5/8/2017 G.R. No.

48766

TodayisMonday,May08,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.48766February9,1993

GODELIVAS.DULAY,petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLEMINISTEROFNATURALRESOURCES,asaformalpartyandinhisOfficialCapacity,THE
DIRECTOROFTHEBUREAUOFFISHERIES&AQUATICRESOURCES,inhisOfficialCapacity,and
ANGELESDICO,inherPrivateCapacity,respondents.

RodrigoB.Lorenzoforpetitioner.

TheSolicitorGeneralforpublicrespondent.

BonaparteE.Terrazona,PedroA.Gizon&ArtemioRodriguezforA.Dico.

NOCON,J.:

PetitionerGodelivaS.DulaycomestothisCourtandasksUstoconfinepublicrespondentDirectoroftheBureauof
FisheriesandAquaticResourceswithinhisjurisdictionandtoupholdtheprincipleofresjudicatainadministrative
proceedings by nullifying (1) his February 24, 1978 order giving due course to the letterpetition of private
respondent Angeles D. Dico requesting for the reopening of Fishpond Conflict case of Mrs. Angeles Dico against
Juan Quibete, Petronilo Retirado and petitioner Mrs. Godeliva S. Dulay and the "Cancellation of Fishpond Lease
Agreement No. 2165 of Mrs. Godeliva S. Dulay" and (2) his telegrams dated August 14, 1978 stating that
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said February 24, 1978 interlocutory order "cannot be entertained" and
advisingpetitionerofthecontinuationoftheformalinvestigationoftheprivaterespondent'sletterpetitionscheduled
forSeptember4to9,1978.

This present conflict stems from two earlier cases decided by the Office of the President, both of which have
attainedfinality.AscondensedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,theseareasfollows:

1.Re:DANRCaseNo.2898
entitled"AngelesDico
v.JuanQuibete"
Annex("A")1

ThesalientantecedentfactsstatedinthedecisionoftheOfficeofthePresidentdatedNovember14,1969,are
asfollows:

That by a barter agreement entered into between Juan Quibete and Jose Padios
sometime in 1932, the former exchanged his parcel of land situated at Sitio Palaypay,
municipality of San Dionisio, province of Iloilo, for the latter's fishpond area of about 24
hectares located at sitio Talabaan, municipality of Cadiz (now Cadiz City), province of
NegrosOccidental

That Juan Quibete, also in 1932, applied for a Fish and Game Special Permit over the
area (F.P.L.A. No. 1709). The application was disapproved because the area covered
thereby was not yet declared available for fishpond purposes. The records of that
applicationwerelostduringWorldWarIIsomuchsothatJuanQuibetehadtorenewhis
applicationin1945(Fp.A.No.716).HisapplicationwasapprovedonFebruary10,1949
andFishpondPermitNo.F738Ewasissued

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_48766_1993.html 1/6
5/8/2017 G.R. No. 48766
ThatonFebruary6,1958,privaterespondent(AngelesDico)filedherfishpondapplication
(Fp.A.No.18206)tooccupytheareacoveredbypetitioner'sfishpondleaseagreement

Thatherapplicationwasdisapprovedonthegroundthattheareasheappliedhadalready
beenawardedtoJuanQuibete,predecessorininterestofthepetitioner,underFishpond
Permit
No.F738E,andthatamotionforreconsiderationthereonwasdenied

ThatonFebruary29,1964,JuanQuibetemeanwhilesoldand/ortransferredhisrightsand
interestsovertheareaunderFishpondPermitNo.F738EtoonePetroniloRetirado

ThatonApril28,1964,privaterespondentAngelesDicofiledaprotestwiththePhilippine
Fisheries Commission alleging that Juan Quibete was occupying and improving lot (Lot
No.489C)whichwasnottheareacoveredbyhisfishpondpermitandthathetransferred
his rights and interests over the said area without the approval of the Secretary of
AgricultureandNaturalResources

That the Philippine Fisheries Commissioner dismissed the protest on October 16, 1964
and declared that Lot No. 489C was the same area granted to Juan Quibete under his
fishpondpermitandnotanyotherlot

ThatfromthedecisionprivaterespondentAngelesDicobroughthercasetotheSecretary
ofAgricultureandNaturalResourceswhodismissedherappealonDecember7,1965

That after denial of a motion for reconsideration, she appealed to the Office of the
President.HerappealwasinturndismissedinthedecisionofNovember14,1969.

