FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-36847. July 20, 1983.]

SERAFIN B. YNGSON , plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE HON. SECRETARY OF

AGRICULTURE and NATURAL RESOURCES, ANITA V. DE GONZALES
and JOSE M. LOPEZ , defendants-appellees.

Abila, Villegas & Associates for plaintiff-appellant

The Solicitor General for defendants-appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN;

HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL RELEASED AS DISPOSABLE OR ALIENABLE. — 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, cell, or otherwise dispose of these lands
for homesteads, sales patents, leases for granting or other purposes, fishpond leases, and
other modes of utilization. The Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction to administer and
dispose of swamplands or mangrove lands forming part of the public domain while such
lands are still classified as forest land or timberland and not released for fishery or other
purposes.
2. ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER LEASES OF PUBLIC
LANDS FOR DEVELOPMENT INTO FISHPONDS; PREFERENTIAL RIGHT AMONG
APPLICANTS, NOT FEASIBLE WHERE FILING OF APPLICATIONS PREMATURE. — All the
applications being premature, not one of the applicants can claim to have a preferential
right over another. The priority given in paragraph "d" of Section 14 is only for those
applications filed so close in time to the actual opening of the swampland for disposition
and utilization, within a period of one year, as to be given some kind of administrative
preferential treatment. Petitioner's application was filed almost two years before the
release of the area for fishpond purposes. The private respondents, who filed their
applications within the one-year period, do not object to sharing the area with the
petitioner-appellant, in spite of the fact that the latter has apparently the least right to the
fishpond leases. As a matter of fact, the respondent Secretary's order states that all three
applications must be considered as having been filed at the same time on the day the area
was released to the Bureau of Fisheries and to share the lease of the 66 hectares among
the three of them equally. The private respondents accept this order. They pray that the
decision of the lower court be affirmed in toto.
3. ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY; CHARGED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF A PROVISION OF A STATUTE; CONSTRUCTION GIVEN CONTROLLING
WEIGHT. — The Office of the President holds the view that the only purpose of the
provision in question is to redeem a rejected premature application and to consider it filed
as of the date the area was released and not to grant a premature application a better right
over another of the same category. The Supreme Court finds such an interpretation as an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 exercise of sound discretion which should not be disturbed. In the case of Salaria v.
Buenviaje (81 SCRA 722) the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that the construction of the
officer charged with implementing and enforcing the provision of a statute should be given
controlling weight. Similarly, in Pastor v. Echavez (79 SCRA 220) it was held that in the
absence of a clear showing of abuse, the discretion of the appropriate department head
must be respected. The records show that the above rulings should also apply to the
present case.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; CONTEMPT OF COURT; ABSENCE IN THE CASE AT BAR. — The
petitioner has failed to show that the acts committed by the respondents were a direct
disturbance in the proper administration of justice and processes of the law which
constitutes contempt of court. If there were any violations of petitioner right, he should
resort to PACLAP which issued the resolution between him and respondents or file, as he
alleged he did, a criminal complaint or other before the courts. The Court held that
contempt of court presupposes contumacious and arrogant defiance of the court. The
petitioner has failed to show a contempt of court which the Court can take cognizance of
and punish. If any of his property or other rights over his one-third's share of the disputed
property are violated, he can pursue the correct action before the proper lower court.

DECISION

GUTIERREZ, JR. , J : p

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
which upheld the orders of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
Office of the President regarding the disposition of swamplands for conversion into
fishponds. Originally taken to the Court of Appeals, the case was elevated to this Court on
a finding that only a pure question of law was involved in the appeal.
There is no dispute over the facts. The Court of Appeals adopted the statement of facts in
the Solicitor-General's brief. We do the same: cdphil

"The subject matter of the case at bar are the same mangrove swamps with an
area of about 66 hectares, more or less, situated in sitio Urbaso, barrio Mabini,
municipality of Escalante, province of the Negros Occidental. In view of the
potentialities and possibilities of said area for fishpond purposes, several persons
filed their applications with the Bureau of Fisheries, to utilize the same for said
purposes. The first applicant was Teofila Longno de Ligasan who filed her
application on January 14, 1946, followed by Custodio Doromal who filed his on
October 28, 1947. Both applications were rejected, however, because said area
were then still considered as communal forest and therefore not yet available for
fishpond purposes.
"On March 19, 1952, petitioner-appellant Serafin B. Yngson filed a similar
application for fishpond permit with the Bureau of Fisheries followed by those of
the respondents-appellees, Anita de Gonzales and Jose M. Lopez, who filed their
respective applications with the same bureau on March 19 and April 24, 1953.
When the applications were filed by the aforesaid parties in the instant case, said
area was not yet available for fishpond purposes and the same was only released
for said purpose on January 14, 1954. The conflicting claims of the aforesaid
parties were brought to the attention of the Director of the Bureau of Fisheries
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 who issued an order on April 10, 1954 awarding the whole area in favor of the
petitioner-appellant and rejecting the claims of the respondents-appellees (pp. 1-3,
Rec. on Appeal). Appellants Anita V. de Gonzales and Jose M. Lopez appealed
the order of the Director of Fisheries to the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources where their appeals were docketed as D.A.N.R. Cases Nos. 901 and
901-A (p. 3, Rec. on Appeal).

