G.R. No. L-15829. December 04, 1967
ROMAN R. SANTOS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, AS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNICATIONS AND JULIAN C. CARGULLO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
The Honorable Secretary of Public Works & Communications
appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila declaring
of private ownership certain creeks situated in barrio San Esteban, Macabebe, Pampanga.
THE BACKGROUND
The Zobel family of Spain
formerly owned a vast track of marshland in the municipality
of Macabebe,
Pampanga province.
Called Hacienda San Esteban, it was administered and managed by the
Ayala y Cia.
From the year 1860 to about the year 1924 Ayala y Cia.,
devoted the hacienda to the planting and cultivation of nipa
palms from which it gathered nipa sap or
“tuba”. It operated a distillery
plant in barrio San Esteban to turn nipa tuba to
potable alcohol which was in turn manufactured into liquor.
Accessibility through the nipa palms
deep into the hacienda posed as a problem.
Ayala y Cia. therefore dug canals leading
towards the hacienda’s interior where most of them interlinked with each
other. The canals facilitated the
gathering of tuba and the guarding and patrolling of the hacienda by security
guards called “arundines“. By the gradual process of erosion these
canals acquired the characteristics and dimension of rivers.
In 1924 Ayala y Cia., shifted from the
business of alcohol production to bangus
culture. It converted Hacienda San
Esteban from a forest of nipa groves to a web of
fishponds. To do so, it cut down the nipa palms, constructed dikes and closed the canals criss-crossing the hacienda.
Sometime in 1925 or 1926 Ayala y Cia.,
sold a portion of Hacienda San Esteban to Roman Santos who also transformed the
swamp land into a fishpond. In so doing,
he closed and built dikes across Sapang Malauling Maragul, Quiñorang Silab, Pepangebunan, Bulacus, Nigui and Nasi.
The closing of the man-made canals in Hacienda San Esteban drew
complaints from residents of the surrounding communities. Claiming that the closing of the canals
caused floods during the rainy season, and that it deprived them of their
means of transportation and fishing grounds, said residents demanded re-opening
of those canals. Subsequently, Mayor Lazaro Yambao of Macabebe, accompanied by policemen and some residents went
to Hacienda San Esteban and opened the closure dikes at Sapang
Malauling Maragul, Nigui and Quiñorang Silab. Whereupon,
Roman Santos filed Civil Case No. 4488 in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga which preliminarily enjoined Mayor Yambao and others from demolishing the dikes across the
canals. The municipal officials of Macabebe countered by filing a complaint (docketed as Civil
Case No. 4527) in the same court. The Pampanga Court of First Instance rendered judgment in both
cases against Roman Santos who immediately elevated the case to the Supreme
Court.
In the meantime, the Secretary of Commerce and Communications[1]
conducted his own investigation and found that the aforementioned six streams
closed by Roman Santos were natural, floatable and navigable and were utilized
by the public for transportation since time immemorial. He consequently ordered Roman Santos on November 3, 1930 to demolish the
dikes across said six streams. However,
on May 8, 1931 the said
official revoked his decision of November
3, 1930 and declared the streams in question privately owned
because they were artificially constructed.
Subsequently, upon authority granted under Act 3982 the Secretary of
Commerce and Communications entered into a contract with Roman Santos whereby
the former recognized the private ownership of Sapang
Malauling Maragul, Quiñorang Silab, Pepangebunan, Bulacus, Nigui and Nasi and the latter
turned over for public use two artificial canals and bound himself to maintain
them in navigable state. The Provincial
Board of Pampanga and the municipal councils of Macabebe and Masantol objected to
the contract. However, the Secretary of
Justice, in his opinion dated March 6,
1934, upheld its legality.
Roman Santos withdrew his appeals in the Supreme Court.
With respect to the portion of Hacienda San Esteban still owned
by the Zobel family, the municipal authorities of Macabebe filed in 1930 an administrative complaint in the
Bureau of Public Works praying for the opening of the dikes and dams across
certain streams in Hacienda San Esteban.
Whereupon, the district engineer of Pampanga
and a representative of the Bureau of Public Works conducted
investigations. In the meantime, the
Attorney General, upon a query from the Secretary of Commerce and Communications,
rendered an opinion dated October 11, 1930 sustaining the latter’s power to
declare streams as publicly owned under Sec. 4 of Act 2152, as amended by Act
3208.
On September 29, 1930
the investigator of the Bureau of Public Works, Eliseo
Panopio, submitted his report recommending the
removal of the dikes and dams in question.
And on the basis of said report, the Secretary of Commerce and
Communications rendered his decision on November
3, 1930 ordering Ayala y Cia., to
demolish the dikes and dams across the streams named therein situated in
Hacienda San Esteban. Ayala y Cia., moved for reconsideration, questioning the power of
the Secretary of Commerce and Communications to order the demolition of said
dikes.
Days before the Secretary of Commerce and Communications
rendered his aforementioned decision, Ayala y Cia.,
thru counsel, made representations with the Director of Public Works for a
compromise agreement. In its letter
dated October 11, 1930,
Ayala y Cia., offered to admit public ownership of
the following creeks:
Antipolo, Batasan Teracan, Biuas or Batasan Capiz, Carbon, Cutut, Dalayap, Enrique, Iba, Inaun, Margarita, Malauli or Budbud, Matalaba, Palapat, Palipit Maisac, Panlovenas, Panquitan, Quinapati, Quiñorang Bubong or Malauli Malati, Salop, Sinubli and Vitas.
provided the rest of the streams were
declared private. Acting on said offer,
the Director of Public Works instructed the surveyor in his office, Eliseo Panopio, to proceed to Pampanga and conduct another investigation.
