G.R. No.

L-13000

September 25, 1959

GAUDENCIO D. DEMAISIP, petitioner, vs. !E COUR O" APPEALS, E AL., respondents. #AU IS A ANGELO, J.: On December 4, 1936, Gaudencio Demaisip filed an action in the Court of First nstance of loilo pra!in" that #ud"ment be rendered $1% orderin" the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources to e*ecute a contract of lease of +ots (os. ,33, ,36 and ,3- of the Duman"as Cadastra, for a period of 1. !ears, and to issue the correspondin" fishpond permit in his favor, and to order said &ecretar! not to entertain the lease application of +uis e. /uenaflor pendin" final decision of the case0 $,% declarin" null and void all actions ta1en b! the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources, particularl! that of October 12, 1936 3ith respect to the lease application of +uis /uenaflor $3% orderin" /uenaflor to vacate the lands in 4uestion and to deliver their possession to him0 $4% orderin" the 5rovincial Fiscal of loilo to ta1e the necessar! steps for the criminal prosecution of /eunaflor for violation of the Forestr! +a3 and )e"ulations pertainin" thereto0 and $2% orderin" both defendants to pa! him, #ointl! and severall!, dama"es in the amount of 5,,....... 'fter trial, the court dismissed the complaint on the follo3in" "rounds6 $1% that the complaint is in realit! a petition for mandamus and therefore should have been verified as re4uired b! &ection 3, )ule 6-, of the )ules of Court, and 9,% that plaintiff did not e*haust all available remedies before resortin" to court action. 5laintiff appealed to the Court of 'ppeals, 3hich affirmed in toto the decision of the court a quo. 5laintiff interposed the present petition for revie3. 1wphl.nt 7he facts of this case 3hich the Court of 'ppeals found to be correct are 4uoted as follo3s6 7he first applicant for a fishpond permit coverin" +ots (os. ,33, ,36 and ,3- of Duman"as Cadastre, loilo, 3as the late Geronimo Destacamento 3ho filed his application on 'pril 1, 19,- $p. 26, rec.%. On Dec. 31, 193., the Fishpond 5ermit (o. F8 6,48/ "ranted to the late Geronimo Destacamento e*pired, because he failed to ma1e an! improvements on the lots and to pa! the re4uired rentals $pp. ,-8,9, 32, 36, 24, -68--, rec.% /efore his death or to be more e*act on December 19, 19,9, Geronimo Destacamento 3ithout the 1no3led"e and consent of the Director of Forestr! 1, e*ecuted a deed of sale coverin" the lots in 4uestions in favor of &erafin :illanueva, an act 3hich 3as ille"al and contrar! to the rules of the permit "ranted him $pp. 22826, rec.%. n a letter dated December 19, 19,9 the District Forester of loilo, not3ithstandin" the e*istence of the aforesaid deed of sale, re4uested &erafin :illanueva to appl! for a fishpond permit over the same lots. n spite of the re4uest, :illanueva ne"lected and failed to file his application for a fishpond permit, such that no permit 3as ever "ranted to him before or after the e*piration of the permit of the late Geronimo Destacamaneto $p. 26, rec.%.

t appears that on October 12, 1932 the herein complainant Gaudencio G. Demaisip filed 3ith the Fish and Game 'dministration a fishpond permit application 3hich 3as "iven (o. ,,92 for the same lots (os. ,33, ,36 and ,3- of Duman"as Cadastre, containin" an area of 13.9929 hectares of public man"rove forest land located in &itios /uan" and /alaba", barrio /uan", Duman"as, loilo $pp. 33,24, rec.%. /! ;arch 6, 1936, the Demaisip had complied 3ith all the prere4uisites necessar! for the issuance of a fishpond permit, namel!, pa!ment of annual rental of 5,1 and postin" of a suret! bond in the sum of 532. $pp. 36839, 24, rec.%. On ;arch 19, 1936, 3hen the fishpond permit in favor of Gaudencio Demaisip 3as read! to be issued $p. 39, rec.%, &erafin :illanueva e*ecuted a deed of sale coverin" the lots in 4uestion in favor of the herein defendant +uis <. /uenaflor $p. 22, rec.%0shortl! thereafter or in the same month, the latter started to occup! the land, and introduced improvements thereon consistin" of a bi" dam ,- meters lon", 4 meters hi"h, across the /alaba" )iver, 3orth 51,6.. $p. 2-, rec.%. 'ccordin" to the result of an investi"ation conducted b! a representative of the Fish and Game 'dministration, the dame deprives other fishponds leased from the "overnment of fresh or flo3in" 3ater and 3as ille"all! constructed because it violated a rule of that Office prohibitin" the introduction of an! improvements on the land applied for before the issuance of a permit $pp. 2-829, rec.%. t 3as onl! on ;a! ,1, 1936, or - months after Demaisip had filed an application, that +uis /eunaflor also filed his application for the area in 4uestion 3ith the loilo branch of the Fish and Game 'dministration $pp. 33, 2-, rec.%. =nder the above set of facts, the Director of Fish and Game 'dministration 3as called upon to decide 3ho of the conflictin" claimants > +uis /uenaflor or Gaudencio G. Demaisip > had a better ri"ht to be re"ard as the lessee of the land in 4uestion pursuant to &ection 63 of 'ct (o. 4..3. the dispositive part of the decision rendered b! the Director of the aforementioned office, dated ?une ,6, 1936, 3as as follo3s6 1wphl.nt @ n vie3 of the fore"oin", it is the opinion of this Office and it is hereb! decided that6 the application of the applicant8contestant +uis <. /uenaflor be re#ected0 the dam constracted across /alaba" )iver be opened0 all improvements on the area be forfeited in favor of the Government0 and the application of the applicant respondent Gaudencio <. Demaisip be "iven due course upon pa!ment of an additional rental of 516 3hich is one per centum of the value of improvements assessed at 51,6..,@ $p. 29, )ec. On 'ppeal% From such decision, +uis e. /uenaflor appealed to the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources $p. 43, rec.%. On October 12, 1936, the latter official reversed the decision of the Director of Fish and Game 'dministration and a3arded the ri"ht of lease to the lots in 4uestion to +uis <. /uenaflor and also ordered the return to Demaisip of the amount paid b! him as annual rental $pp. 4,843, 4-, rec.%. t is not 1no3n on 3hat "round the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources based his decision, because a cop! of said decision 3as not presented in the reconstitution of the records of this case. $'ppellee@s /rief, pp. 386% t is contended that the Court of 'ppeals erred in holdin" that the present action parta1es of the nature of a petition for mandamus 3hich should be verified as re4uired b!