2.Re:DANRCaseNo.3447
entitled"F.P.A.No.
V33852,AngelesDico,
ApplicantAppellantv.
JuanQuibete,Claimant
Appellee"(Annex"F")2

Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:

That on November 13, 1965, while DANR Case No. 2898, supra, was still pending
decision by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, private respondent
AngelesDicofiledwiththeDirectorofLandsafreepatentapplication(No.V33852)fora
4hectaredryportionofLot489CcoveredbyFishpondPermit
No.F738EofJuanQuibete

That Juan Quibete, claiming preferential right over the area applied for, protested to the
application

ThattheDirectorofLands,inadecisiondatedMay30,1967,rejectedtheapplicationof
private respondent Dico and directed Juan Quibete to file the appropriate public land
application,ifqualified,forthe4hectaredryportion

Thatamotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied,privaterespondentDicoappealed
totheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources

ThatunderthesamesetoffactsfoundinDANRCase
No.2898aforesaid,theSecretaryaffirmedonJuly9,1970thedecisionoftheDirectorof
Lands(Annex"F"),statingthatthe4hectareareasubjectoftheappealcoveredaportion
ofthesametractoflandwhichwasthesubjectmatterofDANRCaseNo.2898

ThatprivaterespondentDicomovedtoreconsidertheSecretary'sdecision,Annex"F",but
her motion was denied on January 26, 1971. A second motion for reconsideration was
likewisedeniedperOrderdatedMay5,1971.

3.Asalreadystated,PetroniloRetiradobecamethesuccessorininterestofJuanQuibetebyvirtueof
adeedoftransferofrightsandimprovementsexecutedbyJuanQuibeteinfavorofPetroniloRetirado
onFebruary29,1964overtheareacoveredbyFishpondPermitNo.F738EofJuanQuibete(Annex
"A").

4. Ultimately, petitioner (Godeliva S. Dulay) succeeded to the rights and interests over the area in
question. On May 21, 1973, the heirs of Petronilo Retirado executed a "Deed of Sale of Fishpond
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_48766_1993.html 2/6
5/8/2017 G.R. No. 48766
ImprovementsandTransferofRights"(Annex"J")transferringtheirrightsandinterestsinfavorofthe
petitioner over a portion of Lot No. 489Cconsisting of 19.15 hectares, more or less, and covered by
theirFishpondPermitNo.1582.

5. On October 22, 1974, after application with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
petitionerwasissuedafishpondleaseagreement(No.2169)[Annex"K"]overaportionofLot489C
consistingof18.3675hectares,expiringonDecember31,1998.

6.OnOctober28,1977,privaterespondent(AngelesDico)submittedaletterpetitiontotherespondent
officials(Annex"L")requestingfora"reopeningoffishpondconflictofAngelesDicovs.JuanQuibete,
Petronilo Retirado and Mrs. Godeliva S. Dulay based on newly discovered evidence". It was there
allegedthatFishpondPermitNo.F738EofJuanQuibetedidnotcovertheareainquestion(LotNo.
489C) located in Sitio Talabaan, Municipality of Cadiz (now Cadiz City) but Lot No. 487 located in
BarrioLuna,CadizCity.Sheprayedthatpetitioner'sFishpondLeaseAgreementNo.2169becancelled
and,inlieuthereof,anewonebeissuedinhername.

7.Petitionermovedtodismisstheletterpetitiononthegroundofresjudicata(Annex"M").Sheargued
thatthetwoadministrativedecisionsinDANRCaseNo.2898andDANRCaseNo.3447(Annexes"A"
and"F"),involvingthesameparties,subjectmatterandcauseofaction,havealreadybecomefinaland
settledthematteronceandforall.

8. Claiming that res judicata is not applicable, private respondent opposed the motion to dismiss
(Annex"P").Thiswasthesubjectofarejoinder(Annex"Q")whichwasagainexceptedtobyprivate
respondent on the argument that res judicata does not apply in cases where the government has to
exerciseitsinherentpowertoregulate(Annex"R").