On January 23, 1931
Panopio submitted his report to the Director of
Public Works recommending that some streams enumerated therein be declared
public and some private on the ground that they were originally dug by the
hacienda owners. The private streams
were:
Agape, Atlong
Cruz, Balanga, Batasan, Batasan Matlaue, Balibago, Baliti, Bato, Buengco Malati,
Bungalin, Bungo Malati, Bungo Maragul,
Buta-buta, Camastiles, Catlu, Cauayan or Biabas, Cela, Dampalit,
Danlimpu, Dilinquente,
Fabian, Laguzan, Lalap Maburac, Mabutol, Macabacle Maragul or Macanduli, Macabacle or Mababo, Maisac, Malande Malati, Magasawa, Maniup, Manulit, Mapanlao Maisac, Maragul, Mariablus Malate, Matalaba Malati, Masamaral, Mitulid, Nasi, Nigui or Bulacus, Palipit Maragul, Pangebonan, Paumbong, Pasco or Culali, Pilapil, Pinac Malati, Pinac Maragul
or Macabacle, Quiñorang Silab or Malauli Maragul, Raymundo, Salamin, Salop Maisac, Salop Maragul, Sermon and Sinca or Mabulog.
He therefore recommended revocation of
the decision already mentioned above, dated November 3, 1930 of the Secretary
of Commerce and Communications ordering the demolition of the dikes closing Malauling Maragul, Quiñorang Silab, Pepangebonan, Nigui, Bulacus, Nasi and Pinac. On February 13, 1931 the Director of
Public Works concurred in Panopio’s report and
forwarded the same to the Secretary of Commerce and Communications.
On February 25, 1935
the municipality of Macabebe and the Zobel family executed an agreement whereby they recognized
the nature of the streams mentioned in Panopio’s
report as public or private, depending on the findings in said report. This agreement was approved by the Secretary
of Public Works and Communications on February
27, 1935 and confirmed the next day by the municipal council of Macabebe under Resolution No. 36.
A few months later, that is, on June 12, 1935, the then Secretary
of Justice issued an opinion holding that the contract executed by the Zobel family and the municipality of Macabebe
has no validity for two reasons, namely, (1) the streams although originally
dug by Ayala y Cia., lost their private nature by
prescription inasmuch as the public was allowed to use them for navigation and
fishing, citing Mercado v. Municipality of Macabebe,
59 Phil. 592; and (2) at the time the Secretary of Commerce and Communications
approved the said contract, he had no more power so to do, because such power
under Sec. 2 of Act 2152 was revoked by the amending Act 4175 which took effect
on December 7, 1934.
Despite the above ruling of the Secretary of Justice, the streams
in question remained closed.
In 1939 administrative investigations were again conducted by
various agencies of the Executive branch of our government culminating in an
order of President Manuel Quezon immediately before
the national elections in 1941 requiring the opening of Sapang
Macanduling Maragul, Macabacle, Balbaro and Cansusu. Said
streams were again closed in 1942 allegedly upon order of President Quezon.
THE CASE
Roman Santos acquired in 1940 from the Zobel
family a larger portion of Hacienda San Esteban wherein are located 25 streams
which were closed by Ayala y Cia., and are now the
subject matter in the instant controversy.
Eighteen years later, that is in 1958, Congress enacted Republic
Act No. 2056[2]
following a congressional inquiry which was kindled by a speech delivered by
Senator Rogelio de la Rosa in the Senate.
On August 15, 1958 Senator de la Rosa requested in writing the Secretary
of Public Works and Communications to proceed in pursuance of Republic Act No.
2056 against fishpond owners in the province of Pampanga
who have closed rivers and appropriated them as fishponds without color of
title. On the same day, Benigno Musni and other residents
in the vicinity of Hacienda San Esteban petitioned the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications to open the following streams:
Balbaro, Batasan Matua, Bunga, Cansusu, Macabacle, Macanduling Maragul, Mariablus Malate, Matalabang Maisac, Nigui, Quiñorang Silab, Sapang
Maragul and Sepung Bato.
Thereupon, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications
instructed Julian C. Cargullo to conduct an
investigation on the above named streams.
On October 20, 1958
Musni and his co-petitioners amended their petition
to include other streams. The amended
petition therefore covered the following streams:
Balbaro, Balili, Banawa, Batasan Matua, Bato, Bengco, Bunga,
Buta-buta, Camastiles, Cansusu, Cela, Don Timpo, Mabalanga, Mabutol, Macabacle, Macabacle qng. Iba, Macanduling Maragul, Malauli, Magasawa, Mariablus Malate,,Masamaral, Matalabang Maisac, Mariablus[3] Nigui, Pita, Quiñorang Silab, Sapang Maragul,
Sepung Bato, Sinag and Tumbong.
On March 2, 4, 10, 30 and 31, and April 1, 1959, the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications rendered his decisions ordering the opening and
restoration of the channel of all the streams in controversy except Sapang Malauling Maragul, Quiñorang Silab, Nigui, Pepangebonan,
Nasi and Bulacus, within 30
days on the ground that said streams belong to the public domain.
On April 29, 1959, that is, after receipt of the Secretary’s
decision dated March 4, 1959, Roman Santos filed a petition with the Court of
First Instance of Manila for injunction against the Secretary of Public Works
and Communications and Julian C. Cargullo. As prayed for, preliminary injunction was
granted on May 8, 1959. The Secretary of Public Works and
Communications answered and alleged as defense that venue was improperly laid;
that Roman Santos failed to exhaust administrative remedies; that the contract
between Ayala y Cia., and the Municipality of Macabebe is null and void; and, that Section 39 of Act 496
excludes public streams from the operation of the Torrens System.
On April 29 and June 12,
1959, Roman Santos received the decision of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications dated March 10 and March 30, March 31, and April 1, 1959. Consequently, on June 24, 1959 he asked the court to cite in
contempt Secretary Florencio Moreno, Undersecretary
M.D. Bautista and Julian Cargullo for issuing and
serving upon him the said decisions despite the existence of the preliminary
injunction. The Solicitor General
opposed the motion alleging that the decisions in question had long been
issued when the petition for injunction was filed, that they were received
after preliminary injunction issued because they were transmitted through the
District Engineer of Pampanga to Roman Santos; that
their issuance was for Roman Santos’ information and guidance; and, that the
motion did not allege that respondents took steps to enforce the
decision. Acting upon said motion, on July 17, 1959, the trial court
considered unsatisfactory the explanation of the Solicitor General but ruled
that Secretary Florencio Moreno, Undersecretary M.D.
