Marianne L.

Lalwani 1 Administrative Law

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-17821 November 29, 1963

PR M T !O LO! NA, "#$ NELL% MONT LLA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. &ON. 'LORENC O MORENO, "( Se)re*"r+ o, P-b./) 0or1( "#$ Comm-#/)"*/o#(, "#$ BEN2AM N %ON3ON, defendantsappellants. Gil R. Carlos and Associates for plaintiffs-appellees. Office of the Solicitor General for defendants-appellants. RE%ES, 2.B.L., J.: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch !, in its Civil Case "o. #$%&', en(oinin) the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications from causin) the removal of certain dams and di-es in a fishpond o.ned b+ Primitivo and "ell+ /ovina in the Municipalit+ of Macabebe Province of Pampan)a, covered b+ T.C.T. "o. $0'10. The cause started b+ a petition of numerous residents of the said municipalit+ to the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications, complainin) that appellees had bloc-ed the 2*apan) Bulati2, a navi)able river in Macabebe, Pampan)a, and as-in) that the obstructions be ordered removed, under the provisions of Republic 3ct "o. 410%. 3fter notice and hearin) to the parties, the said *ecretar+ found the constructions to be a public nuisance in navi)able .aters, and, in his decision dated $$ 3u)ust $'0', ordered the land o.ners, spouses /ovina, to remove five (0! closures of *apan) Bulati5 other.ise, the *ecretar+ .ould order their removal at the e6pense of the respondent. 3fter receipt of the decision, the respondent filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the *ecretar+ from enforcin) his decision. The trial court, after due hearin), )ranted a permanent in(unction, .hich is no. the sub(ect of the present appeal. The respondents-appellants, Florencio Moreno, *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications, and Ben(amin 7on8on, investi)ator, 9uestion the (urisdiction of the trial court, and attribute to it the follo.in) errors: $. The trial court erred in holdin) in effect, that Republic 3ct "o. 410% is unconstitutional: 4. The trial court erred in receivin) evidence de novo at the trial of the case5 &. The trial court erred in substitutin) its (ud)ment for that of defendant *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications and in reversin) the latter;s findin) that the stream in 9uestion is a navi)able river .hich .as ille)all+ closed b+ plaintiffs5 #. The trial court erred in holdin) that the *apan) Bulati is a private stream5 and 0. The lo.er court erred in not holdin) that plaintiffs should first e6haust administrative remed+ before filin) the instant petition. The position of the plaintiffs-appellees in the court belo. .as that Republic 3ct "o. 410% is unconstitutional because it invests the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications .ith s.eepin), unrestrained, final and unappealable authorit+ to pass upon the issues of .hether a river or stream is public and navi)able, .hether a dam encroaches upon such .aters and is constitutive as a public nuisance, and .hether the la. applies to the state of facts, thereb+ Constitutin) an alle)ed unla.ful dele)ation of (udicial po.er to the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications. *ections $ and 4 of Republic 3ct 410% provides: *ection $. 3n+ provision or provisions of la. to the contrar+ not.ithstandin), the construction or buildin) of dams, di-es or an+ other .or-s .hich encroaches into an+ public navi)able river, stream, coastal .aters and an+ other navi)able public .aters or .ater.a+s as .ell as the construction or buildin) of dams, di-es or an+ other .or-s in areas declared as communal fishin) )rounds, shall be ordered removed as public nuisances or a prohibited constructions as herein provided: Provided, however, That the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications ma+ authori8e the construction of an+ such .or- .hen public interest or safet+ so re9uires or .hen it is absolutel+ necessar+ for the protection of private propert+. *ection 4. ,hen it is found b+ the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications, after due notice and hearin), that an+ dam, di-e or an+ other .or-s no. e6istin) or ma+ there after be constructed encroaches into an+ public navi)able .aters, or that the+ are constructed in areas declared as communal fishin) )rounds, he shall have the authorit+ to order the removal of