"In an order dated April 5,1955, the Honorable Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources set aside the order of the Director of the Bureau
of Fisheries 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 (pp. 4-5, Rec. on Appeal). Appellant filed a petition for
review dated July 6, 1955 from the aforesaid order of the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources but the same was dismissed by the Office of
the President of the Philippines on December 20, 1955 (pp. 5-8, Rec. on Appeal). A
motion for reconsideration filed by the appellant on February 15, 1956 was
likewise denied on August 3, 1956. A second and third motion for
reconsiderations filed by the appellant was also denied on August 5, 1958 and
October 26, 1960, respectively (p. 18, Rec. on Appeal)."

Not satisfied with one-third of the 66 hectares, Mr. Yngson filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of First Instance against the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Anita V. Gonzales, and Jose M. Lopez. cdphil

The petitioner-appellant asked that the orders of the public respondents be declared null
and void and that the order of the Director of Fisheries awarding the entire area to him be
reinstated.
The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dismissed the petition on the ground that
plaintiff had not established such "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment" on the
part of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Office of the
President of the Philippines as to constitute grave abuse of discretion justifying review by
the courts in a special civil action.
The plaintiff-appellant made the following assignments of errors:
I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT
ESTABLISHED SUCH 'CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT'
ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES AS TO CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, JUSTIFYING REVIEW THEREOF IN A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION BY THE
COURT.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE RULE OF THE DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES IN EFFECT ITSELF HOLDING THAT THE
'PRIORITY RULE' ESTABLISHED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) AND (d), SECTION 14,
FISHERY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 14 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO FISHPOND
APPLICATIONS FILED PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE BUREAU OF
FORESTRY THAT THE AREA APPLIED FOR IS AVAILABLE FOR FISHPOND
PURPOSES; IN TREATING THE APPLICATIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT
OF THE APPELLEES LOPEZ AND GONZALES ON EQUAL FOOTING ONLY AND IN
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 ORDERING THE DIVISION OF THE AREA INVOLVED IN THESE APPLICATIONS
INTO THREE EQUAL PARTS AWARDING ONE-THIRD SHARE EACH TO THESE
APPLICANTS.
III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.

Did 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? This is the only issue in this case.
The pertinent provisions of Fisheries Administrative Order No. 14 read:
"SEC. 14. Priority Right of Application. —In determining the priority of
application or right to a permit or lease the following rules shall be observed:

"'(a) When two or more applications are filed for the same area, which is
unoccupied and unimproved, the first applicant shall have the right of preference
thereto.

xxx xxx xxx

"'(d) A holder of fishpond application which has been rejected or cancelled by
the Director of Fisheries by reason of the fact that the area covered thereby has
been certified by the Director of Forestry as not available for fishpond purposes,
SHALL NOT LOSE his right as a PRIOR APPLICANT therefore, if LATER ON, the
area applied for is certified by the Director of Forestry as available for fishpond
purposes, provided that not more than one (1) year has expired since the rejection
or cancellation of his application, in which case, his fishpond application which
was rejected or cancelled before, shall be reinstated and given due course, and all
other fishpond applications filed for the same area shall be rejected.'"

