Heirs of Snatiago v Sec of Public Works

8/20/2019 Heirs of Snatiago v Sec of Public Works

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/heirs-of-snatiago-v-sec-of-public-works 1/5

G.R. No. L-44485 June 27, 1988

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO PASTORAL and AGSTIN !ATO, petitioners-appellants,vs.THE SE"RETAR# OF P!LI" $OR%S and "O&&NI"ATIONS, THE "IT# ENGINEER OF 'AGPAN "IT# and

LEONAR'O ESPANOL, respondents-appellees.

Paulino S. Cabugao for petitioners-appellants.

GTIERRE(, JR., J.:

This case was certified to us by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Sections 17 and 21 of the Judiciary Act, asaended in relation to Section !, "ule #$ of the "ules of Court on the %round that the issues raised are pure&uestions of law. The ain issue centers on the authority of the Secretary of 'ublic (or)s and Counicationsunder "epublic Act 2$#* to declare the construction of di)es encroachin% into public navi%able waters as a publicnuisance and to order their reoval.

Soetie in +ctober 1#, residents of acayao /orte, Caran%laan, and 0ayobo istricts of a%upan City led byeonardo 3spanol filed coplaints with the Secretary of 'ublic (or)s and Counications 4hereinafter referred toas Secretary5 denouncin% the heirs of Santia%o 'astoral and A%ustin ato for 6alle%ed encroachents into the Tulao"iver ... to the preudice of public interest.6 The coplaints were doc)eted as Cases /os. "A-2$#*-2* and "A-2$#*-!7 respectively.

The Secretary desi%nated the City 3n%ineer of a%upan City to conduct hearin%s in the two cases. All the partieswere notified of the hearin%s set for both cases.

ased on the evidence subitted by the parties, the Secretary rendered two separate decisions orderin% the reovalof the encroachents coplained of within thirty 4!$5 days fro receipt of notice. Thus, in Case /o. "A-2$#*-2*, theheirs of Santia%o 'astoral were ordered to reove the fishpond di)es indicated as 3ncroachents /os. 1, 2, ! and 8in 39hibit 6A6 while in Case /o. "A-2$#*-!7, A%ustin ato was ordered to reove the fishpond di)es indicated as3ncroachent /o. # in 39hibit 6A.6 The Secretary ruled that encroachents /os. 1, 2, !, 8 and # in 39hibit 6A6 hadbeen ille%ally constructed within the channel of Tulao "iver. The Secretary declared the encoura%eent croachentsas public nuisances under "epublic Act 2$#*.

Their otion for reconsideration havin% been denied by the Secretary, the respondents filed in the Court of :irst;nstance of 'an%asinan a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliinary inunction a%ainstthe Secretary, the City 3n%ineer of a%upan City and eonardo 3spanol. The case was doc)eted as Civil Case /o.-!!.

The petitioners 4respondents in the adinistrative cases5 alle%ed 6... that respondent City 3n%ineer inforedpetitioners that the !$-day period %iven the to reove the fishpond di)es has e9pired and that his office will proceedto deolish the di)es on orders fro the Secretary of 'ublic (or)s and Counications< that they have title over thealle%ed encroachents and a fishpond perit issued by the epartent of A%riculture and /atural "esources,throu%h the ureau of :isheries, authori=in% the to construct a fishpond on an adoinin% parcel of their property notcovered by title.6 The petitioners sou%ht the annulent of the decision of the Secretary of 'ublic (or)s andCounications on the %round of lac) of urisdiction and the issuance of a writ of prohibition coandin% therespondents to desist absolutely and perpetually fro further olestin% in any anner the petitioners and interferin%with the e9ercise of their ri%hts over the lands in &uestion.

;n his answer, the Secretary invo)ed his authority to reove the encroachents under "epublic Act /o. 2$#* andstated that he had acted lawfully and ustly and within the sound liits of his authority and urisdiction thereunder.

The parties a%reed to subit the case for ud%ent on the pleadin%s and were allowed by the lower court to subittheir respective eoranda.



The trial court then rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners-appellants proptin% the Secretary to interpose anappeal to the Court of Appeals.

The Secretary assi%ned a sin%le assi%nent of error, to wit>

T?3 T";A C+@"T C+00;TT3 3""+" ;/ ?A;/B A//@3 T?3 3C;S;+/S "3/3"3 T?3 S3C"3TA" +: '@;C (+"DS A/ C+00@/;CAT;+/S, ;/ CAS3SJ@";S;CT;+/, A/ ;/ '3"0A/3/T 3/J+;/;/B SA; S3C"3TA" :"+0;0'303/T;/B T?3 +"3" T+ "30+3 T?3 3/C"+AC03/TS 'AC3 T?3

A''3A33S +/ T?3 T@A+ ";3". 4At p. 17, "ollo5

;n support of this lone assi%nent of error, the petitioner raised the followin% ar%uents>

15 The Secretary was duly vested with urisdiction both over the parties and subect atter of thecontroversy.

25 The Secretary duly confored to the re&uireents of due process in the e9ercise of his authorityunder "epublic Act /o. 2$#*.