Bautista and Julian Cargullo acted in good
faith. Hence, they were merely
“admonished to desist from any and further action in this case, observe
the preliminary injunction issued by this Court, with the stern warning,
however, that a repetition of the acts complained of shall be dealt with
severely.”
On July 18, 1959
the trial court declared all the streams under litigation private, and rendered
the following judgment:
“The Writ of preliminary injunction restraining the
respondent Secretary of Public Works & Communications from enforcing the decisions of March 2 and 4, 1959 and all other similar
decisions is hereby made permanent.”
The Secretary of Public Works and Communications” and Julian
Cargullo appealed to this Court from the order of
July 17, 1959 issued in connection with Roman Santos’ motion for contempt and
from the decision of the lower court on the merits of the case.
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) Did
Roman Santos exhaust administrative remedies?
(2) Was venue properly laid? (3)
Did the lower court err in conducting a trial de novo of the case
and in admitting evidence not presented during the administrative
proceeding? (4) Do the streams involved
in this case belong to the public domain or to the owner of Hacienda San
Esteban according to law and the evidence submitted to the Department of Public
Works and Communications?
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
1. Respondents maintain
that Roman Santos resorted to the courts without first exhausting
administrative remedies available to him, namely, (a) motion for reconsideration
of the decisions of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications; and, (b)
appeal to the President of the Philippines.
Whether a litigant, in exhausting available administrative
remedies, need move for the reconsideration of an administrative decision
before he can turn to the courts for relief, would largely depend upon the
pertinent law,[4]
the rules of procedure and the usual practice followed in a particular office.[5]
Republic Act No. 2056 does not require the filing of a motion for
reconsideration as a condition precedent to judicial relief. From the context of the law, the intention
of the legislators to forego a motion for reconsideration manifests itself
clearly. Republic Act No. 2056
underscores the urgency and summary nature of the proceedings authorized there
under. Thus in Section 2 thereof the Secretary
of Public Works and Communications under pain of criminal liability is duty
bound to terminate the proceedings and render his decision within a period not
exceeding 90 days from the filing of the complaint. Under the same section, the party respondent
concerned is given not more than 30 days within which to comply with the
decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, otherwise the
removal of the dams would be done by the Government at the expense of said
party. Congress has precisely provided
for a speedy and a most expeditious proceeding for the removal of illegal
obstructions to rivers and on the basis of such a provision it would be
preposterous to conclude that it had in mind to require a party to file a
motion for reconsideration – an additional proceeding which would certainly
lengthen the time towards the final settlement of existing controversies. The logical conclusion is that Congress
intended the decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications to be
final and executory subject to a timely review by
the courts without going through formal and time consuming preliminaries.
Moreover, the issues raised during the administrative proceedings
of this case are the same ones submitted to court for resolution. No new matter was introduced during the
proceedings in the court below which the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications had no opportunity to correct under his authority.
Furthermore, Roman Santos assailed the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 2056 and the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications to order the demolition of dams across rivers or streams. Those questions are not within the competence
of said Secretary to decide upon a motion for reconsideration. They are purely legal questions, not
administrative in nature, and should properly be aired before a competent court
as was rightly done by petitioner Roman Santos.
At any rate, there is no showing in the records of this case that
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications adopted rules of procedure in
investigations authorized under Republic Act No. 2056 which require a party
litigant to file a motion for the reconsideration of the Secretary’s decision
before he can appeal to the courts.
Roman Santos however stated in his brief that the practice is not to
entertain motions for reconsideration for the reason that Republic Act No. 2056
does not expressly or impliedly allow the Secretary to grant the same. Roman Santos’ statement is supported by
Opinion No. 61, Series of 1959, dated April
14, 1959 of the Secretary of Justice.
As to the failure of Roman Santos to appeal from the decision of
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications to the President of the
Philippines, suffice it to state that such appeal could be dispensed with
because said Secretary is the alter ego of the President. The actions of the former are presumed to
have the implied sanction of the latter.[6]
2. It is contended that if
this case were considered as an ordinary civil action, venue was improperly
laid when the same was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for
the reason that the case affects the title of a real property. In fine, the proposition is that since the
controversy dwells on the ownership of or title to the streams located in
Hacienda San Esteban, the case is a real action which, pursuant to Sec. 3 of
Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, should have been filed in the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga.
The mere fact that the resolution of the controversy in this case
would wholly rest on the ownership of the streams involved herein would not
necessarily classify it as a real action.
The purpose of this suit is to review the decisions of the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications, to enjoin him from enforcing them and to prevent
him from making and issuing similar decisions concerning the streams in
Hacienda San Esteban. The acts of the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications are the object of the litigation,
that is, petitioner Roman Santos seeks to control them, hence, the suit ought
to be filed in the Court of First Instance whose territorial jurisdiction
encompasses the place where the respondent Secretary is found or is holding
office. For the rule is that outside its
territorial limits, the court has no power to enforce its orders.[7]
Section 3 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court does not apply to
determine venue of this action.
Applicable is Sec. 1 of the same rule, which states:
“SECTION 1. General rule. – Civil actions in Courts of
First Instance may be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the
defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the
plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.”
Accordingly, the petition for injunction
was correctly filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Respondents Secretary of Public Works and
Communications and Julian Cargullo are found and hold
office in the City of Manila.
3. The lower court tried this case de novo. Against this procedure respondents objected
and maintained that the action, although captioned as an injunction, is really
a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications. Therefore,
they now contend that the court should have confined itself to reviewing the
decisions of the respondent Secretary of Public Works and Communications only
on the basis of the evidence presented in the administrative proceedings. On the other hand, Roman Santos now submits
that the action is a proceeding independent and distinct from the
administrative investigation; that, accordingly, the lower court correctly
acted in trying the case anew and rendering judgment upon evidence adduced
during the trial.
