Dulay vs. Minister of Natural Resources

Decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to quasi-judicial authority, upon finality, have the force and binding effect of a final judgment and bar reopening under res judicata. Applied here, the final decisions in DANR Case No. 2898 and DANR Case No. 3447 precluded the Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources from giving due course to a 1977 letter-petition seeking to relitigate ownership of the same fishpond area and to cancel petitioner's lease.

Petitioner Godeliva S. Dulay claimed as successor-in-interest to Juan Quibete and Petronilo Retirado over a fishpond area in Cadiz City, Negros Occidental originally covered by Fishpond Permit No. F-738-E and later by a fishpond lease agreement. Private respondent Angeles Dico was a rival fishpond and free-patent applicant over the same Lot No. 489-C. Public respondents were impleaded as the officials exercising quasi-judicial and regulatory authority over fishpond conflicts and public-land dispositions.

Juan Quibete acquired a fishpond area of about 24 hectares at Sitio Talaba-an, Cadiz, Negros Occidental through a 1932 barter with Jose Padios, exchanging his land at Sitio Palaypay, San Dionisio, Iloilo. Also in 1932 Quibete applied for a Fish and Game Special Permit over the area, disapproved because the area was not yet declared available for fishpond purposes, with records later lost during World War II. He renewed the application in 1945 as Fp. A. No. 716, approved February 10, 1949 with issuance of Fishpond Permit No. F-738-E. On February 6, 1958 private respondent Angeles Dico filed Fishpond Application No. 18206 to occupy the area covered by petitioner's lease, disapproved on the ground the area had already been awarded to Quibete, with reconsideration denied.

Meanwhile, on February 29, 1964 Quibete sold and transferred his rights and interests under Fishpond Permit No. F-738-E to Petronilo Retirado. On April 28, 1964 Dico protested before the Philippine Fisheries Commission, alleging Quibete was occupying and improving Lot No. 489-C which was not covered by his permit and had transferred rights without approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Commissioner dismissed the protest October 16, 1964, declaring Lot No. 489-C the same area granted to Quibete. Dico's appeal to the Secretary was dismissed December 7, 1965, reconsideration denied, and her further appeal dismissed by the Office of the President November 14, 1969 in DANR Case No. 2898.

While that case was pending, Dico filed November 13, 1965 with the Director of Lands Free Patent Application No. V-3-3852 for a 4-hectare dry portion of Lot 489-C covered by Quibete's permit. Quibete protested, claiming preferential right. The Director of Lands rejected Dico's application May 30, 1967 and directed Quibete to file the appropriate public land application if qualified. On appeal the Secretary affirmed July 9, 1970, finding the area part of the same tract in DANR Case No. 2898, with Dico's motions for reconsideration denied January 26, 1971 and May 5, 1971 in DANR Case No. 3447.

Thereafter, by Deed of Sale of Fishpond Improvements and Transfer of Rights dated May 21, 1973, the heirs of Petronilo Retirado transferred rights over about 19.15 hectares of Lot No. 489-C covered by Fishpond Permit No. 158-2 to petitioner Godeliva S. Dulay. After application with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, petitioner was issued Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 2169 on October 22, 1974 over 18.3675 hectares of Lot 489-C expiring December 31, 1998. On October 28, 1977 Dico submitted a letter-petition for reopening of the conflict against Quibete, Retirado and Dulay based on newly discovered evidence, alleging Permit No. F-738-E covered Lot No. 487 in Barrio Luna and not Lot No. 489-C in Sitio Talaba-an, praying for cancellation of petitioner's lease, described in the petition as No. 2165, and issuance of a new lease in her name.

Petitioner moved to dismiss on res judicata, citing the final decisions in DANR Cases Nos. 2898 and 3447 involving the same parties, subject matter and cause of action. Private respondent opposed, arguing res judicata did not apply where the government exercises inherent regulatory power. The Director deferred resolution until after investigation in his February 24, 1978 interlocutory order, then by August 14, 1978 telegrams refused to entertain reconsideration and pressed the September 4 to 9, 1978 formal investigation at Bacolod City, warning of ex-parte proceedings if petitioner failed to appear. Petitioner thus sought injunctive relief, and a temporary restraining order issued September 7, 1978. The record showed two post-reinstatement verifications — the May 23, 1964 investigation by Cesar Alelis and the investigation and ocular inspection ordered March 6, 1968 and conducted by Atty. Guillermo B. Bautista — both concluding Quibete had occupied and improved Lot 489-C despite its erroneous labeling as Lot 487 in his December 5, 1946 handwritten sketch, with Melecio Quibete withdrawing his prior statements for Dico as allegedly paid-for and unfulfilled.

• Res Judicata: Petitioner argued that the letter-petition should be dismissed because DANR Case No. 2898 and DANR Case No. 3447, involving the same parties, subject matter and cause of action, had become final and settled the matter once and for all.
• Jurisdiction and Urgency for Injunction: Petitioner maintained that the Director's denial of the motion to dismiss and of reconsideration, coupled with insistence on the September 4 to 9, 1978 investigation and threat to proceed ex-parte, required a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order to prevent the unlawful investigation.

