Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17821)
Procedural History
After notice and hearing, Investigator Yonson and the Secretary concluded on August 11, 1959, that the dams constituted public nuisances in navigable waters and ordered their removal within thirty days. The Lovinas sought a permanent injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which granted relief and restrained enforcement. The Secretary appealed.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction or erred in declaring R.A. 2056 unconstitutional.
- Whether evidence de novo was improperly received below.
- Whether the trial court substituted its judgment for that of the Secretary.
- Whether Sapang Bulati is a private stream.
- Whether the Lovinas failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
Constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2056
The Court held that R.A. 2056 does not unlawfully delegate judicial power. The statute vests the Secretary with authority to remove unauthorized obstructions in navigable public waters—a power incident to executive administration and consistent with separation-of-powers principles under the 1935 Constitution. Due process is satisfied by mandatory notice, hearing, and a ninety-day decision period. U.S. precedents (e.g., Bridge Cases under the River and Harbor Act of 1899) confirm that such quasi-judicial determinations by executive officers are valid when guided by clear legislative standards.
Ownership and Navigability of Sapang Bulati
A Torrens title cannot convey ownership of the bed of a navigable stream unless its course is expressly delimited in the registration plan (Act 496, sec. 39). Exhibit C (the 1916 plan) shows re-entrant lines and labels suggesting a watercourse linking Sapang Bulati and Sapang Manampil, corroborated by the caretaker’s on-site indication of the old channel and a cross-section profile. Illegality or fraud in the administrative finding was not shown; on the contrary, government witnesses confirmed that the creek was navigable—2 m deep at high tide and used for bancas.
Standard of Judicial Review
Judicial review of an executive decision under R.A. 2056 is not a trial de novo but an inquiry into legality, constitutionality, and abuse of discretion. Findings of fact by the Secretary are conclusive in the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-17821)
Facts of the Case
- Primitivo Lovina and Nelly Montilla own a fishpond in Macabebe, Pampanga, covered by T.C.T. No. 15905.
- They constructed five dams and dikes across the “Sapang Bulati,” alleged to be a navigable river.
- Numerous residents petitioned the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, under Republic Act No. 2056, to remove these obstructions as public nuisances.
- After notice and hearing, the Secretary found the constructions to be illegal encroachments and ordered their removal at the owners’ expense.
Procedural History
- The Secretary’s decision (11 August 1959) directed removal of the closures within 30 days or by government enforcement at the owners’ cost.
- Lovina and Montilla filed Civil Case No. 41639 in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin enforcement.
- The trial court granted a permanent injunction against the Secretary’s order.
- The Secretary (Moreno) and his investigator (Yonson) appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether Republic Act No. 2056 unconstitutionally delegates judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
- Whether the trial court erred in receiving and considering evidence de novo.
- Whether the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the Secretary’s findings on navigability and nuisance.
- Whether the Sapang Bulati is a private stream rather than a public navigable river.
- Whether appellees should have first exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
Relevant Provisions of Republic Act No. 2056
- Section 1: Prohibits construction of dams or works encroaching on public navigable waters or communal fishing grounds and empowers the Secretary to order removal or grant authorization when public interest or safety requires it.
- Section 2:
- Grants the Secretary authority, after notice and hearing, to order removal of existing or future encroachments within 30 days.
- Provides exemptions for good-faith fis