Whether the action instituted in the Court of First Instance be
for mandamus, injunction or certiorari is not very material. In reviewing the decision of the Secretary
of Public Works and Communications, the Court of First Instance shall confine
its inquiry to the evidence presented during the administrative
proceedings. Evidence not presented
therein shall not be admitted and considered by the trial court. As aptly stated by this Court speaking
through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in a similar case:
“The findings of the Secretary can not be enervated by new
evidence not laid before him, for that would be tantamount to holding a new
investigation, and to substitute for the discretion and judgment of the
Secretary the discretion and judgment of the court, to whom the statute had not
entrusted the case. It is immaterial
that the present action should be one for prohibition or injunction and not one
for certiorari; in either event the case must be resolved upon the evidence
submitted to the Secretary, since a judicial review of executive decisions does
not import a trial de novo, but only an ascertainment of whether
the executive findings are not in violation of the Constitution or of the laws,
and are free from fraud or imposition, and whether they find reasonable support
in the evidence. x x
x“[8]
The case at bar, no matter what the parties call it, is in
reality a review of several administrative decisions of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications. Being so, it
was error for the lower court to conduct a trial de novo. Accordingly, for purposes of this review,
only the evidence presented and admitted in the administrative investigation
will be considered in our determination of whether on the basis thereof the
decisions of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications were correct.
4. We come to the question whether the streams Involved in this
case belong to the public domain or to the owner of Hacienda San Esteban. If said streams are public, then Republic Act
2056 applies if private, then the Secretary of Public Works and Communications
cannot order demolition of the dikes and dams across them pursuant to his authority
granted by said law.
First, we come to the question of the constitutionality of
Republic Act 2056. The lower court held
Republic Act No. 2056 constitutional but ruled that it was applied by
respondents unconstitutionally. That is,
it held that Roman Santos was being deprived of his property without due
process of law, for the dikes of his fishponds were ordered demolished through
an administrative, instead of a Judicial, proceeding. This conclusion and rationalization of the
lower court amount in effect to declaring the law unconstitutional, stated
inversely. Note that the law provides
for an expeditious administrative process to determine whether or not a dam or
dike should be declared a public nuisance and ordered demolished. And to say that such an administrative
process, when put to operation, is unconstitutional is tantamount to saying
that the law itself violates the Constitution.
In Lovina v. Moreno,
supra, We held said law constitutional.
We see no reason here to hold otherwise.
Discussing now the applicability of Republic Act 2056, the same
applies to two types of bodies of water, namely, (1) public navigable
rivers, streams, coastal waters, waters or waterways and (b) areas declared
as communal fishing grounds, as provided for in Section 1 thereof:
“SECTION 1. x x x the construction or building
of dams, dikes or any other works which encroaches into any public navigable
river, stream, coastal waters and any other navigable public waters or
waterways as well as the construction or building of dams, dikes or any other
works in areas declared as communal fishing grounds, shall be ordered removed
as public nuisances or as prohibited constructions as herein provided: x x x“
We are not concerned with communal
fishing grounds because the streams here involved have not been so declared,
but with public navigable streams. The
question therefore is: Are the streams
in Hacienda San Esteban which are mentioned in the petition of Benigno Musni and others, public
and navigable?
Respondents contend that said streams are public on the following
grounds:
(1) Hacienda San
Esteban was formerly a marshland and being so, it is not susceptible to
appropriation. It therefore belongs to
the State. Respondents rely on Montano
v. Insular Government, 12 Phil. 572.
(2) The streams in
question are natural streams. They are
tributaries of public streams. Cited are
the cases of Samson v. Dionisio et al., 11 Phil. 538
and Bautista v. Alarcon, 23 Phil. 636.
(3) The streams have for their source
public rivers, therefore they cannot be classified as canals.
(4) Assuming the
streams were artificially made by Ayala y Cia., said
titleholder lost ownership over them by prescription when it allowed the public
to use them for navigation for a long time.
Respondents cite Mercado v. Municipal President of Macabebe,
59 Phil. 592.
(5)
Assuming the streams in question are not mentioned as public in the
certificates of title held by Ayala y Cia., over
Hacienda San Esteban, still they cannot be considered as privately owned for
Section 39 of Act 496 expressly excepts public streams from private ownership.
(6) The Panopio Report, which found the streams in question of
private ownership was nullified by the Secretary of Justice in his opinion
dated June 12, 1935. And, the contract between Ayala y Cia., and the Secretary of Commerce and Communications
agreeing on the ownership of the streams in question is ultra vires.
The doctrine in Montano v. Insular Government, supra, that
a marshland which is inundated by the rise of the tides belongs to the State
and is not susceptible to appropriation by occupation – has no application
here inasmuch as in said case the land subject matter of the litigation was
not yet titled and precisely Isabelo Montano sought
title thereon on the strength of ten years, occupation pursuant to paragraph
6, section 54 of Act 926 of the Philippine Commission. Whereas, the subject matter in this case –
Hacienda San Esteban – is titled land and private ownership thereof by Ayala y Cia., has been recognized by the King of Spain and later
by the Philippine Government when the same was registered under Act 496.
Respondents further cite Bautista v. Alarcon,
23 Phil. 631, where the plaintiff sought injunction against the defendants who
allegedly constructed a dam across a public canal which conveyed water from the
Obando River
to fishponds belonging to several persons.
The canal was situated within a public land. In sustaining the injunction granted by the
Court of First Instance, this Court said:
“No private person has a right to usurp possession of a
watercourse, branch of a river, or lake of the public domain and use, unless
it shall have been proved that he constructed the same within property of his
exclusive ownership, and such usurpation constitutes a violation of the
legal provisions which explicitly exclude such waterways from the exclusive
use or possession of a private party.”
(Emphasis supplied)
As indicated in the above-cited case, a
private person may take possession of a watercourse if he constructed the same
within his property. This puts Us into
inquiry whether the streams in question are natural or artificial. In so doing, We shall examine only the
evidence presented before the Department of Public Works and Communications and
disregard that which was presented for the first time before the lower court,
following our ruling in Lovina v. Moreno,
supra.
(1) Sapang Macanduling
Maragul or Macanduli is
presently enclosed in Fishpond No. 12 of Roman Santos. Its banks cannot anymore be seen but some
traces of them could be noted by a row of isolated nips palms. Its water is subject to the rise and fall of
the tides coming from Guagua and Antipolo Rivers
and it is navigable by light watercrafts.
