G.R. No. L-21673; May 16, 1966
FRANCISCO MACATAÑGAY, petitioner and appellant, vs. THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS and MARIANO DILAY, respondents and appellees.

FACTS

On April 14, 1961, Francisco Macatañgay applied for and was granted a temporary agricultural use permit by the Bureau of Lands for a 1,200 square-meter land in Sta. Clara, Batangas, valid until April 16, 1962. He subsequently constructed dikes and fillings on the eastern bank of the Sta. Clara (Pantalan) river. On September 5, 1961, a complaint was filed with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications by Barrio Lieutenant Mariano Dilay, on behalf of the barrio people, alleging that Macatañgay’s constructions illegally encroached into the bed of the Sta. Clara river, violating Republic Act 2056. After notice and hearing, the Secretary found on November 29, 1961, that the river was navigable and used by the public for passage and fishing, and ordered the removal of the constructions and restoration of the encroached areas. Macatañgay’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, which initially granted the injunction but later, in its decision of March 21, 1963, denied the petition and dissolved the injunction, upholding the Secretary’s findings. Macatañgay appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in refusing to disturb the finding of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications that the Sta. Clara river is a public navigable river, the encroachment into which violates Republic Act 2056.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the findings of fact of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, in the exercise of his powers under Republic Act 2056, are entitled to respect from the courts in the absence of fraud, collusion, or grave abuse of discretion, none of which was shown in this case. The evidence on record supported the finding of navigability: the river is 235 to 300 meters long, 10 to 40 meters wide, with a depth from 2-3 inches to 1.5 feet at low tide and up to 3 feet at high tide; it empties into Batangas Bay; has two bridges under which boats pass; and is used by residents, including the appellant, for transporting goods. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument invoking American jurisprudence that a river must be a “highway of commerce” for commercial carriers to be considered navigable in law. Instead, it applied the norm of “floatability” as established in Philippine jurisprudence (Villongco vs. Moreno), wherein a river is navigable if it admits floats or is capable of floating vessels, boats, or other craft. Under this norm, the Sta. Clara river is navigable. Therefore, the appellant’s constructions constituted an illegal encroachment under Republic Act 2056. Costs were imposed on the appellant.