Title
Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Ortiz
Case
G.R. No. L-15760
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1963
Boundary dispute between forest concessions led to legal proceedings; court upheld jurisdiction, denied dismissal motions, and deferred injunction ruling pending trial.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15760)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • Rafael Aquino and Zacarias Aquino (petitioners in the lower court) held a forest concession in Agusan, bordering a concession operated by Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Co., Inc. (petitioners in this case).
  • A boundary dispute arose between the two concessions, specifically regarding the Maygatasan-San Salvador Trail, which was surveyed by forest guard Cipriano M. Medina.

Administrative Proceedings

  • On June 25, 1958, the Director of the Bureau of Forestry, Amos, ordered the suspension of logging operations pending verification by Forester Juan.
  • Forester Juan conducted a survey and found that the trail was not as indicated by Medina, leading to an amendment of the boundary of Aquino's concession.

Filing of the Case

  • On October 28, 1958, Aquino filed Special Civil Case No. 62 in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, seeking a preliminary injunction against Butuan Lumber Manufacturing Co., Inc. and others.
  • Aquino alleged that:
    1. They had been logging in the disputed area since 1956.
    2. Respondents entered the area, threatened Aquino's workers, and stopped operations.
    3. The Bureau of Forestry initially suspended operations but later rectified the boundary, confirming Aquino's claim.
    4. Respondents continued to interfere, forcing Aquino to log elsewhere, causing financial losses.

Motions to Dismiss

  • Respondents filed two motions to dismiss, arguing:
    1. The petition lacked a cause of action because administrative remedies had not been exhausted (an appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources was pending).
    2. The court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter.
  • The lower court denied both motions, holding that the grounds for dismissal were not indubitable and should be resolved after trial.

Issue:

  1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain Aquino's petition for a preliminary injunction despite the pending administrative appeal.
  2. Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss and proceeding with the case.
  3. Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction was proper under the circumstances.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that:

  1. The lower court had jurisdiction to entertain Aquino's petition for a preliminary injunction.
  2. The lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss.
  3. The petition for a preliminary injunction was sufficient, and the lower court acted correctly in requiring respondents to answer and setting the case for trial.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.