GR L 44485; (June, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-44485 June 27, 1988
HEIRS OF SANTIAGO PASTORAL and AGUSTIN BATO, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, THE CITY ENGINEER OF DAGUPAN CITY and LEONARDO ESPANOL, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Residents of Dagupan City filed complaints with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, alleging that the heirs of Santiago Pastoral and Agustin Bato constructed fishpond dikes encroaching upon the Tulao River. The Secretary, acting under Republic Act No. 2056, designated the City Engineer to conduct hearings. After receiving evidence, the Secretary issued separate decisions declaring the dikes as public nuisances and ordering their removal, finding they were illegally built within the river channel.
The heirs and Bato filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance, seeking to annul the Secretary’s decisions. They argued lack of jurisdiction, asserted ownership via titles and a fishpond permit from the Bureau of Fisheries, and claimed the Secretary improperly ruled on the validity of their property rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, annulling the Secretary’s orders and permanently enjoining their implementation, prompting the Secretary’s appeal.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether the Secretary of Public Works and Communications acted within his authority under Republic Act No. 2056 in declaring the fishpond dikes as public nuisances and ordering their removal.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and upheld the authority of the Secretary. The legal logic is anchored on the clear and specific mandate of Republic Act No. 2056, which empowers the Secretary to order the removal of any construction encroaching upon public navigable waters as a public nuisance, notwithstanding any contrary law. The Court clarified that the Secretary did not rule on the validity of the petitioners’ land titles but properly focused on the factual issue of whether the dikes encroached into the navigable river.
The Court emphasized that the Secretary’s authority under R.A. 2056, which took effect in 1958, takes precedence over the earlier-issued fishpond permit from 1948. This specific statutory duty to clear obstructions from public waterways is a valid exercise of police power for public welfare. Furthermore, the Court found that the Secretary observed due process by conducting hearings with proper notice, and his factual findings, supported by evidence, are entitled to respect in the absence of proven illegality, fraud, or grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the decisions ordering the removal of the encroaching dikes were reinstated.