a sales application for an  adjoining lot. In the meantime,  the  defendants who are veterans of the last world war, believing that they were entitled to preference, took possession  of  the  land.   In  view  of the conflict that  arose, due  investigation was  made by the proper administrative  authorities, resulting in the decision of the Secretary  of Agriculture and Natural  Resources dated March 5,1949, which (1) revoked the appointment of plaintiff Maria L.  Hernandez for the administration of the land in question; (2) rejected her sales application and the sales application filed by  her husband,  plaintiff Antonio Hernandez; and (3)  allowed  defendants Hilarion Clapis and  Sixto Pielago  to apply for said land, being entitled to preference in  pursuance of the provisions of Republic Act No.  65.   A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed  by the plaintiffs with the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources was denied  in the latter's  order of 'Stiff; 30, 1949.  Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, the President of the Philippines, on July 26,  1950, affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture.

In our opinion the present appeal is meritorious.  While the decision in the forcible entry and detainer case is  final, it can no  longer be executed at least in so far as the possession of the land in question is concerned, because, under section 4  of Commonwealth Act No.  141, the Director  of Lands has direct executive control  of the  survey, classification, lease,  sale or any other form  of concession  or disposition  and  management of the  lands of the public domain, and his  decisions as to questions of fact are conclusive  when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture; and because the latter  had  already cancelled the right of plaintiff Maria L. Hernandez to administer the land in question and  rejected both her sales application  and that of her husband,  plaintiff Antonio Hernandez,  at the same  time giving the defendants the preferential right to  apply for said  land in virtue of the provisions of Republic Act No. 65. The  correctness of the final decision of the Secretary  of Agriculture is not herein involved, but it  is valid and binding until reversed in a proper proceeding by the court.  The situation  is not that the  judgment  in the forcible  entry and  detainer  case has  lost its virtuality, but  that, the plaintiffs  had subsequently ceased to be  entitled to the relief awarded by said  judgment.

However, the money judgement in favor of the plaintiff a not being within the scope of the administrative  control granted by law to the  Director  of Lands  with  reference to public land,  may still be enforced  by execution

Wherefore, the appealed  order will  be as it is hereby reversed in so far as the matter  of possession  of the land in question is concerned, but affirmed in so far as it relates to the award of  damages in favor of the plaintiffs  and against the  defendants.   So ordered without  costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  Reyes,  J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.