G.R. No. L-20083, April 27, 1967.
CRISOSTOMO BONILLA and FLORA ANDRADA, petitioners-appellees, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE and NATURAL RESOURCES, VICENTE BUENAFLOR, MARCELO BUENAFLOR and LEONARDO BANAAG, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioners Crisostomo Bonilla and Flora Andrada filed Fishpond Application No. 3891 on August 15, 1949, and Fishpond Application No. 8344 on April 14, 1952, for Lot No. 7296 and Lot No. 7297, respectively, of the Surigao Cadastre. Respondents Vicente Buenaflor, Marcelo Buenaflor, and Leonardo Banaag filed their own conflicting fishpond applications for portions of the same lots on September 8 and 10, 1952. The lots were released by the Bureau of Forestry for fishpond purposes only on November 25 and 26, 1952, after all applications were filed. The Director of Fisheries initially gave due course to the petitioners’ applications and rejected the respondents’. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reversed this, initially rejecting the petitioners’ applications. After reinvestigation, the Secretary again reversed, giving due course to the petitioners’ applications. Upon respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the Secretary issued the orders of June 29, 1955, and August 16, 1955, dividing the total area of 111.8 hectares equally among all five applicants. Petitioners filed an action for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to annul these orders and compel the Secretary to give due course to their applications exclusively, invoking priority under Fisheries Administrative Order No. 14. The lower court set aside the Secretary’s orders and ordered the petitioners’ applications be given due course to the exclusion of the others.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated June 29, 1955, and August 16, 1955, which divided the fishpond area equally among all conflicting applicants, instead of applying the priority rule under Fisheries Administrative Order No. 14 in favor of the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Secretary. The Court held that the priority rule under Fisheries Administrative Order No. 14 applies only to public lands already released for fishpond purposes. Since the lots in question were released only after all applications were filed, the conflicting applications were on the same level, and the priority rule was inapplicable. Even assuming the priority rule applied, the Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion by ordering an equal division to promote the welfare of as many people as possible and distribute public domain lands equitably. The action for certiorari being untenable, the action for mandamus likewise failed. The orders of the Secretary were reinstated.