1. Yngson vs.

Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al

GR No. L-36847 July 20, 1983
Summary:
A number of people, including Petitioner and Private Respondents, applied
for a permit to utilize 66 hectares of mangrove swamps for fishpond purposes, but
were not granted, the area still being considered to be communal forest. When
the area was released for said purpose, the three private parties in this case had
conflicting claims on the same. Initially, the Bureau of Fisheries awarded the
whole area in favor of petitioner. However, the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural
Resources later ordered the division of the area into three portions, one part for
each of the petitioner and the private respondents. Not satisfied with the portion
received, petitioner appealed the order.
Facts:
 March 19, 1952 – Petitioner-appelant, Serafin B. Yngson, filed with the
Bureau of Fisheries (BoF) to utilize mangrove swamps with an area of 66
hectares, more or less, situated at sitio Urbaso, barrio Mabini, municipality
of Escalante, province of Negros Occidental;
 March 19 and April 24, 1953 – Respondents-appellees, Anita de Gonzales
and Jose M. Lopez, filed their respective applications with the same bureau
for the same area;
 When the applications were filed by the aforesaid parties in the instant case,
said area was not yet available for fishpond purposes, as they were still
considered as communal forest;
 January 14, 1954 – The area was released for fishpond purposes;
 April 10, 1954 – Director of BoF issued an order awarding the whole area in
favor of the petitioner-appellant and rejecting the claims of the respondents-
appellees; Appellants appealed the order;
 April 5, 1955 – Secretary of Dept. of Agri. And Nat. Resources (DANR) set
aside the order of the Director of BoF and caused the division of the area in
question into three portions giving each party an area of one-third (1/3) of
the whole area covered by their respective applications;
 Appellant filed a petition for review from the aforesaid order but the same
was dismissed by the Office of the President of the Philippines; A motion for
reconsideration filed by the appellant was likewise denied. A second and
third motion for reconsiderations filed by the appellant was also denied;
CFI of Negros Occidental:
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari against Respondents asking that the
orders of Public Respondents be declared null and void and that the order
of the Director of Fisheries awarding the entire area to him be reinstated;
 CFI dismissed the petition on the ground that plaintiff had not established
such "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment" on the part of the
Public Respondents as to constitute grave abuse of discretion justifying
review by the courts in a special civil action.
Issue:
WON the administrative agencies having jurisdiction over leases of public lands
for development into fishponds gravely abuse their discretion in interpreting and
applying their own rules.
Ruling:
No, the administrative agencies did not gravely abuse their discretion in
interpreting and applying their own rules.
It is elementary in the law governing the disposition of lands of the public
domain that until timber or forest lands are released as disposable and alienable
neither the Bureau of Lands nor the Bureau of Fisheries has authority to lease,
grant, sell, or otherwise dispose of these lands for homesteads, sales patents, leases
for grazing or other purposes, fishpond leases, and other modes of utilization.
In this case, all the applications were premature; therefore not one of the
applicants can claim to have a preferential right over another. The interpretation
by the Office of the President was held to be an exercise of sound discretion which
should not be disturbed.
 2. International Hardwood and Veneer Company of the Philippines vs.
University of the Philippines, et al
GR No. 521518 August 13, 1991
Summary:
Petitioner, International Hardwood, was the grantee of a License Agreement
effective until 1985. On 1961, Proc. 791 segregates from the public domain parcels
of land and reserved them for use by Respondent, UP. The land subject of
Petitioner’s timber concession was covered by said Proclamation. On 1964, RA
3990 was enacted fully ceding ownership over the land described in Proc. 791 to
UP. UP sought to collect forestry charges from Hardwood and demanded that the
latter subject itself to the control and supervision of UP. Hardwood resisted and
filed a petition for declaratory relief.
Facts:
 Petitioner, International Hardwood, is engaged in the manufacture,
processing, and exportation of plywood. It was granted by the Government
an exclusive license for 25 years expiring on February 1, 1985 to cut, collect
and remove timber from a timber land in the provinces of Quezon and
Laguna.
 September 25, 1961 – During the effectivity of the License Agreement, the
President issued Executive Proclamation No. 791. Under this proclamation,
certain parcels of land of the public domain in Quezon and Laguna were
withdrawn from sale or settlement and were reserved for the UP College of
Agriculture as experiment station for the college.
 July 11, 1964 – Still during the effectivity of the License Agreement, RA
3990 (AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATION FOR
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES) was enacted establishing a
central experiment station for UP for the colleges of agriculture, veterinary
medicine, arts and sciences. Under RA 3990 the land described in Proc. 791
was fully cede to UP, subject to any existing concessions, if any.
 On the strength of RA 3990, UP demanded from Hardwood:
1. Payment of forest charges due and demandable under the License
Agreement to UP, instead of the BIR
2. That the sale of any timber felled or cut by Hardwood within the land
described in RA 3990 be performed by UP personnel
 However, despite repeated demands, Hardwood refused to accede to UP’s
demands.
CFI Laguna:
 Petitioner filed a petition for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that UP
does NOT have the right to:
1. Supervise and regulate the cutting and removal of timber and other forest
products,
2. Scale, measure and seal the timber cut and/or
3. Collect forest charges, reforestation fees and royalties from Hardwood
and/or
4. Impose any other duty or burden upon the latter in that portion of its
concession covered by a License Agreement, ceded in full ownership to
UP by RA 3990
 Hardwood also prayed for an injunction and P100,000 in damages.
 UP filed its Answer:
1. Interposed affirmative defenses of improper venue and that the petition
states no cause of action
2. Set up counterclaim for payment of forest charges on the forest products
cut and felled within the area ceded to UP under RA 3990
 CFI rendered judgment in favor of Hardwood:
1. RA 3990 does not empower UP to scale, measure, and seal the timber cut
by International Hardwood within the tract of land and collect the
corresponding charges prescribed by NIRC
2. Dismissed UP’s counterclaim