Its inlet is Antipolo
River and its outlet is the Palapat River.[9] It is closed by four dikes: One dike at its inlet along the Antipolo River;
another dike at its outlet along the Palapat River;
and, two dikes in between. The exit
channel at the Palapat
River where the fishpond gate lies
has been filled up with dredge spoils from the Pampanga
River Control Project.
(2) Sapang Macabacle
is found in Fishpond No. 13. Its banks
are still evident. This stream is about
30 meters wide, two meters deep and one and one-half to two kilometers long. Its source is Rio Cansusu. Like Macandull,
its channel is obstructed by four dikes.
One of them was constructed by the engineers of the Pampanga
River Control Project.
(3) Sapang Balbaro
which is found in Fishpond No. 13, runs from Canal Enrique near Rio Cansusu to Sapang Macabacle, a distance of about one-half kilometer. It is passable by banca. The closures of this stream consist of two
dikes located at each ends on Canal Enrique and Sapang
Macabacle.
(4) Sapang Cansusu
is a continuation of the Cansusu
River. The Cansusu River
opens at the Guagua
River and allegedly ends at the Palanas River
in front of Barrio San Esteban. At a
point near the mouth of Sapang Balbaro,
the owners of Hacienda San Esteban built a canal leading straight to one end of
Barrio San Esteban. They called this
canal “Canal Enrique”. And at
the point where Canal Enrique joins Cansusu they
built a dike across Cansusu, thus closing this very
portion of the river which extends up to Palanas River
where they built another closure dike.
This closed portion, called “Sapang Cansusu“, is now part of Fishpond No. 1.
Sapang Cansusu
is half a kilometer long and navigable by banca.
Appellants, witnesses, Benigno Musni, 41, Macario Quiambao, 96, Roman Manansala, 55
and Castor Quiambao, 76, all residents of Barrio San
Esteban, testified that prior to their closure, Sapang
Macanduli, Macabacle, Balbaro and Cansusu were used as
passageway and as fishing grounds; that people transported through them tuba,[10]
wood and sasa:[11]
and that the tuba was brought to the distillery in Barrio San Esteban. Maeario Quiambao testified also that said four streams “were
created by God for the town people”; and that if any digging was done it
was only to deepen the shallow parts to make passage easier. According to witness Anastacio
Quiambao said streams were navigable, even Teodoro Yangco’s ship “Cababayan” could pass through. Simplicio Quiambao, 36, and Marcelino Ocampo, 55, stated on direct examination that before
closure of the above-named four streams, people from the surrounding towns of Guagua, Bacolor, Macabacle, Masantol and Sexmoan fished and navigated in them.
Against the afore-mentioned testimonial evidence Roman Santos
presented the testimony of Nicanor Donarber, 80, Mariano Guinto, 71,
and his own. Donarber,
who started working as an arundin[12]
testified that Ayala y Cia., dug Sapang
Macanduli, Balbaro and Macabacle; that he worked also in the construction together
with other workers; and, that as an overseer he inspected their work. Mariano Guinto
testified that he worked for Ayala y Cia., as a tuba
gatherer; that in order to reach remote nipa groves
by banca, they made canals; and, that he was one of
those who worked in the construction of those canals. Roman Santos also testified that Sapang Macanduli, Macabacle, Balbaro and Cansusu are artificial canals excavated as far back as 1850
and due to erosion coupled with the spongy nature of the land, they acquired
the proportion of rivers; that he joined Sapang Balbaro to Sapang Macabacle because the former was a dying canal; and that Cansusu River is different from Sapang
Cansusu.
Witness Domingo Yumang likewise testified that
Sapang Balbaro is man-made.
We observe that witnesses positively stated that Sapang Macanduli, Macabacle and Balbaro were made
by the owners of Hacienda San Esteban.
With respect to Sapang Cansusu,
none, except Roman Santos himself, testified that Sapang
Cansusu is an artificial canal. It is not one of the streams found and
recommended to be declared private in the Panopio
Report. Sapang
Cansusu follows a winding course different and
distinct from that of a canal such as that of Canal Enrique which is
straight. Moreover, Sapang
Cansusu is a part of Cansusu River,
admittedly a public stream.
(5) Sapang Maragul, Mabalanga and Don Timpo are
all part of Fishpond No. 1 Maragul is 600 meters long
and 30 to 35 meters wide. Mabalanga is 250 meters in length and 50 meters in
width. Don Timpo
is 220 meters long and 20 meters wide.
All of them are navigable by banca. Maragul and Mabalanga open at Guagua River
and join each other inside the hacienda to form one single stream, Sapang Don Timpo, which leads to
the Matalaba
River. Maragul, Mabalanga and Don Timpo, formerly
ended inside the hacienda but later Mabalanga was
connected to Don Timpo. Maragul was
connected to Mabalanga and Sapang
Cela was extended to join Maragul.
Witnesses Nicanor Donarber,
Mariano Ocampo and Mariano Guinto
testified that Maragul, Mabalanga
and Don Timpo are artificial canals dug by Ayala y Cia., and that they (Donarber and
Mariano Guinto) worked in said excavations.[13] Witness Mariano Guinto
clarified that Don Timpo was originally dug but Mabalanga and Maragul were
formerly small non-navigable streams which were deepened into artificial
navigable canals by Ayala y Cia.[14]
Exhibit F, which is a map showing the streams and rivers in
Hacienda San Esteban, shows that Maragul, Mabalanga and Don Timpo are more
or less straight. From the big rivers (Guagua and Matalaba
Rivers) they lead deep into the
interior of the hacienda, thus confirming the testimony that they were built
precisely as a means of reaching the interior of the estate by banca. The weight of
evidence, therefore, indicates that said streams are man-made.
(6) Sapang Bunga, now
part of Bunga fishpond, gets its water from Sapang Iba and empties at Sta.
Cruz River. It is about 300-400 meters long, 5-6 meters
wide and 1-1.60 meters deep.
(7). Sapang Batu is
found in Capiz Fishpond. About 300-400 meters long, 4-5 meters wide
and 1.50-2.20 meters deep, it starts at Capiz River
and ends at Malauling Maragul. From Capiz River
until it intersects Sapang Nigui,
the stream is called Sapang Batu. Commencing from Sapang
Nigui and up to its end at Sapang
Malauling Maragul, the
stream is called Sepong Batu. Sepong Batu is not among those streams declared in the Panopio report as private.