RespondentDirectorheldresolutionofthemotiontodismissinabeyance.Inan"InterlocutoryOrder"
datedFebruary24,1978,hereservedtoresolvethemotion"untilafterterminationoftheinvestigation"
broughtaboutbyprivaterespondent'sletterpetition.3

By reason of the denial not only of her Motion to Dismiss the letterpetition of respondent Angeles Dico dated
October28,1977butalsothe
denial 4 of her motion for reconsideration 5 and the insistence of respondent Director in conducting his investigation on
September4to9,1978attheBacolodCityFisheriesOffice,6thesituationhadbecomeurgentforpetitioner.Thus,shefiled
theinstantpetitionprayingfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionorrestrainingorderclaimingthatunlessoneis
immediatelyissued,respondentwillproceedwiththeinvestigationasscheduled,andifpetitionerrefusesorfailstoappearin
saidinvestigationbyreasonofthispetition,therespondentswillproceedwiththeinvestigationandreceptionofevidenceex
parteasclearlythreatenedbytherespondentDirectorinhistelegramstothepetitionerandhiscounsel,markedasAnnexes
"I","U","W"and"W1"herein.

Asprayedfor,WeissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderintheResolutionofSeptember7,1978.7

Private respondent Angeles Dico's request for the reopening of the case of "Dico vs. Quibete, et al." and the
cancellationoftheFishpondLeaseAgreementofpetitionerGodelivaS.Dulayonthegroundoffraudcommittedby
JuanQuibeteandPetronilaRetiradoisanchored,allegedly,onthefollowingpiecesofnewlydiscoveredevidence,
towit:

(1) Order of then Philippine Fisheries Commissioner Arsenio N. Rolden, dated May 12, 1964,
recognizing the fishpond application (No. 18206) of private respondent, dated Feb. 6, 1958, over the
areainquestionlocatedatBarrioDaga,Talabaan,Diotay,CadizCity

(2)ThePlanoftheBureauofLandsfortheentireareaofLot489ofwhichthesubjectareaisaportion

(3)TheFishpondApplication(No.18950)ofJuanQuibete(hereinpetitioner'ssuccessorininterest)for
5hectarescoveredbyLot489B(25hectares),situatedatBarrioDaga,Talabaan,Diotay,CadizCity,
was denied by Hon. Jose R. Montilla Assistant Director of Fisheries on May 19, 1960 because Juan
Quibete was already a holder of a previously approved fishpond application under Permit No. 738E
underLot487coveringa20hectareareasituatedatBarrioLuna,CadizCity

(4)ThePlanoftheaforesaidLot487

(5)Affidavitsofthree(3)personswhoattesttothefactthatJuanQuibete'sfishpondarea(Lot487)is
locatedatBarrioLuna,CadizCity.ThewitnessesareMansuetoD.Alarcon,thenMunicipalSecretary
of the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental dated January 6, 1965 Patrolman Eligio O. Javier,
memberofthepoliceforceofCadiz,NegrosOccidental,datedOctober22,1963andMelecioQuibete,
sonofJuan,executedinMay1964.8

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_48766_1993.html 3/6
5/8/2017 G.R. No. 48766
After an exhaustive review of the records of the case, We grant the petition and make permanent the temporary
restrainingorderissuedearlieronSeptember7,1978.

Privaterespondent'sletterpetition,9filedOctober28,1977,statesclearlythatitisa"RequestforReopeningofFishpond
ConflictofMrs.AngelesDicovs.JuanQuibete,PetroniloRetiradoandMrs.GodelivaS.DulaybasedonNewDiscovered
Evidence...."

It is already wellsettled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered
pursuant to their quasijudicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment
within the purview of the doctrine of resjudicata. The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter
once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasijudicial acts of public,
executiveoradministrativeofficersandboardsactingwithintheirjurisdiction.10

DANR Case No. 2898, entitled "Angeles Dico vs. Juan Quibete" was decided by the Office of the President on
November14,1969. 11Sincethesamewasnotbroughttothecourtsforjudicialreview,thesamehaslongbecomefinal
andexecutory.