!5 The Secretary did not, as concluded by the court a &uo, rule on the validity of appelleesE titles

over the lots in &uestion.

85 The issuance of fishpond perits by the ureau of :isheries did not preclude the Secretary froconductin% due investi%ation and in rulin% upon the sae.

#5 The SecretaryEs findin%s of fact are entitled to respect fro the courts. 4At pp. 17-1, "ollo5

As stated earlier, the ain issue hin%es on the authority of the Secretary of 'ublic (or)s and Counications under"epublic Act 2$#* to declare that the construction or buildin% of das, di)es or any other wor)s which encroach intoany public navi%able river, strea, coastal waters and any other navi%able public waters or waterways as well as theconstruction or buildin% of das, di)es or any other wor)s in areas declared as counal fishin% %rounds isprohibited and to order their reoval as 6public nuisances or as prohibited constructions.6

The lower court concluded that the Secretary abused his authority under "epublic Act /o. 2$#* on the followin%points> 415 The Secretary passed ud%ent on the validity of the titles of the petitioners over 3ncroachents !, 8 and# when he declared such titles as null and void< and 425 the di)es denoinated as 3ncroachents /os. 1 and 2 wereconstructed by virtue of a perit le%ally issued in favor of the late Santia%o 'astoral by the ureau of :isheries onJuly 1, 18 because the area was deeed fit by said +ffice of fishpond purposes, and the construction of suchdi)es would not ipede the flow of the river. The lower court opined that in constructin% the di)es, the petitionerswere only e9ercisin% a ri%ht le%ally %ranted to the and that 6they shall reain to enoy the privile%e until such tiethat their perit shall have been cancelled.6

The petition is ipressed with erit.

The records belie the lower courtEs findin% that the Secretary passed ud%ent on the titles of the lots in &uestion.

;n connection with 3ncroachents /os. ! and 8, the ?eirs of Santia%o 'astoral presented a certified true copy of

+ri%inal Certificate of Title /o. issued by the "e%ister of eeds of a%upan City to show that the encroachentsare within their titled lands. The Secretary, however, stated in his decision>

As re%ards the last two encroachents, the evidence shows that the southern boundary thereof isthe ori%inal ban) of the Tulao "iver. The properties in &uestion, titled as they are, are clearly withinthe bed of the river. 3ven the testiony of Aniceto uis, a representative of the ureau of ands inthe investi%ation, shows without doubt, that the encroachents are within the river bed as ay be%leaned fro the followin%>



F As it appears in the record, title was %ranted to Santia%o 'astoral on thisalle%ed encroachent /o. ! and 8 which falls s&uarely on the Tulao "iver anddurin% the ocular inspection by the undersi%ned, the fact becae evident that theriver is hi%hly navi%able. /ow, what e9planation can you a)e as to why title wasissued over a portion of a river, public river at that, which is hi%hly navi%ableG

A So far, our record does not show that it is a navi%able river, but it is ust stated

that 6the area applied for is a part of the Tulao "iver and therefore it is coveredby water.6 4:ro the report of the eputy 'ublic and ;nspector 3. entura dated0arch, 1#8 in connection with the Sales application of Santia%o 'astoral.5

F So in the report, it was stated that the land applied for by Santia%o 'astoral isentirely covered by water and part of the riverG

A es, sir,

The propriety of the title over the last two encroachents is beyond the urisdiction of this +ffice toin&uire into, uch less &uestion, althou%h it sees worth loo)in% into by the proper authorities. ethat as it ay, the fact reains that the di)es and other wor)s therein are encroachents into theTulao "iver and, as such, are public nuisances within the conteplation of "epublic Act /o. 2$#*.4pp. 1-2, ecision in "A-2$#*-2*5

'etitioner A%ustin ato also subitted a verified copy of the +ri%inal Certificate of Title /o. 2 to show thatencroachent /o. # was privately owned.

Anent this ar%uent, the Secretary said>

999 999 999

... ;t has been found, however, that the land in &uestion, althou%h titled, is within the bed of theTulao "iver. 3ven the representative of the ureau of ands bolstered such findin% as ay be%leaned fro the followin% portion of his testiony>

F ut you stated that the technical description falls s&uarely to the Tulao "iver.(hat ; a after is the condition of the land when the application was ade. oyou have that in your recordsG 6

A es sir.

F /ow, if ; show the certificate of title that covered the portion of this land, willyou a%ree with e that the technical description is the sae as that appearin% inyour recordG

A es, they are the sae.

F 0r. uis, we have the technical description appearin% in the certificate of titlewhich you aditted to be the sae as appearin% in your record plotted, and it

appears that the sae land covered by the description falls s&uarely on theriverG ;s it still on the side of the river or in the river itselfG ; a referrin% to theencroachent /o. # by A%ustin ato.

