http://sjdigesto.blogspot.

com
TAN V DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY
G.R. No. L- 24548 October 27, 1983

FACTS:

Sometime in April 1961, the Bureau of Forestry issued notice advertising for public bidding a certain
tract of public forest land situated in Olongapo, Zambales consisting of6,420 hectares, within the former
U.S. Naval Reservation comprising 7,252 hectares of timberland, which was turned over by the US
Government to the Philippine Government. Wenceslao Tan with nine others submitted their application in
due form.

The area was granted to the petitioner. On May 30, 1963, Secretary Gozon of Agriculture and Natural
Resources issued a general memorandum order authorizing Dir. Of Forestry to grant new Ordinary
Timber Licenses (OTL) subject to some conditions stated therein (not exceeding 3000 hectares for new
OTL and not exceeding 5000 hectares for extension)

Thereafter, Acting Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Feliciano (replacing Gozon)
promulgated on December 19, 1963 a memorandum revoking the authority delegated to the Director of
Forestry to grant ordinary timber licenses. On the same date, OTL in the name of Tan, was signed by
then Acting Director of Forestry, without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. On January 6, 1964, the license was released by the Director of Forestry .

Ravago Commercial Company wrote a letter to the Secretary of ANR praying that the OTL of Tan be
revoked. On March 9, 1964, The Secretary of ANR declared Tans OTL null and void (but the same was
not granted to Ravago). Petitioner-appellant moved for a reconsideration of the order, but the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources denied the motion.

ISSUES:
I. Whether or not petitioners timber license is valid (No)
II. Whether or not petitioner had exhausted administrative remedies available (No)


RULING:

I
Petitioners timber license was signed and released without authority and is therefore void ab
initio. In the first place, in the general memorandum dated May 30, 1963, the Director of Forestry was
authorized to grant a new ordinary timber license only where the area covered thereby was not more than
3,000 hectares; the tract of public forest awarded to the petitioner contained 6,420 hectares In the second
place, at the time it was released to the petitioner, the Acting Director of Forestry had no more authority to
grant any license. (The license was released to the petitioner on January 6, 1964 while on the other hand,
the authority of the Director of Forestry to issue license was revoked on December 19, 1963). In view
thereof, the Director of Forestry had no longer any authority to release the license on January 6, 1964,
and said license is therefore void ab initio. What is of greatest importance is the date of the release or
issuance. Before its release, no right is acquired by the licensee.

http://sjdigesto.blogspot.com
Granting arguendo, that petitioner-appellant's timber license is valid, still respondents-appellees can
validly revoke his timber license. "A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the
person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor
is it taxation

The welfare of the people is the supreme law. Thus, no franchise or right can be availed of to defeat the
proper exercise of police power.



II

Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedy in this case. He did not appeal the order of the
respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines.
Considering that the President has the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of the respondents,
the failure of the petitioner-appellant to take that appeal is failure on his part to exhaust his administrative
remedies.