DANR Case No. 3447, entitled "Angeles Dico vs. Juan Quibete" involved Free Patent Application No. V3385 of
private respondent Dico. The Director of Lands in a decision dated May 30, 1967 rejected her application. The
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources affirmed the same on July 9, 1970. 12 The findings of fact in said
DANRcase,whichwerefoundbytheSecretarytobethesamefactsinDANRCaseNo.2898,aredeemedconclusiveby
operationoflaw.13SaidDANRcase,nothavingbeenbroughtlikewisetothecourtsforjudicialreviewhasalsobecomefinal
andexecutory.14

Private respondent points out that the Director of Lands, Ramon N. Casanova, treated her motion for
reconsideration as a petition for relief from judgment. That may be so but Director Casanova's action was not in
accord with the administrative rules on appeal. Actually, the next step that private respondent should have taken
fromtheJuly9,1970DecisionoftheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResourceswastoappealthesametothe
Office of the President within 30 days from receipt of said Decision. 15Private respondent received the Decision on
September21,1970, 16andshouldhavebeenappealedthesamebyOctober24,1970,thelastdayoffiling.Insteadshe
filedamotionforreconsiderationonlyonNovember3,1970.Clearly,theJuly9,1970decisionoftheSecretaryofAgriculture
andNaturalResourcesinDANRCaseNo.3447hadbecomefinalandexecutory.

Ontheassumption,however,thatprivaterespondent'sNovember3,1970motionforreconsiderationwasproperly
treated as a petition for relief from judgment, thereby also assuming that E.O. 19 (1966) was not applicable to
privaterespondent'scase,acarefulreviewofheralleged"newlydiscoveredevidence"doesnotsupportthecharge
offraud.

Privaterespondent'sallegationisthatpetitioner'spredecessorininterest,JuanQuibete,wasgivenLot487under
Fishpond Permit No. F738E while Lot 489C, which she applied for under Fp. A. No. 18206, was what Juan
Quibeteactuallyimproved.HesoldhisrightsoverthisLot489CtoRetirado,whointurnsoldhisrightstopetitioner.

Actually,privaterespondentfiledonFebruary6,1958withtheBureauofFisheriesFishpondApplication,Fp.A.No.
18206,tooccupyLotNo.489CafterhavingallegedlyverifiedfromtherecordsoftheBureauofForestrythatthere
wasnopriorlessee.17HerapplicationwasinitiallydeniedonthegroundthatsaidLot489C,mistakenlywrittenasLot487
inQuibete'soriginalsketch,hadalreadybeengrantedtoQuibeteunderFishpondPermitNo.F738EasearlyasFebruary
10,1949.18

Infact,itappearsthatwhatprivaterespondentappliedforwastheveryareaofherhusband,CelsoDico.Thiswas
confirmed by the Assistant Director of Forestry in his letter dated October 15, 1963 to the Commissioner of the
PhilippineFisheriesCommission.19

PrivaterespondentprotestedonApril18,1964thedenialofherapplication.Toallowforfurtherverificationofher
claim,theNovember6,1963orderdenyingherapplicationwassetasidebytheorderofMay12,
1964 20thefirstallegednewlydiscoveredevidenceofprivaterespondentandanotherverificationmadeonMay23,
1964byoneoftheCommission'sinvestigators,Mr.CesarAlelis. 21ItwasestablishedthatitwasQuibete'sLot489Cwhich
privaterespondentwasclaiming,althougherroneouslylabelledasLot487byQuibetehimselfinthehandwrittensketchhe
submittedtotheBureauofFisheriesonDecember5,1946. 22Consequently,privaterespondent'sFishpondApplicationNo.
18206wasdeniedwithfinalitybythePhilippineFisheriesCommissiononOctober16,1964.23

Again,actingonthemotionforreconsiderationofhisOffice'sdenialofprivaterespondent'sappealofsaidOctober
16,1964Order,theSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesorderedonMarch6,1968,oneofthelawyersin
hisOffice'sLegalDivision,Atty.GuillermoB.Bautista,toconductanotherinvestigationandocularinspectionofthe
fishpondindispute.24

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_48766_1993.html 4/6
5/8/2017 G.R. No. 48766
Theresultswerethesame.ItwasLot489CthatwasimprovedbyJuanQuibeteandnotLot487.Asurprisethat
cropped up in this latest investigation was the withdrawal by Melecio Quibete, son of Juan Quibete, of his
statements in favor of private respondent which he said he made during the initial investigation regarding private
respondent'sFishpondApplicationNo.18206onlybecausehewaspromisedmoneytodoso. 25It turned out that
privaterespondentwelchedonherpromise.Sinceprivaterespondent'sclaimtothelandisanchoredonherpurchaseofsaid
land, together with improvements, from Melecio Quibete, 26the withdrawal by the latter of his statements renders private
respondentDico'sclaimfallacious.