(8) Sapang Banawa has
one end at Palanas
River and the other at Sapang Macabacle. It is about 300 meters long, 3-4 meters wide
and 1.30-1.40 meters deep. Its whole
length is within Fishpond No. 13 of Roman Santos.
(9) Sapang Mabutol is a
dead-end stream, that is, it ends inside the hacienda. It opens along the Guagua River. Since its closure, it has become part of
Fishpond No. 1.
(10) Sapang Buta-buta,
like Mabutol, dies inside the hacienda. It connects with Cansusu River
and is about 100 meters long, 3-4 meters wide and 1.2-1.5 meters deep. It is now a part of Fishpond No. 13.
(11) Sapang Masamaral,
another stream which opens at Cansusu River and ends
inside the hacienda, is 100200 meters long, 3-4 meters wide and 1.50-2 meters
deep. It now forms part of Fishpond No.
13.
The uncontradicted testimony of Marcos Guinto is that Sapang Bunga, Batu, Sepong
Batu, Banawa, Mabutol, Buta-buta and Masamaral were constructed by Ayala y Cia.,
to gain access to the nipa in the interior of the hacienda. This testimony tallies with the findings in
the Panopio Report which will be discussed herein
later. The evidence adduced in the
administrative proceedings conducted before a representative of the Secretary
of Public Works and Communications supports the contention that said streams
are merely canals built by Ayala y Cia., for easy
passage into the hinterland of its hacienda.
(12) Sapang Magasawa
consists of two streams running parallel to each other commencing from Matalaba River
and terminating at Mariablus
River. About 600-700 meters long, 4-5 meters wide
and 1.5-2 meters deep, these two streams are navigable by banca. They are enclosed within Fishpond No. 1.
(13) Sapang Mariablus Malate, about 3-4 meters wide and 250 meters long, is
another stream that ends inside the hacienda and gets its water from Guagua River. It is now part of Fishpond No. 1.
(14) Sapang Matalabang Malate or Maisac opens at Guagua River and ends at Sapang Cela and Matalabang Maragul. This
stream, which is about 800 meters long and 18 meters wide, forms part of
Fishpond No. 1 of Roman Santos.
(15) Sapang Batasan Matua, about 600 meters long, three meters wide and .80
meter deep at low tide and 1.90 meters deep at high tide, crosses the hacienda
from Mariablua River to Cansusu River. It is at present a part of Fishpond No. 1-A.
(16) Sapang Camastiles, a dead-end stream of about 200 to 300
meters in length, gets its water from Bivas River. It is within Fishpond No. 1.
(17) Sapang Cela is
within Fishpond No. 1. Its whole length
situated inside the hacienda, it opens at Sapang Matalabang Malate or Maisac and ends at Sapang Malungkot. Later Cela was extended to connect with Sapang
Maragul. It is
about 200 meters long and four meters wide.
Mariano Guinto, 71, testified without
contradiction that Sapang Mariablus
Malate and Matalabang Malate were formerly small and non-navigable streams which
were dug by Ayala y Cia.[15]
while Batasan Matua, Camastiles, Magasawa and Cela are original canals made by Ayala y Cia.,[16]
that he was one of those who worked in the construction of said canals; and
that it took years to construct them.
All these streams were recommended in the Panopio
Report for declaration as private streams.
(18) Sapang Sinag, 200
meters long, four to five meters wide, one meter and one and one-half meters
deep at low and high tides, respectively, gets its water from Cutod River
and leads inside the hacienda to connect with Sapang Atlong Cruz, a stream declared private in the Panopio Report. It
is now inside Fishpond No. 14.
(19) Sapang Balili, also
found inside Fishpond No. 14, is about 200 meters long, three to four meters
wide and one meter deep at low tide.
From its mouth at Cutod
River it drifts into he interior of
the hacienda and joins Sapang Bengco.[17]
(20) Sapang Pita is within Fishpond Capiz. It takes
water from Capiz
River but dies 250 meters inside
the hacienda. It is about four to five
meters wide, and one meter deep at low tide and 1.50 meters deep at high tide.
(21) Sapang Tumbong,
situated inside Capiz Fishpond, derives its water
from Sapang Quiñorang Silab, a stream declared private by the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, and ends inside the hacienda.[18]
(22) Sapang Bengco is
found within Fishpond No. 14. Two
hundred meters long, five meters wide, and one meter deep at low tide and 1.50
meters deep at high tide, it gets water from Sapang Biabas and connects with Baliling
Maisac.[19]
According to Marcos Guinto, a witness
for Roman Santos, Sapang Sinag,
Balili, Pita, Tumbong and Bengco were excavated a long time ago by Ayalay Cia.; and that they have a
winding course because when they were made the workers followed the location of
the nipa palms.[20] On the other hand, Marcelo Quiambao, testified that Sapang Tumbong is a natural stream and that the reason he said so
is because the stream was already there as far back as 1910 when he reached the
age of ten. No other oral evidence was
presented to contradict the testimony of Marcos Guinto
that the said five streams were artificially made by Ayala y Cia.
To show that the streams involved in this case were used
exclusively by the hacienda personnel and occasionally by members of their
families, Roman Santos introduced the testimony of Eliseo
Panopio Nicanor Donarber, Bias Gaddi, Mariano Ocampo, Mariano Panopio,
Alejandro Manansala and himself. The witnesses categorically testified that
the public was prohibited from using the streams as a means of navigation and
that the prohibition was enforced by guards called arundines.
One and all, the evidence, oral and documentary, presented by
Roman Santos in the administrative proceedings supports the conclusion of the lower
court that the streams involved in this case were originally man-made canals
constructed by the former owners of Hacienda San Esteban and that said streams
were not held open for public use. This
same conclusion was reached 27 years earlier by an investigator of the Bureau
of Public Works whose report and recommendations were approved by the Director
of Public Works and submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and Communications.