• Inapplicability of Res Judicata: Private respondent countered that res judicata was not applicable and did not bar reopening where the government had to exercise its inherent power to regulate.
• Newly Discovered Evidence and Fraud: Private respondent argued that reopening and cancellation of petitioner's Fishpond Lease Agreement were warranted by newly discovered evidence showing that Fishpond Permit No. F-738-E covered Lot No. 487 in Barrio Luna, not Lot No. 489-C, such that Quibete and Retirado committed fraud in improving and transferring Lot No. 489-C.

• Res Judicata in Administrative Proceedings: Whether the final decisions in DANR Case No. 2898 and DANR Case No. 3447 bar reopening of the fishpond conflict through the October 28, 1977 letter-petition.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Whether the pieces of evidence invoked by private respondent establish fraud and justify reopening and cancellation of petitioner's fishpond lease.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Director committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the letter-petition and ordering formal investigation despite finality.

• Res Judicata in Administrative Proceedings: Yes. Final quasi-judicial decisions of administrative agencies have the force of final judgments, and DANR Cases Nos. 2898 and 3447, unappealed to the courts, had become final and executory.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: No. The alleged newly discovered evidence did not support fraud, the lot-identity issue having been twice investigated with consistent findings that Quibete improved Lot No. 489-C.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. Giving due course to the 1977 request for reopening after finality in 1969-1970 constituted grave abuse of discretion warranting nullification.

• Res Judicata in Administrative Proceedings: The rule forbidding reopening of matters judicially determined by competent authority extends to judicial and quasi-judicial acts of executive or administrative officers acting within jurisdiction. DANR Case No. 2898 was decided by the Office of the President November 14, 1969 and, not having been brought to the courts for judicial review, long became final and executory. DANR Case No. 3447 likewise became final: the Director of Lands rejected the free patent application May 30, 1967, the Secretary affirmed July 9, 1970 on the same facts as DANR Case No. 2898, and Dico failed to timely appeal to the Office of the President within 30 days from September 21, 1970 receipt, filing reconsideration only November 3, 1970 after the October 24, 1970 deadline.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Even treating the November 3, 1970 motion as a petition for relief from judgment, the proffered evidence failed. Dico's 1958 application over Lot No. 489-C was initially denied because that lot, mistakenly written as Lot 487 in Quibete's original sketch, had been granted to Quibete as early as February 10, 1949. Her application was reinstated by the May 12, 1964 order for verification, followed by the May 23, 1964 Alelis verification and the post-March 6, 1968 Bautista investigation and ocular inspection more than three years apart; both found Quibete occupied and improved Lot No. 489-C though designated as Lot 487 in various documents including the December 5, 1946 sketch. The October 16, 1964 denial thus became final, while Melecio Quibete withdrew his statements favoring Dico as induced by an unfulfilled promise of money, undermining Dico's derivative claim purchased from him.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Because the matter became final as of August or September 1970 and the alleged evidence had already been thoroughly studied in the two separate investigations, revival in 1977-1978 disregarded settled finality. The Director's interlocutory order deferring the res judicata defense until after investigation, refusal to entertain reconsideration, and insistence on ex-parte formal investigation exceeded lawful bounds and required annulment with permanent injunction.

• Res judicata in administrative quasi-judicial proceedings — Decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to quasi-judicial authority have, upon finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment. The rule forbidding reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies to judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within jurisdiction. Applied to bar Dico's 1977 attempt to relitigate the fishpond conflict already finally decided in DANR Cases Nos. 2898 and 3447.
• Conclusiveness of Director of Lands findings of fact — Under Section 4, C.A. No. 141, the Director of Lands has direct executive control over survey, classification, lease, sale or other disposition of public domain lands, and his decision as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. Applied to treat as conclusive the findings in DANR Case No. 3447, affirmed by the Secretary as resting on the same facts as DANR Case No. 2898.
• Finality for failure to timely appeal under E.O. No. 19 (1966) — An appeal from the Secretary to the Office of the President must be taken within 30 days from receipt; a late motion for reconsideration does not prevent finality. Applied to hold the July 9, 1970 Secretary's decision final where receipt was September 21, 1970, the deadline was October 24, 1970, and reconsideration was filed only November 3, 1970.

• "It is already well-settled in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata." — States the controlling ratio on administrative finality that barred the 1977 reopening.
• "The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction." — Defines the scope of res judicata as extending beyond courts to executive adjudication.
• "it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to give due course to private-respondent's letter-petition of October 28, 1977 requesting for a re-opening of the fishpond conflict involved herein." — Articulates the ultimate finding justifying nullification of the revival orders and permanent injunction.

• Republic vs. Neri, G.R. No. 57475, September 14, 1992 — Cited as authority for the settled rule that final administrative quasi-judicial decisions carry the force of final judgments under res judicata; itself citing Ysmael, Jr. and Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary, 190 SCRA 673, 680.

• Section 4, C.A. No. 141 (The Public Land Act) — Provides the Director of Lands direct executive control over disposition of public domain lands and makes his factual decisions conclusive when approved by the Secretary; relied upon to deem conclusive the factual findings in DANR Case No. 3447 affirming rejection of Dico's free patent application.
• Rule 8[1(a)], Executive Order No. 19 (1966) — Requires appeal to the Office of the President within 30 days from receipt of the Secretary's decision; applied to compute finality from September 21, 1970 receipt to the October 24, 1970 deadline, rendering the November 3, 1970 motion too late.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Regalado and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.