Tosumup,thematterofwhichlotJuanQuibeteimprovedasafishpondandwhichrightshesoldtoRetiradowas
investigatedTWICEafterthePhilippineFisheriesCommissionreinstatedprivaterespondent'sFishpondApplication
No.18206initsOrderofMay12,1964.Bothinvestigationsmorethanthreeyearsapartwithinvestigatorsfrom
differentofficesshowedthatJuanQuibeteoccupiedandimprovedLot489Calthoughinthedifferentdocuments,
including maps, which make up this case, it was designated as Lot 487. Thus, no merit can be given to private
respondent'sallegedpiecesofevidence,number2and5(page78,supra)asalltheseHADalreadybeenstudied
thoroughlybybothInvestigatorAlelisandAtty.Bautistaintheseseparateinvestigations.

The matter having become final as of August or September 1970, 27it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of
public respondent Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to give due course to privaterespondent's
letterpetitionofOctober28,1977requestingforareopeningofthefishpondconflictinvolvedherein.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.OrderedANNULLEDandSETASIDEare
the (1) February 20, 1978 Order of the public respondent giving due course to the letterpetition of private
respondent and the (2) two August 14, 1978 telegrams issued by public respondent setting private respondent's
lettercomplaint for formal investigation. The temporary restraining order issued last September 7, 1978 is hereby
madePERMANENT.Costsagainstprivaterespondent.

ITISSOORDERED.

Narvasa,C.J.,Feliciano,RegaladoandCampos,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

#Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.5156.

2Id.,pp.6870.

3Id.,pp.433435.

4Annex"W",Rollo,p.140.

5Annex"V",Id.,p.136.

6Annex"T",Id.,p.134.

7Rollo,p.170A.

8Id.,p.438A.

9Annex"L",Rollo,pp.8191.

10Republicvs.Neri,G.R.No.57475,September14,1992,p.17,citingYsmael,Jr.andCo.,Inc.vs.
DeputyExecutiveSecretary,190SCRA673,680.

11Rollo,p.56.

12Id.,p.70.

13Section4,CA141(ThePublicLandAct)

xxxxxxxxx

Sec.4.Subjecttosaidcontrol,theDirectorofLandsshallhavedirectexecutivecontrolofthesurvey,
classification,lease,saleoranyotherformofconcessionordispositionandmanagementofthelands
ofpublicdomain,andhisdecisionastoquestionsoffactshallbeconclusivewhenapprovedbythe
SecretaryofAgricultureandCommerce.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_48766_1993.html 5/6
5/8/2017 G.R. No. 48766
14Id.,p.72.

15Rule8[1(a)],Exec.OrderNo.19(1966),62O.G.18,pp.2940,2942.

16Records,p.72.

17OriginalRecords,p.375.

18OrderofthePhil.FisheriesCommissiondatedNov.6,1964OriginalRecords,
p.261.

19OriginalRecords,p.658.

20Rollo,p.239.

21OriginalRecords,pp.671688.

22Id.,p.15.

23OrderofthePhil.FisheriesCommissiondatedOct.16,1964in"Quibetevs.Dico,"pennedby
ActingCommissionerArsenioN.Roldan.OriginalRecords,p.261.

24OrderoftheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesin"Dicovs.Quibete,"DANRCaseNo.
2895,p.3OriginalRecords,p.293.

25Id.,p.4OriginalRecords,p.292.

26Rollo,p.66.

27WhileDANRCaseNo.3447wasdecidedJuly9,1970,thedatesofreceiptbypartieswerenot
indicated.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/feb1993/gr_48766_1993.html 6/6