Marianne L. Lalwani 2 Administrative Law

an+ such .or-s and shall )ive the part+ concerned a period not to e6ceed thirt+ da+s for the removal of the same: Provided, That fishpond constructions or .or-s on communal fishin) )rounds introduced in )ood faith before the areas .e proclaimed as fishin) )rounds shall be e6empted from the provisions of this 3ct, provided such constructions or .or-s do not obstruct or impede the free passa)e of an+ navi)able river, stream, or .ould not cause inundations of a)ricultural areas: Provided, further, That should the part+ concerned fail to compl+ .ith the order of the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications .ithin the period so stated in the order, such removal shall be effected b+ the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications at the e6pense of the said part+ .ithin ten da+s follo.in) the e6piration of the period )iven the part+ concerned: Provided, furthermore, That the investi)ation and hearin) to be conducted b+ the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications under this section shall be terminated and decided b+ him .ithin a period .hich shall not e6ceed ninet+ da+s from the time he shall have been notified in .ritin) or a .ritten complaint shall have been filed .ith him b+ an+ interested part+ apprisin) him of the e6istence of a dam, di-e or an+ other .or-s that encroaches into an+ other public navi)able river, stream, coastal .aters or an+ other public navi)able .aters or .ater.a+s and in areas declared as communal fishin) )rounds: Provided, still furthermore, That the failure on the part of the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s and Communications .ithout (ustifiable or valid reason to terminate and decide a case or effect the removal of an+ such .or-s, as provided for in this section, shall constitute an offense punishable under section three of this 3ct: And provided, finally, That the removal of an+ such .or-s shall not impair fishponds completed or about to be completed .hich do not encroach or obstruct an+ public navi)able river or stream and<or .hich .ould not cause inundations of a)ricultural areas and .hich have been constructed in )ood faith before the area .as declared communal fishin) )rounds. The ob(ections of the appellees to the constitutionalit+ of Republic 3ct "o. 410%, not onl+ as an undue dele)ation of (udicial po.er to the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s but also for bein) unreasonable and arbitrar+, are not tenable. It .ill be noted that the 3ct (R.3. 410%! merel+ empo.ers the *ecretar+ to remove unauthori8ed obstructions or encroachments upon public streams, constructions that no private person .as an+.a+ entitled to ma-e, because the bed of navi)able streams is public propert+, and o.nership thereof is not ac9uirable b+ adverse possession (Palanca vs. Common.ealth, %' Phil. ##'!. It is true that the e6ercise of the *ecretar+;s po.er under the 3ct necessaril+ involves the determination of some 9uestions of fact, such as the e6istence of the stream and its previous navi)able character5 but these functions, .hether (udicial or 9uasi-(udicial, are merel+ incidental to the e6ercise of the po.er )ranted b+ la. to clear navi)able streams of unauthori8ed obstructions or encroachments, and authorities are clear that the+ are, validl+ conferable upon e6ecutive officials provided the part+ affected is )iven opportunit+ to be heard, as is e6pressl+ re9uired b+ Republic 3ct "o. 410%, section 4. It thus appears that the dele)ation b+ Con)ress to e6ecutive or administrative a)encies of functions of (udicial, or at least, 9uasi-(udicial functions is incidental to the e6ercise b+ such a)encies of their e6ecutive or administrative po.ers, is not in violation of the *eparation of Po.ers so far as that principle is reco)ni8ed b+ the Federal Constitution nor is it in violation of due process of la.. (& ,illou)hb+ on the Const. of the =.*., pp. $%0#-$%00! The mere fact that an officer is re9uired b+ la. to in9uire the e6istence of certain facts and to appl+ the la. thereto in order to determine .hat his official conduct shall be and the fact that these acts ma+ affect private, ri)hts do not constitute an e6ercise of (udicial po.ers. 3ccordin)l+, a statute ma+ )ive to non-(udicial officers the po.er to declare the e6istence of facts .hich call into operation its provisions, and similarl+ ma+ )rant to commissioners and other subordinate officer, po.er to ascertain and determine appropriate facts as a basis for procedure in the enforcement of particular la.s. ($$ 3m. >ur., Const. /a., p. '01, sec. 4&0! s. 4&?. Powers to determine cases within Statute. @ Ane important class of cases in .hich discretion ma+ properl+ be vested in administrative officers, .hich class is almost an operation of the )eneral rule relatin) to the ascertainment of facts, consists of those cases in .hich a )eneral rule or prohibition is laid do.n and po.er is vested in an e6ecutive officer to determine .hen particular cases do or do not fall .ithin such rule or prohibition. Po.er e6ercised under such statutes, callin) for the e6ercise of (ud)ment in the e6ecution of a ministerial act, is never (udicial in nature .ithin the sense prohibited b+ the Constitution. ($$ 3m. >ur., Const. /a., sec. 4&?, p. '04! 3 direct precedent can be found in the 2Brid)e cases2 upholdin) the constitutionalit+ of the =.*. River and Barbor 3ct of March &, $C'', that empo.ered (sec. $C! the *ecretar+ of ,ar to ta-e action, after hearin), for the removal or alteration of brid)es unreasonabl+ obstructin) navi)ation. An the issue of undue dele)ation of po.er, the =.*. *upreme Court ruled as follo.s: Con)ress thereb+ declared that .henever the *ecretar+ of ,ar should find an+ brid)e theretofore or thereafter constructed over an+ of the navi)able .ater.a+s of the =nited *tates to be an unreasonable obstruction to the free navi)ation of such .aters on account of insufficient hei)ht, .idth of span, or other.ise, it should be the dut+ of the *ecretar+, after hearin) the parties concerned, to ta-e action loo-in) to the removal or alteration of the brid)e, so as to render navi)ation throu)h or under it reasonabl+ free, eas+, and unobstructed. 3s this court repeatedl+ has held, this is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative or udicial power to the Secretary. =nion Brid)e Co. vs. =nited *tates, 41# =.*. &%#, &C0, 0$ /. ed. 04&, 0&&, 4? *up. Ct. Rep. &%?5 Monon)ahela Brid)e Co. v. =nited *tates, 4$% =.*. $??, $'4,0# /. ed. #&0, ##$, &1 *up. Ct. Rep. &0%5 Bannibal Brid)e Co. v. =nited *tates, 44$ =.*. $'#. 410, 00 /. ed. %'', ?1&, &$ *up. Ct. Rep. %1&. The statute itself prescribes the )eneral rule applicable to all navi)able .aters, and merel+ char)ed the *ecretar+ of ,ar .ith the dut+ of ascertainin) in each case, upon notice to the parties concerned, .hether the particular brid)e came .ithin the )eneral rule. Af course, the *ecretar+;s findin) must be based upon the conditions as the+ e6ist at the time he acts. But the la. imposin) this dut+ upon him spea-s from the time of its enactment. (/ouisville Brid)e Co. v. =.*., %$ /. ed. &'0!. (Dmphasis supplied!