CA:
 Elevated the case to the SC as the entire case hinges on the interpretation
and construction of Republic Act 3990 as it applies to a set of facts which are
not disputed by the parties and therefore, is a legal question.

Issue:
WON Republic Act No. 3990 empowers the respondent UP to scale, measure and
seal the timber cut by the petitioner within the tract of land referred to in said
act, and collect the corresponding forest charges.

Ruling:
Yes, RA 3990 3990 empowers to scale, measure and seal the timber cut by
the petitioner within the tract of land referred to in said act, and collect the
corresponding forest charges.

Sec. 2 of RA 3990 provides that the "reserved" area stated in Executive

Proclamation No. 791 was "ceded and transferred in full ownership to the
University of the Philippines subject to any existing concessions, if any."
Furthermore, Sec. 3 provides, in part, that “…any incidental receipts or income
therefrom shall pertain to the general fund of the University of the Philippines.”

In this case, the Philippines relinquished and conveyed its rights over the
area to UP, subject only to existing concession. This means that the right of
Hardwood as a timber licensee must not be affected, impaired, or diminished BUT
insofar as the Government is concerned, all its rights as grantor of the license were
effectively assigned, ceded and conveyed to UP. Therefore, Petitioner has the
correlative duty and obligation to pay the forest charges or royalties to the new
owner, UP.
 3. Oposa vs Factoran
GR No. 101083 July 30, 1993
Summary:
Petitioners, minors represented by their parents, filed a civil action against
Respondent, the then Secretary of DENR, which sought to have all existing timber
license agreements (TLA) cancelled and for the latter to cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLA.
Facts:
RTC Branch 66, NCR:
 Petitioners, all minors duly represented and joined by their respective
parents, instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges that the plaintiffs "are
all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the
full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the
country's virgin tropical forests."
 Petitioners prayed for that judgment be rendered:
1. Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or
approving new timber license agreements.
 June 22, 1990 – Respondent, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to
Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely:
1. The plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and
2. The issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly
pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government.
 July 18, 1991 – Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion
to dismiss. In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim — that the
complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political
question — sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting
of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioners have a cause of action in filing a class suit to
compel Respondents to cancel TLA
Contentions:
Petitioner: it impairs rainforests that should benefit their generation as well as
generations yet unborn
Respondent: Petitioners failed to allege a specific legal right violated by
Respondent.

Ruling:
Yes, Petitioners have a cause of action to file a class suit.

Secs. 15 and 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall
protect and promote the right to health of the people, as well as protect and
advance the right to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.

In this case, the Court ruled that the above-mentioned provisions are self-
executory and do not need an implementing legislation, and carries with it the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the government. All licenses may then
be revoked or rescinded by executive action.