FACTS
Rosita Taleon (one of the petitioners in this case) is the
registered owner of a parcel of land located in Lupon,
Davao. Taleon acquired such land from her co-petitioner
Miguel Solis, who had constructed therein man-made
canals and fishpond dikes. In April 1961, Lucia
Tolentino (private respondent in this case), wrote a
letter-complaint to the Secretary of Public Works and
stating that several fishpond owners/operators in
Lupon, Davao have built dams across and closed
Cabatan River, a navigable stream, which deprived her
and other residents passageway, fishing ground, and
water supply. It is noted that Tolentinos land and those
of the other residents abut the banks of the Cabatan
River. Subsequently, the letter-complaint was amended
to particularly specify Taleon and Solis, as well as one
Humberto De Los Santos, as those responsible for the
alleged closure of the Cabatan River. Taleon filed her
answer denying the existence of the alleged river and
claimed that said dams were constructed inside her
registered property and that her water source was a
man-made canal connected to the sea.
The Secretary of Public works, after conducting an
administrative hearing, ruled that petitioners dams
were indeed obstructing the Cabatan River and ordered
for the demolition of such dams. (The river use to pass
inside Taleons and De Los Santos lands and was said to
have been obstructed because of the dams constructed
therein.) Taleon and Solis filed a motion for
reconsideration averring that the Secretary of Public
Works had no jurisdiction over the case; however,
such motion was denied. Thereafter, petitioners
elevated the case to the Office of the President (OP).
However, the OP, after reviewing the records, affirmed
the decision of the Secretary of Public Works.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
Office of the President likewise denied.
In February 1962, the District Engineer of Davao
informed Taleon that her dams would be demolished
based on the Secretary of Public Works administrative
ISSUE
Whether or not the Secretary of Public Works had
jurisdiction to hear the said case.
HELD
(The resolution of the aforestated issue will determine
whether or not the order of demolition of the dams
constructed inside TAleons property shall be in order.)
YES, he has. The Secretary of Public Works has the
power to declare as public navigable stream any alleged
depression or bodies of water even inside titled
properties, for such incidental to power conferred upon
him by virtue of Republic Act 2056.
RA 2056, which is the law empowering the Secretary of
Public Works to order the removal of any dam, dike,
or any other works existing or may be constructed
thereafter that encroaches into any public navigable
river, stream, coastal waters, or any other public
navigable waters. This law likewise gives the Secretary
of Public Works the power to impose violation of this
law, as well as to order demolition of the aforesaid
obstructive structures.
FACTS
ISSUE
Whether or not the Board of Communications had
jurisdiction over the complaints.
HELD
NONE.
(1) The Board of Communications had no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case for its
powers are limited solely to the issuance of
certificates of public convenience and the
power of supervision and control over matters
RELATED to the issuance of said certificates.
The Court rationalized its decision in the
following manner:
The functions of the Public Service
Commission are limited and administrative in
nature and it has only jurisdiction and power
as are expressly or by necessary implication
conferred upon it by statute. 4 As successor
in interest of the Public Service Commission,
the Board of Communications exercises the
FACTS
There has been an existing boundary dispute between
the Municipality of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan and the
City of Caloocan since 1968. In order to resolve the longstanding conflict, the Sangguniang Bayan of the
Municipality of San Jose Del Monte passed and approved
Resolution no. 20-02-94 on February 1884, which
recognizes that the official boundary between San Jose
Del Monte and Caloocan City is that which was specified
in the certified true copy of the geographic position and
plain grid coordinates of Caloocan City, as per CAD-267,
specifically from Municipal Boundary Monument (MBM)
22 to MBM 33.
Subsequently in 1995, another Resolution was passed
by said Sangguniang Bayan of San Jose Del Monte, this
time recognizing Tala Estate as the lot lines delineating
the boundary between the Municipality of San Jose Del
Monte and Caloocan City. Because of this Resolution,
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) of Region III was prompted to conduct a
relocation survey.
On September 15, 1995, the DENR submitted a
comprehensive report, which essentially states the
following:
In Municipal Resolution No. 06-08-95 dated
August 8, 1995, it is requested that the
geographic positions of BM Nos. 11 to 24, Tala
Estate shall be recognized as the official lots
lines which delineates the boundaries of San
Jose del Monte, Bulacan and Caloocan City;
Moreover, the resolution is opposed to the
delineation of Marilao River as the
boundary of two localities, as embodied in
SWO-41615;
If the lot lines of Parcels 1, 2 and 3, SWO-41615
will be the basis for the boundaries of the two
LGUs, Marilao River will be the natural
Spouses Angel and Rosario Cruz, Rufino Laan, Rufina Laan Santos,
Andres Nepomuceno, spouses Alberto and Herminia Hagos, Leon Guilalas,
spouses Oscar and Haydee Badillo, and Leoncio Laan (herein private
respondents)
ISSUE
Whether or not the COSLAP had jurisdiction to hear and
decide the long-standing boundary dispute and issue the
assailed writ of execution.
HELD
NONE. The COSLAP cannot hear and decide the
boundary dispute between the Municipality of San Jose
Del Monte and Caloocan City because it is not
authorized and/or empowered under the law to do so.
The Court ruled that the applicable rule in this case is
Section 3 of Executive Order no. 561, which is the
authority of law creating COSLAP:
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions. The Commission shall
have the following powers and functions:
xxx
2. Refer and follow up for immediate action by the
agency having appropriate jurisdiction any land
problem or dispute referred to the Commission:
Provided, That the Commission may, in the following