G.R. No. L-17821; November 29, 1963
PRIMITIVO LOVINA and NELLY MONTILLA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and BENJAMIN YONZON, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Residents of Macabebe, Pampanga, petitioned the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, alleging that the appellees, Primitivo Lovina and Nelly Montilla, had obstructed the navigable river “Sapang Bulati” with dams and dikes on their fishpond property. Acting under Republic Act No. 2056 , the Secretary conducted a hearing, found the constructions to be a public nuisance encroaching upon public navigable waters, and ordered their removal. The appellees, instead of complying, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila to restrain the Secretary from enforcing his order.
The trial court granted a permanent injunction against the Secretary. In doing so, it conducted a trial de novo, received new evidence, and ultimately found that the Sapang Bulati was a private, non-navigable stream, thereby reversing the Secretary’s factual determination. The appellants, the Secretary and an investigator, elevated the case, contesting the trial court’s jurisdiction and its substitution of judgment.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in reviewing the Secretary’s decision de novo and substituting its own factual findings, thereby challenging the constitutionality and proper application of Republic Act No. 2056 .

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. It held that Republic Act No. 2056 does not constitute an unlawful delegation of judicial power to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The law merely empowers the Secretary to order the removal of unauthorized obstructions on public property—specifically, navigable streams and communal fishing grounds. Since no private person can acquire title to the bed of a navigable stream by prescription or adverse possession, the Secretary’s function is executive or administrative, not judicial, as he enforces an existing public right.
The Court ruled that the trial court erred in conducting a trial de novo and substituting its judgment for that of the Secretary. Judicial review of executive decisions does not entail a new trial but is limited to ascertaining whether the administrative findings are supported by substantial evidence, free from fraud, collusion, or grave abuse of discretion, and not in violation of law or the constitution. The Secretary’s factual finding that Sapang Bulati was a public navigable river was supported by the evidence presented before him and must be respected. The absence of a mention of a navigable stream in a Torrens title does not preclude a subsequent determination of its existence. The injunction was annulled, and the Secretary’s order for removal was upheld.