As stated, pursuant to Act 2152, as amended by Act 3208, the
Bureau of Public Works and the Department of Commerce and Communications
looked into and settled the question of whether or not the streams situated
within Hacienda San Esteban are publicly or privately owned. We refer to the so-called Panopio
Report which contains the findings and recommendations of Eliseo
Panopio, a surveyor in the Bureau of Public Works,
who was designated to conduct formal hearings and investigation. Said report found the following streams,
among others, of private ownership:
Camastiles, Cela,
Balanga, Bato, Batasan, Bengco, Buta-buta, Don Timpo, Mabutol, Macabacle, Macanduli, Malande Malate (Bunga), Magasawa, Masamaral, Maragul, Mariablus. Malate, Matalaba Malate, Nasi, Nigui, Pangebonan
and Quiñorang Silab
on the ground that ?
“The preponderance of the probatory
facts, x x x, shows that
the rivers, creeks, esteros and canals listed in (1)
have originally been constructed, deepened, widened, and lengthened by the
owners of the Hacienda San Esteban. That
they have been used as means of communication from one place to another and to
the inner most of the nipales, exclusively for the
employees, colonos and laborers of the said Hacienda
San Esteban. That they have never been
used by the public for navigation without the express consent of the owners of
the said Hacienda.”[21]
Bases for the above-quoted conclusion
were “the reliable informations gathered from
old residents of the locality, from outsiders, the sworn statements obtained
from different persons not interested in this case and the comparison of the
three plans prepared in 1880, 1906 and 1930.[22]
The persons referred to are Martin Isip, Hilarion Lobo, Emigdio Ignacio,
Castor Quiambao, Matias Sunga, Bonifacio Cruz, Inocencio Dayrit, Gabriel Manansala, Lope Quiambao, Marcelino Bustos and Juan Lara.
On February 13, 1931
the Director of Public Works transmitted the Panopio
Report to the Secretary of Commerce and Communications recommending approval
thereof. Later, on February 27, 1935, Secretary of Public Works and
Communications De las Alas approved the agreement of
Ayala y Cia., and the Municipality
of Macabebe,
concerning the ownership of the streams in Hacienda San Esteban, for being in
conformity with said Panopio Report.
This agreement of Ayala y Cia., and the
Municipality of Macabebe which was approved by the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications only on February 27, 1935, could
not however bind the Government because the power of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications to enter thereto had been suppressed by the Philippine
Legislature when it enacted Act 4175 which took effect on December 7, 1934.
Nullity of the aforesaid contract would: not of course affect the findings of fact
contained in the Panopio Report.
In weighing the evidence presented before the administrative
investigation which culminated in this appeal, respondent Secretary seemed to
have ignored the Panopio Report and other documentary
evidence as well as the testimony of witnesses presented by petitioner but
instead gave credence only to the witnesses of Benigno
Musni, et al.
Upon review, however, the lower court, taking into account all the
evidence adduced in the administrative hearing, including the Panopio Report, as well as those presented for the first
time before it, sustained petitioner’s averment that the streams in question
were artificially made, hence of private ownership. As stated, this conclusion of the lower court
which is in accordance with the findings of Panopio
as contained in his report, finds ample support from the evidence presented and
admitted in the administrative investigation.
Accordingly, we see no merit in disturbing the lower court’s findings of
fact.
We next consider the issue of whether, under pertinent laws, the
streams in question are public or private.
We quote Articles 339, 407 and 408 of the Spanish Civil Code of
1889:
“ART. 339. Property of
public ownerships is?
“1. That
devoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, riverbanks, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar
character;”
“ART. 407. The
following are of public ownership:
“1. Rivers and their natural channels;
“2. Continuous or intermittent waters from springs or brooks
running in their natural channels and the channels themselves;
“3. Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands of
public ownership;
“4. Lakes and ponds formed by nature on public lands, and their
beds
“5. Rain waters running through ravines or sand beds, the channels
of which are of public ownership;
“6. Subterranean waters on public lands;
“7. Waters found within the zone of operation of public works,
even though constructed under contract;
“8. Waters which
flow continuously or intermittently from lands belonging to private persons,
to the State, to provinces, or to towns, from the moment they leave such lands;
“9. The waste waters of fountains, sewers, and public
institutions.”
“ART. 408. The
following are of private ownership:
“1. Waters, either continuous or intermittent rising on
private estates, while they run through them;
“2. Lakes and ponds and their beds when formed by nature on such
estates;
“3. Subterranean waters found therein;
“4. Rain waters falling thereon as long as they remain within their
boundaries;
“5. The channels of flowing
streams, continuous or intermittent, formed by rain water, and those of brooks
crossing estates which are not of public ownership.
“The water, bed, banks, and floodgates of a ditch or aqueduct
are deemed to be an integral part of the estate or building for which the
waters are intended. The owners of
estates through or along the boundaries of which the aqueduct passes can assert
no ownership over it, nor any right to make uses of its beds or banks, unless they
base their claim on title deed which specify the right or the ownership
claimed.”
Articles 71 and 72 of the Spanish Law of
Waters of August 3, 1866
state:
“ART. 71. The
water-beds of all creeks belong to the owners of the estates or lands over
which they flow.”
“ART. 72. The
water-beds on public land, of creeks through which spring waters run, are a
part of the public domain.
“The natural water-beds or channels of rivers are also part of
the public domain.”
Pursuant to Article 71 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, and Article 408(5) of
the Spanish Civil Code, channels of creeks and brooks belong to the owners of
estates over which they flow. The
channels, therefore, of the streams in question which may be classified as
creeks, belong to the owners of Hacienda San Esteban.
The said streams, considered as canals, of which they originally
were, are of private ownership in contemplation of Article 339(1) of the
Spanish Civil Code. Under Article 339,
canals constructed by the State and devoted to public use are of public
ownership. Conversely, canals
constructed by private persons within private lands and devoted exclusively for
private use must be of private ownership.
