DULAY v.
MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES F.P.A. No. V-3-3852, Angeles Dico, Applicant Appellant v Juan Quibete, Claimant
February 9, 1993 | Nocon, J. | Res Judicata; Finality of Judgment
Digester: Valena, Maria Patricia
SUMMARY: Quibete was awarded a Fishpond Permit. Dico filed an application for
the same area, which was denied. Dico also filed a protest against the free patent
application of Quibete over the same area, which protest was dismissed. Both decisions
became final and executory without Dico bringing the dispute to the courts for judicial
review. Dico then sent a letter-complaint alleging fraud on the basis of newly-discovered
evidence and praying for reinvestigation. The Director ordered investigation on the
basis of this letter-complaint. Dulay (successor in interest of Quibete) filed this petition
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court. The Court
granted the petition, holding that the decisions in the two cases had long become final
and executory due to Dicos failure to follow the correct administrative procedure for
appeals and to bring the dispute to the courts.
DOCTRINE: The decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant
to their quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of
a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. 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, executive or
administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction.
FACTS:
This present conflict stems from two earlier cases decided by the Office of the
President, both of which have attained finality.
Angeles Dico v Juan Quibete
DANR Case N0. 2898
Quibete and Padios entered into a barter agreement in 1932. Quibete exchanged his
land (sitio Palaypay, San Dionisio, Iloilo) for Padios fishpond area of 24ha (sitio
Talaba-an, Cadiz, Negros Occidental). Quibete applied for a Fish and Game Special
Permit over said fishpond area which was disapproved because this area had not
been declared available for fishpond purposes. Records of this application were
lost, and Quibete applied again in 1945. This application was approved in 1949 and
a Fishpond Permit was issued.
In 1958, Dico filed a fishpond application for the same area; disapproved because
said area had already been awarded to Quibete. MR denied.
Quibete then sold his rights and interests under the Fishpond Permid to Petronilo
Retirado.
Dico filed a protest with the Philippine Fisheries Commission alleging that Quibete
was occupying an area not covered by his fishpond permit and that the sale to
Retirado was without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. Protest was dismissed, and the Secretary affirmed on appeal. MR
denied. The Office of the President affirmed and dismissed the appeal.
DANR Case No. 3447
While the above case was pending before the Secretary, Dico filed a free patent
application with the Director of Lands over a 4ha dry portion of the area covered
by the Fishpond Permit.
Quibete protested the application. The Director of Lands dismissed the application
and directed Quibete to file the appropriate public land application. MR denied.
The Secretary affirmed the decision of the Director. MR and second MR denied.
Godeliva S. Dulay succeeded to the rights and interests over the disputed area. She
was then issued a fishpond lease agreement by the Department over a 18.3675ha
portion of the disputed area.
Dico submitted a letter petition to respondent officials requesting reopening of the
fishpond conflict based on newly discovered evidence. She alleged that the
Fishpond Permit granted to Quibete did not cover the area in question and prayed
for the cancellation of the Fishpond Lease Agreement granted to Dulay and the
issuance of a new one in her name.
Dulay filed an MTD on the ground of res judicata.
Respondent Director issued an Interlocutory Order stating that he would resolve
the MTD after termination of the investigation brought about by Dicos letter-
complaint. MR denied. Dulay then filed this petition for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction or restraining order. Court issued TRO on 7 September
1978.
RULING: Petition granted.
[TOPIC] Whether the two cases have attained finality and are no longer
reviewable - YES.
The decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their
quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a
final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. 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,
executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction.
Case No. 2898 became final and executory because it was not brought to the courts
for judicial review after Office of the President.
Case No. 3447 became final and executory as well. The findings of fact of the
Director of Lands were affirmed by the Secretary and became conclusive by
operation of law.
Dico points out that the Director of Lands, Ramon N. Casanova, treated her
motion for reconsideration (in this case) as a petition for relief from judgment.
However, Director Casanova's action was not in accord with the administrative
rules on appeal. Dico should have appealed to the Office of the President; instead,
she filed a motion for reconsideration outside the period allowed by law.
Even if the newly discovered evidence were to be reviewed, the same do not
support the charge of fraud (See Notes)
 The matter having become final as of August or 27 September 1970, it 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 private-respondent's letter
petition of October 28, 1977 requesting for a re-opening of the fishpond conflict
involved herein.
more than three years apart, with investigators from different offices showed that
Juan Quibete occupied and improved Lot 489-C although in the different
documents, including maps, which make up this case, it was designated as Lot 487.

NOTES:
On the newly discovered evidence and alleged fraud
Dico claims that Quibete was given Lot 487 under Fishpond Permit No. F-738-E
while Lot 489-C, which she applied for under Fp. A. No. 18206, was what
Juan Quibete actually improved. Quibete sold his rights over this Lot 489-C to
Retirado, who in turn sold his rights to Dulay.
Actually, Dico filed on February 6, 1958 with the Bureau of Fisheries Fishpond
Application, Fp. A. No. 18206, to occupy Lot No. 489-C after having allegedly
verified from the records of the Bureau of Forestry that there was no prior
lessee. This was denied on the ground that said Lot 489-C, mistakenly written as
Lot 487 in Quibete's original sketch, had already been granted to Quibete under
Fishpond Permit No. F-738-E as early as February 10,1949.
In fact, it appears that what Dico applied for was the very area of her husband,
Celso Dico. This was confirmed by the Assistant Director of Forestry in his letter
dated October 15, 1963 to the Commissioner of the Philippine Fisheries
Commission.
After Dicos protest and to allow for further verification of her claim, the order
denying her application was set aside by the order of May 12, 1964 - the first
alleged newly discovered evidence of private respondent - and another verification
made on May 23, 1964 by one of 21 the Commission's investigators, Mr. Cesar
Alelis.
It was established that it was Quibete's Lot 489-C which Dico was claiming,
although erroneously labelled as Lot 487 by Quibete himself in the handwritten
sketch he submitted to the Bureau of Fisheries in his application.
Consequently, Dicos Fishpond Application No. 18206 was denied with finality by
the Philippine Fisheries Commission.
Again, acting on the MR of this Office's denial of Dicos appeal of said Order, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources ordered one of the lawyers in his
Office's Legal Division, Atty. Guillermo B. Bautista, to conduct another
investigation and ocular inspection of the fishpond in dispute. The results were
the same. It was Lot 489-C that was improved by Juan Quibete and not Lot 487.
In this latest investigation, Melecio Quibete, son of Juan Quibete, withdrew his
statements in favor of Dico which he said he made during the initial investigation
reonly because he was promised money to do so. Since Dicos claim to the land is
anchored on her purchase of said land, together with improvements, from Melecio
Quibete, the withdrawal by the latter of his statements renders private respondent
Dico's claim fallacious.
To sum up, the matter of which lot Juan Quibete improved as a fishpond and
which rights he sold to Retirado was investigated TWICE. Both investigations,