CRISOSTOMO BONILLA AND FLORA ANDRADA, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, VICENTE BUENAFLOR, MARCELO BUENAFLOR AND LEONARDO BANAA…

Appeal taken by Vicente and Marcelo Buenaflor,
Leonardo Banaag and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in
Civil Case No. 27384 setting aside the aforesaid Secretary’s orders of June 29
and August 16, 1955 and ordering that the applications of Crisostomo
Bonilla and Flora Andrada for the lease of Lot No.
7296 and Lot No. 7297, respectively, of the Surigao
Cadastre No. 234, Case No. 6, for fishpond purposes, be given due course to the
exclusion of the applications of the Buenaflors and Banaag.  However, on February 14, 1957 Marcelo Buenaflor withdrew his appeal (Rollo
p. 41) and the withdrawal was approved on the 22nd of the same month and year
by the Court of Appeals to which the appeal was originally elevated.  What remains, therefore, is the appeal of
Vicente Buenaflor, Leonardo Banaag
and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The following STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF FACTS made in the
brief submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General is substantially
correct:

“On August 15, 1949,
petitioner Crisostomo Bonilla filed what is known as
Fishpond Appli­cation No. 3891 (Exhs. A, A-1, pp. 175-176, rec.) with the
Bureau of Fisheries for a fishpond permit covering Lot No. 7296 of the Surigao Cadastre No. 234, Case No. 6, located at Barrio Rizal, Surigao, Surigao, with an area of 43.8 hectares.  Petitioner Flora Andrada
also filed on April 14, 1952
her own fishpond application (F.A. No. 8344) (Exhs. B, B-1, pp. 177-178, rec.) for the
adjoining lot, Lot No. 7297, which has an area of 68 hectares.

“On September 8, 1952,
respondents Marcelo Buenaflor and Vicente Buenaflor filed Fishpond Application No. 8960 (Exhs. C, C-1, pp. 179-80, rec.) and 8961 (Exhs. D, D-1, pp. 181-182, rec.) respectively,
for portions of Lots Nos. 7296 and 7297 of the Surigao
Cadastre 234, Case No. 6, which are the same lots applied for by petitioners Crisostomo Bonilla and Flora Andrada.  Respondent Leonardo Banaag
also filed on September 10, 1952
his Fishpond Application No.
8968 (Exhs. E, E-1, pp. 183-184,
rec.) for portions of said lots.

“Lot Nos. 7296 and 7297 were not released by the Bureau of
Forestry for fishpond purposes until after the filing of said applications,
that is, on November 25, 1952
and November 26, 1952,
respectively.

“The conflict of claims between the petitioners Crisostomo Bonilla and Flora Andrada
and respondents Vicente Buenaflor and Leonardo Banaag, was decided by the Director of Fisheries in his
order of June 22, 1953 (Exhibit “C”, pp. 193-195, rec.) wherein he
gave due course to the respective fishpond appli­cations of petitioners Crisostomo Bonilla and Flora Andrada
and rejected the fishpond applications of respondents Marcelo Buenaflor, Vicente Buenaflor and
Leonardo Banaag.

“The afore-mentioned order of June 22, 1953 was appealed to
the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources by said
respondents and on October 19, 1953, the then Acting Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, the Honorable Placido L. Mapa, rendered a decision (Exhibit ‘H’, pp. 196-198, rec.) rejecting the
applications of the petitioners and
giving due course to the applications of respondents Marcelo Buenaflor, Vicente Buenaflor and
Leonardo Banaag. 
In short, the order of the Director of Fisheries of June 22,
1953 was reversed.

“Petitioners Crisostomo Bonilla and
Flora Andrada filed a motion for the reconsideration
of the last-mentioned decision (Annex ‘A’, pp. 328­-342, rec.).  In the order of February 12, 1954 (Exhibit
‘I’, pp. 199-200, rec.) respondent Secretary ordered the reinvestigation of the
case between the petitioners and the other respondents in order to determine
the truth or the falsity of the allegations of petitioners in their motion for
reconsideration as to the improvements introduced on the lots in controversy by
Vicente Buenaflor which the petitioners claim were
introduced by said Buenaflor in disobedience of the
order of the Director of Fisheries.  The
report of the investigation reveals the fact that ‘of the improvements
allegedly introduced by Buenaflor, only 21 meters of
the dike fall within the dis­puted area and the bulk of said improvement is
within Lot No. 638 which is a public land.’ (See Exhibit ‘J’,
pp. 201-203, rec.)

“On March 29, 1955, respondent Secretary entered an order (Exhibit
J) setting aside the decision of October 19, 1953 (Exhibit H, pp. 196­-198,
rec.) and giving due course to the respective fishpond applications of
petitioners Crisostomo Bonilla and Flora Andrada while rejecting the applications of the
respondents, Vicente Buenaflor, Marcelo Buenaflor and Leonardo Banaag.