A /o, if this encroachent ade by A%ustin ato is the sae land as describedin the technical description fro the title, then it is within the river.6

0oreover, Section ! of Act /o. 8*, in definin% the scope and efficacy of a certificate of title underthe Torrens Syste, established soe e9ceptions which the force of said title does not reach oraffect. Aon% the are properties of the public doain. Since the portion appropriated is of public



doinion, re%istration under Act /o. 8* did not a)e the possessor a true owner thereof. 4Celsoedesa v. The 0unicipality of ;loilo, Concepcion ope=, 0a9io 0. Dalaw and wife, and Juliaedesa, defendants, 8 'hil. 7*5. 4pp. 1-2, ecision in "A-2$#*-!75

;n effect, the Secretary passed ud%ent only to the e9tent that, althou%h the encroachents were inside titledproperties, they are within the bed of a river. (ith this factual findin%, he declared the encroachents, converted intofishponds within the Tulao "iver, as prohibited and ordered their reoval pursuant to his authority under "epublic Act

2$#*. ?e never declared that the titles of the petitioners over the lots in &uestion were null and void.

The SecretaryEs authority to deterine &uestions of fact such as the e9istence of a river even inside titled propertieswas reco%ni=ed in the cases of Lovina v. Moreno, 4 SC"A ##75 and Taleon vs. Secretary of Public Works andCommunications 42$ SC"A *5. (e stated that the fact-findin% power of the Secretary of 'ublic (or)s andCounications is erely 6incidental to his duty to clear all navi%able streas of unauthori=ed constructions and,hence its %rant did not constitute an unlawful dele%ation of udicial power. ... that althou%h the titles were silent as tothe e9istence of any strea inside the property, that did not confer a ri%ht to the strea, it bein% of a public natureand not subect to private appropriation, even by prescription.6 ;n the instant cases, the residents alon% the Tulao"iver coplained about obstructions on the river. :ro a width of 7$ to 1$# eters, the river had been reduced to awidth of only 1$ to 1# eters. The river was navi%able and even at low-tide was two to three eters deep.

As re%ards the lower courtEs findin% that the di)es desi%nated as 3ncroachents /os. 1 and 2 were constructedunder the petitionersE :ishpond 'erit issued by the ureau of :isheries in 18 and, therefore, ust be respected,

the Secretary counters that such issuance of fishpond perit did not preclude hi fro conductin% due investi%ationpursuant to his authority under "epublic Act 2$#*.

(e a%ree.

Section 1 of "epublic Act 2$#* is e9plicit in that "ny provision or provisions of la! to te contrarynot!itstanding#the construction or buildin% of das, di)es ... which encroaches into any public navi%able river,strea, coastal waters and any other navi%able public waters or waterways ... shall be ordered reoved as publicnuisance or as prohibited construction as herein provided ... The record shows that the petitionersE fishpond peritwas issued in 18 while the Act too) effect on June !, 1#. Therefore, the SecretaryEs ore specific authority toreove di)es constructed in fishponds whenever they obstruct or ipede the free passa%e of any navi%able river orstrea or would cause inundation of a%ricultural areas 4Section 2, "epublic Act 2$#*5 ta)es precedence. 0oreover,the power of the Secretary of 'ublic (or)s to investi%ate and clear public streas fro unauthori=ed encroachentsand obstructions was %ranted as early as Act !7$ of the old 'hilippine e%islature and has been upheld by this

Court in the cases of Palanca v. Common!ealt 4* 'hil. 885 and Meneses v. Common!ealt 4* 'hil. *875. Thesae rule was applied in ovina v. 0oreno, 4supra5 Santos etc., et al. v. Secretary of 'ublic (or)s andCounications 41 SC"A *!75.

All in all, we find no %rave abuse of discretion or an ille%al e9ercise of authority on the part of the Secretary of 'ublic(or)s and Counications in orderin% the reoval of the encroachents desi%nated as /os. 1, 2, !, 8 and # of39hibit 6A6.

The rules of due process were observed in the conduct of investi%ation in the two cases. The parties concerned wereall notified and hearin%s of the two cases were conducted by the Secretary throu%h the City 3n%ineer of a%upanCity. All parties were %iven opportunity to present evidence to prove their clais after which the Secretary renderedseparate decisions pursuant to "epublic Act 2$#*.

The factual findin%s of the Secretary are substantiated by evidence in the adinistrative records. ;n the absence of

any ille%ality, error of law, fraud or iposition, none of which were proved by the petitioners in the instant case, saidfindin%s should be respected. 4ovina v. 0oreno, supra< Santos, etc., et al. v. Secretary of 'ublic (or)s andCounications, supra< See also ora v. 0oreno, 11 SC"A #*< Taleon v. Secretary of 'ublic (or)s andCounications, 2$ SC"A *5.

(?3"3:+"3, the instant appeal is B"A/T3. The &uestioned decision of the Court of :irst ;nstance of'an%asinan is "33"S3 and S3T AS;3. The decisions of the then Secretary of 'ublic (or)s andCounications in Cases /o. "A 2$#*-2* and /o. "A-2$#*-!7 are "3;/STAT3.

S+ +"3"3.



$ernan %Cairman&# $eliciano# 'idin and Cortes# ((.# concur.

The awphil 'roect - Arellano aw :oundation

Heirs of Snatiago v Sec of Public Works

Documents

Transcript of Heirs of Snatiago v Sec of Public Works