G.R. No. L-12659; October 28, 1960
Abelardo Landingin, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Paulo Gacad, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Abelardo Landingin owned two fishing contraptions called parigdig constructed in 1954 in Calpay Shoal, Sual, Pangasinan, for which he paid municipal licenses up to 1955. A 1949 municipal ordinance of Sual limited the distance of fish corrals to a minimum of 200 meters from each other. On January 3, 1955, defendant Paulo Gacad began constructing his own parigdig near the plaintiff’s, allegedly within 10 meters, thereby blocking the flow of fish (locally called “Armang”) to the plaintiff’s parigdig. A committee appointed by the municipal mayor confirmed the 10-meter distance. After the defendant insisted on operating his parigdig, the plaintiff filed an action for injunction in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to compel the defendant to remove his parigdig. A preliminary injunction was issued. On March 18, 1955, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint states a cause of action, specifically: (1) whether a parigdig is considered a “fish corral” under Municipal Ordinance No. 9 of Sual, thereby subject to its 200-meter distance limitation; and (2) whether the court should determine a reasonable distance between parigdigs if the ordinance does not apply.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
1. A parigdig is not a “fish corral” as defined under the applicable ordinance and law. Municipal Ordinance No. 9 lists “Fish Corrals, baclad or pasabing” under item (a) and “Salambao or parigdig” under a separate item (c), indicating they are distinct fishing contraptions. Furthermore, Act No. 4003 , as amended, defines a fish corral as a stationary weir or trap with specific enclosures, which does not match the appellant’s own description of a parigdig as a structure with parallel posts and a hanging net operated by pulleys.
2. Since the ordinance prescribes a distance limitation only for “fish corrals” and not for parigdigs or other listed contraptions, the legislative intent is to allow the use of parigdigs at any location a fisherman chooses, without regard to a minimum distance from another parigdig.
3. The defendant’s lack of a license for his parigdig is irrelevant to the plaintiff’s cause of action for injunction based on the distance violation. Enforcement of the licensing requirement is a matter for the municipality, not a private individual.
4. The court cannot determine and prescribe a reasonable distance between parigdigs where the municipal ordinance is silent. The remedy for the plaintiff is to make representations to the Municipal Council of Sual to seek an amendment to the ordinance.
The decision of the lower court was affirmed, without costs.