“A motion was filed by the above-mentioned respondents from
the order rejecting their fish­pond applications, but the same was denied in the order dated May
17, 1955 (Exhibit ‘K’, pp. 204­-205, rec.) on the ground that the improvements
introduced by them on the lots in dispute
‘are highly insignificant and disproportionate to the whole area of the
fishpond in question’.

“Respondents Vicente Buenaflor,
Marcelo Buena­flor and Leonardo Banaag
filed a second motion for
reconsideration and upon further consideration of the case, respondent
Secretary entered the order of June 29, 1955 (Exhibit ‘L’, pp. 207-208, rec.) wherein the total area of the two lots in
dispute 111.8 hectares, was divided among the petitioners Crisostomo
Bonilla and Flora Andrada and the three respondents,
so that each will get 22.36 hectares. 
The respondent Secretary declared in said order that the 111.8 hectares
‘if divided equally among the five applicants x x x would
be large enough for each of them to develop and exploit for fish­pond purposes
and would be sufficient for their needs, considering that the greater number of
our people have less or nothing at all. 
In deciding so, this Office is
not only exercising its sound
discretion as to which of the qualified applicants should
receive the benefit and bounty from the government but is also acting for the common welfare of all concerned.  The division of the area in controversy among
all the applicants is, in our opinion, a just and equitable
disposition of the case and accord with the dictates of a sound policy to give
equal opportunity to all.’

“The petitioners
Crisostomo Bonilla and Flora Andrada
filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of June 29, 1955 (Exhibit ‘L’, pp. 207-208, rec.)
but the same was denied in the order of August
16, 1955 (Exhibit ‘N’, pp. 228-229, rec.).”

On September 3, 1955, appellees filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of First Instance
of Manila (Civil Case No. 27384) to annul and set aside the orders of the
respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources of June 29, 1955 and
August 16 of the same year and to compel the latter to give due course to their
fishpond applications to the exclusion of those filed by the Buena­flors and Banaag, invoking
in their favor the priority rule established under Section 13 (a) of Fisheries
Administrative Order No. 14, as amended.

After trial, the lower
court rendered the decision appealed from.

The action filed by appellees in the
lower court is firstly, for certiorari
– upon the ground that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
gravely abused his discretion in issuing the orders complained of, with the
result that they were deprived of their priority rights under Section 13(a) of
Fisheries Administrative Order No. 14, as amended by Fisheries Administrative
Order No. 14-3 and secondly, for mandamus,
to compel said official to give due course
to their applications mentioned heretofore, to the exclusion of similar
applications filed by the Buenaflors and Banaag.  In our
opinion, the action for mandamus
depends entirely upon the success or failure of the action for certiorari in the sense that should it be found that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders
complained of, there could be no case for mandamus
against him.

It is not disputed that
Lots Nos. 7296 and 7297 of the Surigao Cadastre were
released for fishpond purposes only on November 25 and 26, 1952, respectively –
obviously more than two months after the filing of all the applications
mentioned heretofore.

On the other hand, it seems clear that the priority rules setforth in
the Fisheries Administrative Orders relied upon by appellees
apply only to public lands suitable for fishpond purposes and actually released
by the Bureau of Fisheries for that particular purpose, because until said
lands had been properly declared available for fishpond purposes, there could
be nothing to apply for.  As a matter of
fact, in a similar case decided on June 21, 1955 by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, it was held that the priority rule can not
be applied to areas not released for fishpond purposes and, therefore, not yet
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries, and that as regards said
areas, conflicting applications must be considered as being on the same level,
their effectivity having commenced only at the time
the area was released (Exhibits 11-A, A, N, and R).  While this ruling – affirmed by the Office of
the President of the Philippines (Exhibit 11-A) -is not necessarily binding
upon the courts, it is clear that it is entitled to great weight and must be
accepted as correct unless there is a clear showing that it is really wrong
both on facts and laws, – which is not the case here.

Having thus arrived at the conclusion that the priority rule
invoked by appellees does not apply to their case, no
further argument need be adduced to show that the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
orders complained of providing for the equitable and equal division of the
subject area amongst the applicants.

The action for certiorari
being untenable, as held above, the action for mandamus against the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
has no leg to stand on.

The truth of the matter, however, is that even assuming that the
priority rule applies to the conflicting applications involved in this case, We
can not find our way clear to holding that the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders
complained of which, in substance, provide for the equal division of the land
in dispute among appellants and appellees, with the
further understanding that to appellant Vicente Buenaflor
shall be assigned that portion
of Lot No. 7296 where he had made improvements. 
We agree with said official’s pronouncement that “the welfare of as
many people as possible is the main concern” of his office and that in
line with this policy “available lands of public domain should not be
distributed with an unequal hand, favoring only a few and denying the same
chance to the rest”, and that “the 111.8 hectares involved in this
case, if divided equally among the five applicants” x x
x their respective share “would be large enough
for each of them to develop and exploit for fishpond purposes and would be
sufficient for their needs, considering that the greater number of our people
have less or nothing at all”.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from
is hereby reversed and set aside.

With costs against appellees.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ.,
concur.