Marianne L. Lalwani 3 Administrative Law

3ppellees invo-e 3merican rulin)s that abatement as nuisances of properties of )reat value can not be done e6cept throu)h court proceedin)s5 but these rulin)s refer to summary abatements without previous hearin), and are inapplicable to the case before us .here the la. provides, and the investi)ator actuall+ held, a hearin) .ith notice to the complainants and the, appellees, .ho appeared therein. It is note.orth+ that Republic 3ct 4%10 authori8es removal of the unauthori8ed di-es either as 2public nuisances or as prohibited constructions2 on public navi)able streams, and those of appellees clearl+ are in the latter class. It ma+ not be amiss to state that the po.er of the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s to investi)ate and clear public streams free from unauthori8ed encroachments and obstructions .as )ranted as far bac- as 3ct &41C of the old Philippine /e)islature, and has been upheld b+ this Court (Palanca vs. Common.ealth, supra5 Meneses vs. Common.ealth, %' Phil. %#?!. ,e do not believe that the absence of an e6press appeal to the courts under the present Republic 3ct 410% is a substantial difference, so far as the Constitution is concerned, for it is a .ell--no.n rule that due process does not have to be (udicial process5 and moreover, the (udicial revie. of the *ecretar+;s decision .ould al.a+s remain, even if not e6pressl+ )ranted, .henever his act violates the la. or the Constitution, or imports abuse of discretion amountin) to e6cess of (urisdiction. The ar)ument that the action of the *ecretar+ amounts to a confiscation of private propert+ leads us directl+ to the issue of fact .hether a navi)able portion of the Bulati cree- had once traversed the re)istered lot of the appellees /ovina and connected .ith Manampil cree- that borders said lot on the north.est before it .as closed b+ >ose de /eon, /ovina;s predecessor. The *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s has found from the evidence before him that, ori)inall+, the sapang (cree-! Bulati flo.ed across the propert+ in 9uestion, and connected the "asi river .ith sapang Manampil5 that in $'4% or thereabouts, the Bulati cree- .as 4 meters deep at hi)h tide and $<4 meter deep at lo. tide, and the people used it as fishin) )rounds and as a communication .a+, navi)atin) alon) its len)th in bancas5 that former re)istered o.ner, >ose de >esus, closed about meters of the course of the sapang Bulati that la+ .ithin the lot in 9uestion b+ constructin) dams or di-es at both sides and convertin) the lot into a fishpond. The appellees, on the other hand, rel+ on the $'$% re)istration plan of the propert+ (D6h. C!, sho.in) it to be merel+ bounded b+ the Bulati cree- on the southeast, as .ell as on the testimon+ introduced at the hearin) of prohibition case (over the ob(ection of the Eovernment counsel! that the Bulati cree- did not enter the propert+. The Court of First Instance found that 2accordin) to the location plan, D6hibit 2C2, the 2Bulati cree-, on .hich di-es and dams in 9uestion .ere constructed .as a mere estero and could not be considered a navi)able stream then.2 It is not e6plained ho. such fact could appear solel+ from the plan D6hibit 2C2 (no other proof bein) referred to!, unless indeed the court belo. so concluded from the fact that in said plan the Bulati cree- does not appear to run .ithin the re)istered lot. The conclusion of lo.er court is not supported b+ its premises, because b+ la., the issuance of a Torrens title does not confer title navi)able streams (.hich are fluvial hi)h.a+s! .ithin re)istered propert+, nor is it conclusive on their non-e6istence, unless the boundaries of such streams had been e6pressl+ delimited in the re)istration plan (3ct #'%, sec. &' cf. Palanca vs. Common.ealth, %' Phil. ##'5 Meneses Common.ealth, %' Phil. %#?!, so that delimitation of their course ma+ be made even after the decree of re)istration has become final. In the present case, in truth the ver+ plan of the appellees, D6hibit 2C2, sho.s parallel reentrant lines, around its point %0 and bet.een points ## and that indicate the e6istence of a stream connectin) the sapang