Our attention has been called to the case of Mercado v. Municipal
President of Macabebe, 59 Phil. 592. There the creek (Batasan-Limasan)
involved was originally dug by the estate’s owner who, subsequently allowed
said creek to be used by the public for navigation and fishing purposes for a
period of 22 years. Said this Court
through Mr. Justice Diaz:
“And even granting that the BatasanLimasan
creek acquired the proportions which it had, before it was closed, as a result
of excavations made by laborers of the appellant’s predecessor in interest, it
being a fact that, since the time it was opened as a water route between the Nasi River and Limasan creek,
the owners thereof as well as strangers, that is, both the residents of the
hacienda and those of other nearby barrios and municipalities, had been using
it not only for their bancas to pass through but also
for fishing purposes, and it being also a fact that such was the condition of
the creek at least since 1906 until it was closed in 1928, if the appellant and
her predecessors in interest had acquired any right to the creek in question
by virtue of excavations which they had made thereon, they had lost such right
through prescription, inasmuch as they failed to obtain, and in fact they have
not obtained, the necessary authorization to devote it to their own use to the
exclusion of all others. The use and enjoyment
of a creek, as any other property susceptible of appropriation, may be
acquired or lost through prescription, and the appellant and her predecessors
in interest certainly lost such right through the said cause, and they cannot
now claim it exclusively for themselves after the general public had been
openly using the same from 1906 to 1928.
x x x“
In the cited case, the creek could have
been of private ownership had not its builder lost it by prescription. Applying the principle therein enunciated to
the case at bar, the conclusion would be inevitably in favor of private
ownership, considering that the owners of Hacienda San Esteban held them for
their exclusive use and-prohibited the public from using them.
It may be noted that in the opinion, mentioned earlier, issued
on June 12, 1935, the Secretary of Justice answered in the negative the query
of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications whether the latter can
declare of private ownership those streams which “were dug up artificially”,
because it was assumed that the streams were used by the public as fishing
ground and in transporting their commerce in bancas
or in small crafts without the objection of the parties who dug”
them. Precisely, Mercado v.
Municipality of Macabebe was given application
therein. However, the facts, as then
found by the Bureau of Public Works, do not support the factual premise that
the streams in question were used by the public “without the objection of
the parties who dug” them. We
cannot therefore take as controlling in determining the merits of this case the
factual premises and the legal conclusion contained in said opinion.
The case at bar should be differentiated from those cases where
We held illegal the closing and/or appropriation of rivers or streams by
owners of estates through which they flow for purposes of converting them into
fishponds or other works.[23] In those cases, the watercourses which were
dammed were natural navigable streams and used habitually by the public for
a long time as a means of navigation.
Consequently, they belong to the public domain either as rivers
pursuant to Article 407(1) of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 or as property
devoted to public use under Article 339 of the same Code. Whereas, the streams involved in this case were
artificially made and devoted to the exclusive use of the hacienda owner.
Finally, Sapang Cansusu,
being a natural stream and a continuation of the Cansusu River,
admittedly a public stream, belongs to the public domain. Its closure therefore by the predecessors of
Roman Santos was illegal.
The petition for the opening of Sapang Malauling Maragul, Quiñorang Silab, Nigui, Pepangebunan, Nasi and Bulacus was dismissed by
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the case considered
closed. The said administrative decision
has not been questioned in this appeal by either party. Hence, they are deemed excluded herein.
All the other streams, being artificial and devoted exclusively
for the use of the hacienda owner and his personnel, are declared of private
ownership. Hence, the dams across them
should not be ordered demolished as public nuisances.
With respect to the issue of contempt of court on the part of the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications and Julian Cargullo
for the alleged issuance of administrative decisions ordering demolition of
dikes involved in this case after the writ of injunction was granted and
served, suffice it to state that the lower court made no finding of contempt of
court. Necessarily/ there is no
conviction for contempt reviewable by this Court and
any discussion on the matter would be academic.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, except
as to Sapang Cansusu which
is hereby declared public and as to which the judgment of the lower court is
reversed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
Jurisdiction was then lodged with the Department of Commerce and
Communications, but was later transferred to the Department of Public Works and
Communications.
[2]
Entitled “An Act to Prohibit, Remove and/or Demolish the Construction of
Dams, Dikes or any other Works in Public Navigable Waters or Waterways and in
Communal Fishing Grounds, to Regulate Works in such Waters or Waterways and in
Communal Fishing Grounds, and to Provide Penalties for its Violation, and for
other purposes.”
[3]
Not mentioned in the administrative decision under review.
[4] Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva
Ecija, L-11959; October 31, 1959; Azuelo v.
Arnaldo, L-15144, May 26, 1960; Llarena v. Lacson, L-15696, May
30, 1960.
[5] Marukot v. Director of Lands, 98 Phil. 128; Santiago
v. Cruz, 98 Phil. 168.
[6]
Villegas v. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil. 451; Demaisip
v. Court of Appeals, et al., L-13000, Sept. 25, 1959.
[7] Castaño v. Lobingier, 7 Phil. 91.
[8] Lovina v. Moreno,
L-17821, November 29, 1963.
[9] Palapat River
is now part of the channel of the Pampanga River Control
Project.
[10] Nipa juice which is distilled into alcohol.
[11] Nipa palm.
[12]
Guard.
[13] T.s.n., p. 78, Exh. 9.
[14] T.s.n., p. 81-82, Exh. 9.
[15]
T.S.N., pp. 81-82, Exh. 9.
[16] T.sn., pp. 81-83, Exh. 9.
[17] T.s.n., p. 55, Exh. 10.
[18] T.s.n., p. 111, Exh. 7.
[19] T.s.n., p. 55, Exh. 10.
[20] T.s.n., pp. 50-51, Exh. 10.
[21] Panopio Report, p. 15a; p. 34, Exh.
7.
[22] Panopio Report, supra.
[23]
Samson v. Dionisio, 11 Phil. 538; Eusebio v. Aguas, 47 Phil.
567; Palanca v. Commonwealth, 69 Phil. 449; Meneses v. Commonwealth, 69 Phil. 647; Lovina v. Moreno, L-17821, Nov. 29, 1963;
Villanueva v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, L-21043,
March 30, 1966; Macatangay v. Secretary of
Public Works and Communications and Dilay, L-12673,
May 16, 1966; Santos v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications,
L-16949, March 18, 1967, 1967A Phild. 455.