[G.R. No. 53837. October 3, 1991]Petitioner purchased from Bonifacio Merendad a parcel of corn and pasture land with improvements thereon situated at Sitio Igbolo with an area of 60,000 sq.m.. He has since then been in possession thereof.

On or about April 21, 1977, private respondent, claiming that the northern portion of said parcel of land is included in his Original Certificate of Title No. N-1889 (Free Patent No. 319059), caused a technical survey of said portion over the vehement opposition and objection of petitioner. Petitioner thereafter filed with the District Officer, Bureau of Lands, San Jose, Antique a protest under oath, praying that the original certificate of title issued in private respondent's favor be annulled on the ground of fraud. An investigation was forthwith commenced by the District Land Officer.

In the meantime, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Capiz an action for Injunction with Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction with Damages against private respondent, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 1539. He alleged in the main that since he filed the protest with the District Land Office, private respondent, personally and with the aid of his agents who are notorious in the community for their violent temper, had for several times attempted and were still attempting to oust him from the area in controversy by means of force, violence and intimidation. He therefore prayed that a writ of preliminary prohibitive injunction be issued against private respondent as defendant therein and his agents; that said injunctive writ be made permanent after trial and that private respondents be adjudged liable to him for actual and moral damages and expenses of litigation.

At the hearing, counsel for private respondent moved for the dismissal of the case.

On January 22, 1979, the trial court issued an Order dismissing Civil Case No. 1539 on the ground of prematurity. It held that the action for injunction is in effect an action for nullity of OCT No. 1889 which was allegedly obtained by private respondent through fraud. However, since it was admitted by petitioner that he had filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands, which protest was still pending investigation, petitioner had "no cause of action for filing a complaint in court unless the administrative remedies provided by law shall have been exhausted."

Is the ruling of the judge correct? Will you apply the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in the case at bar?