The five applicants for the 66 hectares of swampland filed their applications on the
following dates: LibLex

1. Teofila L. de Ligasan — January 14, 1946

2. Custodio Doromal — October 28, 1947
3. Serafin B. Yngson — March 19, 1952
4. Anita V. Gonzales — March 19, 1953
5. Jose M. Lopez — April 24, 1953.
The mangrove swampland was released and made available for fishpond purposes only on
January 14, 1954. It is clear, therefore, that all five applications were filed prematurely.
There was no land available for lease permits and conversion into fishponds at the time all
five applicants filed their applications.
After the area was opened for development, the Director of Fisheries inexplicably gave due
course to Yngson's application and rejected those of Anita V. Gonzales and Jose M. Lopez.
The reason given was Yngson's priority of application. llcd

We see no error in the decision of the lower court. The administrative authorities
committed no grave abuse of discretion.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 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. (Mapa v. Insular Government, 10 Phil. 175;
Ankron v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 40 Phil. 10; Vda. de Alfafara v. Mapa, 95
Phil. 125; Director of Forestry v. Muñoz, 23 SCRA 1184).
The Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction to administer and dispose of swamplands or
mangrove lands forming part of the public domain while such lands are still classified as
forest land or timberland and not released for fishery or other purposes.
All the applications being premature, not one of the applicants can claim to have a
preferential right over another. The priority given in paragraph "d" of Section 14 is only for
those applications filed so close in time to the actual opening of the swampland for
disposition and utilization, within a period of one year, as to be given some kind of
administrative preferential treatment. Whether or not the administrative agencies could
validly issue such an administrative order is not challenged in this case. The validity of
paragraph "d" is not in issue because petitioner-appellant Yngson is clearly not covered by
the provision. His application was filed almost two years before the release of the area for
fishpond purposes. The private respondents, who filed their applications within the one
year period, do not object to sharing the area with the petitioner-appellant, in spite of the
fact that the latter has apparently the least right to the fishpond leases. As a matter of fact,
the respondent Secretary's order states that all three applications must be considered as
having been filed at the same time on the day the area was released to the Bureau of
Fisheries and to share the lease of the 66 hectares among the three of them equally. The
private respondents accept this order. They pray that the decision of the lower court be
affirmed in toto. LibLex

The Office of the President holds the view that the only purpose of the provision in
question is to redeem a rejected premature application and to consider it filed as of the
date the area was released and not to grant a premature application a better right over
another of the same category. We find such an interpretation as an exercise of sound
discretion which should not be disturbed. In the case of Salaria v. Buenviaje (81 SCRA 722)
we reiterated the rule that the construction of the officer charged with implementing and
enforcing the provision of a statute should be given controlling weight. Similarly, in Pastor
v. Echavez (79 SCRA 220) we held that in the absence of a clear showing of abuse, the
discretion of the appropriate department head must be respected. The records show that
the above rulings should also apply to the present case.
During the pendency of this petition, petitioner Yngson filed a motion to have Patricio
Bayoborda, Rene Amamio, and nine other respondents, declared in contempt of court.
Petitioner charged that Bayoborda and Amamio entered the property in controversy and
without petitioner's consent, laid stakes on the ground alleging that the same were
boundaries of the areas they were claiming; that the other respondents likewise entered
the property on different dates and destroyed petitioner's hut and the uppermost part of
his fishpond and started to build houses and to occupy the same. In their comment, the
respondents in the contempt motion denied petitioner's charges. Bayoborda and Amamio
stated that they were bona-fide applicants for fishpond purposes of areas outside the 22
hectares allotted for the petitioner and that they were authorized to place placards in the
areas they applied for. As evidence the respondents attached a copy of the resolution of
the Presidential Action Committee on Land Problems (PACLAP) showing that their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 applications have been duly received and acknowledged by the latter and in compliance
with government regulations, they placed markers and signs in their respective
boundaries. The resolution likewise stated that these markers and signs were
subsequently destroyed and later on Mr. Yngson started development by building dikes in
the area applied for, which he has no authority to do so due to the present conflict. The
resolution further prohibited Yngson from constructing any improvements in any area
outside his 22 hectares and also prohibited Bayoborda and Amamio from entering and
making constructions in the applied for areas pending the issuance of their permits.
The petitioner has failed to show that the acts committed by the respondents were a
direct disturbance in the proper administration of justice and processes of the law which
constitutes contempt of court. If there were any violations of petitioner's rights, he should
resort to PACLAP which issued the resolution between him and respondents or file, as he
alleged he did, a criminal complaint or other action before the courts. The motion also
raises factual considerations including boundaries and geographical locations more
proper for a trial court. cdphil

We have held that contempt of court presupposes contumacious and arrogant defiance of
the court. (De Midgely v. Ferandos, 64 SCRA 23; Matutina v. Judge Buslon, 109 Phil. 140,
142).
The petitioner has failed to show a contempt of court which we can take cognizance of
and punish. If any of his property or other rights over his one-third's share of the disputed
property are violated, he can pursue the correct action before the proper lower court.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. The motion for contempt
is also DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Plana, Escolin and Relova, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera and Vasquez, JJ., is on leave.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com