&ection 3, )ule 6-, of the )ules of Court, and not havin" been so verified it suffers from a fatal defect 3hich cannot confer #urisdiction on the court a quo. t is contended that the complaint 3hich initiated this proceedin" is not one of mandamus but an action to obtain relief in connection 3ith the lease of certain lots for the purpose of convertin" them into fishponds as 3ell as to annul certain actions ta1en b! the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources, and that even if it be considered as a special civil action for mandamus the one that should "overn the same is not the )ules of Court but &ection ,.. of the Court of Civil 5rocedures $'ct 19.%. 7his claim is meritorious for it appears that the instant case 3as filed on December 4, 1936 and at that time the procedural la3 that 3as in force 3as 'ct 19. because the present )ules of Court too1 effect onl! on ?ul! 1, 194., and it is 3ell8settled that the formal as 3ell as substantial re4uisites of a pleadin" are "overned b! the la3 prevailin" at the time of its filin". Ae also find correct the claim that the present action is not one for mandamus but an ordinar! action 3herein several reliefs are pra!ed for concernin" the lease of certain lots 3hich plaintiff desires to be "ranted, to him, and since the action is not one for mandamus, it is unnecessar! to state in the compliant that the plaintiff has no plain, speed! and ade4uate remed! in the ordinar! course of la3 to entitle him to relief as re4uired in special civil actions. t is true that plaintiff did not appeal from the decision of the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources to the 5resident of the 5hilippines 3hen he reversed the decision of the Director of Fish and Game 'dministration, and ruled that the lease application of Demaisip should be denied and that of defendant /eunaflor be "iven due course upon compliance 3ith certain re4uirements, but such failure cannot preclude the plaintiff from ta1in" court action in vie3 of the theor! that the &ecretar! of a department is merel! an alter8 e"o of the 5resident. 7he presumption is that the action of the &ecretar! bears the implied sanction of the 5resident unless the same is disapproved b! the latter $:illena vs. 7he &ecretar! of the nterior, 6- 5hil., 421%. t is therefore incorrect to sa! that plaintiff@s action should not be entertained because he has failed the e*haust first all the administrative remedies available to him. <*plainin" his petition for revie3, (icolas Die"o called attention to the circumstance that no appeal had been ta1en to the 5resident from the &ecretar!@s administrative determination n issuin" the permit 'nd then he ar"ued for non8 interference b! the courts 3ith the acts of e*ecutive officers, unless all administrative remedies have been previousl! e*hausted. =pon e*amination of the )ecord on 'ppeal, ho3ever, 3e note that this defense 3as not interposed in the court of first instance. Perhaps because the pleader knew courts had entertained civil action of this nature against the Secretary of griculture and!or subordinate officers" even if complainants had not previously taken the matter up to the #hief $%ecutive0 and perhaps because such defense mi"ht onl! be valid in special civil actions > this is not one > 3herein the petitioner must alle"e and prove that the has no other speed! and ade4uate remed!. $Die"o vs. 7he Court of 'ppeals, et al., 24 Off. GaB., (o. 4, 9260 <mphasis supplied% Aith re"ards to the 4uestion 3hether the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources has not acted properl! or has abused his discretion in reversin" the decision of the Director of Fish and Game 'dministration a3ardin" the ri"ht to lease the lots in 4uestions to /uenaflor as no3 contended b! petitioner, 3e are not no3 in a position to pas #ud"ement on the actuation of such official for 3e do not have before us a cop! of his decision. 's the &olicitor General observes in his brief6 C7his Donorable Court is not in a position to ma1e an

accurate findin" as to 3hether or not the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources had "rossl! or "ravel! abused his discretion in the instant case because the decision of the said &ecretar! reversin" the decision of the Director of Fish and Game 'dministration had not been reconstituted and appended to the record of the case as indicated in our statement of facts. 7o rule that the &ecretar! of '"riculture and (atural )esources had "ravel! abused his discretion, 3ithout 1no3in" his reasons for reversin" the decision of the Director of Fish and Game 'dministration 3ould be tantamount to decidin" this case a"ainst said official 3ithout "ivin" him his da! in court.C Ae concur in this observation. Aherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, 3ithout pronouncement as to costs.1wphl.nt