Bulati on the southeast and the sapang Manampil on the north.est, and .hich the surve+or apparentl+ failed delimit for some undisclosed reason. That the stream .as the prolon)ation of the sapang Bulati, that formerl+ flo. across the re)istered lot, is also sho.n b+ the fact that appellees; plan D6hibit 2C2, the .est.ard continuation the Bulati cree- (.est of point %0!, .hich bounds the re)istered lot, is labelled 2Dtero Mabao2. The plan thus corroborates the previousl+ summari8ed testimon+ laid before investi)ator 7on8on and relied upon b+ the *ecretar+ in his administrative decision. Dven more, appellees; o.n careta-er, 7ambao, sho.ed investi)ator 7on8on the old course of the Bulati .ithin the fishpond itself5 and this evidence is, li-e.ise, confirmed b+ the cross-section profile of the )round near the dams in 9uestion (*ee plan 3nne6 2332 of 7on8on;s Report!, .here the old channel of the cree- is clearl+ discernible. To be sure, appellees contend that the+ .ere not sho.n this plan5 but in their evidence before the court of first instance, the+ never attempted, or offered, to prove that said plan is incorrect. That the cree- .as navi)able in fact before it .as closed .as also testified to b+ the )overnment .itnesses, .hose version is corroborated as .e have seen. Considerin) the .ell-established rule that findin)s of fact in e6ecutive decisions in matters .ithin their (urisdiction are entitled to respect from the courts in the absence of fraud, collusion, or )rave abuse of discretion (Com. of Customs vs. Falencia, 0# A.E. &010!, none of .hich has been sho.n to e6ist in this case, .e a)ree .ith appellant that the court belo. erred in re(ectin) the findin)s of fact of the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s. The findin)s of the *ecretar+ can not be enervated b+ ne. evidence not laid do.n before him, for that .ould be tantamount to holdin) a ne. investi)ation, and to substitute for the discretion and (ud)ment of the *ecretar+ the discretion and (ud)ment of the court, to .hom the statute had entrusted the case. It is immaterial that the present action should be one for prohibition or in(unction and not one for certiorari, in either event the case must be resolved upon the evidence submitted to the *ecretar+, since a (udicial revie. of e6ecutive decisions does not import a trial de novo, but onl+ an ascertainment of .hether the e6ecutive findin)s are not in violation of the constitution or of the la.s, and are free from fraud or imposition, and .hether the+ find reasonable support in the evidence. $ Bere, the proof preponderates in favor of the *ecretar+;s decision. "evertheless, .e, a)ree .ith appellees that the+ can not be char)ed .ith failure to e6haust administrative remedies, for the *ecretar+;s decision is that of the President, in the absence of disapproval (Fillena vs. *ecretar+ of the interior, %? Phil. #0$!.

Marianne L. Lalwani 4 Administrative Law

Finall+, there bein) a possibilit+ that .hen the+ purchased the propert+ in 9uestion the appellees /ovina .ere not informed of the ille)al closure of the Bulati cree-, their action, if an+, a)ainst their vendor, should be, and is hereb+, reserved. In resume, .e rule: ($! That Republic 3ct "o. 410% does not constitute an unla.ful dele)ation of (udicial po.er to the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s5 (4! That absence of an+ mention of a navi)able stream .ithin a propert+ covered b+ Torrens title does not confer title to it nor preclude a subse9uent investi)ation and determination of its e6istence5 (&! That the findin)s of fact of the *ecretar+ of Public ,or-s under Republic 3ct "o. 410% should be respected in the absence of ille)alit+, error of la., fraud, or imposition, so lon) as the said, findin)s are supported b+ substantial evidence submitted to him. (#! That o.nership of a navi)able stream or of its bed is not ac9uirable b+ prescription. ,BDRDFARD, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the .rits of in(unction issued therein are annulled and set aside. Costs a)ainst appellees /ovina. !eng"on, C.#., Padilla, !autista Angelo, !arrera, Paredes, Regala and $a%alintal, ##., concur. &i"on, #., too- no part.