You are on page 1of 2

DULAY vs. MINISTER | Nocon, J.

(1993)

aforesaid, the -ecretary affirmed the decision of the 2irector of 9ands. - 2ico mo"ed to reconsider the -ecretary(s decision b&t her motion was denied. 8 second motion for reconsideration was li;ewise denied.

FACTS - This present conflict stems from two earlier cases decided by the the !resident, both of which ha"e attained finality. #1: DANR Case No. 2898 (Angeles D !o v. "#an $# %e&e' ( #y a barter a$reement entered into between %&ibete and !adios, the former e'chan$ed his parcel of land for the latter(s fishpond area. - )n 193*, %&ibete applied for a +ish and ,ame -pecial !ermit o"er the area. .as later appro"ed in 19/9. - )n 1901, 2ico filed her fishpond application to occ&py the area co"ered by petitioner(s fishpond lease a$reement -- disappro"ed on the $ro&nd that the area she applied had already been awarded to %&ibete. 34 was denied. - %&ibete meanwhile sold and5or transferred his ri$hts and interests o"er the area to 4etirado (whose heirs s&bse6&ently sold it to !etitioner 2&lay). - 2ico filed a protest with the !hilippine +isheries 7ommission. !rotest dismissed. - -ecretary of 8$ric&lt&re and Nat&ral 4eso&rces dismissed her appeal. - 8ppealed to the ffice of the !resident. 8ppeal dismissed. ffice of - <ltimately, petitioner (,odeli"a -. 2&lay) s&cceeded to the ri$hts and interests o"er the area in 6&estion and was s&bse6&ently iss&ed a fishpond lease a$reement. ( In 19++, Angeles D !o s#%- &&e. a le&&e/(0e& & on &o &1e /es0on.en& o22 ! als /e3#es& ng 2o/ a 4/eo0en ng o2 &1e 2 s10on. !on2l !& %ase. on ne5l6 . s!ove/e. ev .en!e7. - )t was there alle$ed that the +ishpond !ermit of J&an %&ibete did not co"er the area in 6&estion (9ot No. /19-7). -he prayed that petitioner(s +ishpond 9ease 8$reement No. *1=9 be cancelled. ( 8e& & one/ -ove. &o . s- ss &1e le&&e/(0e& & on on &1e g/o#n. o2 /es 9#. !a&a. S1e a/g#e. &1a& &1e &5o a.- n s&/a& ve .e! s ons nvolv ng &1e sa-e 0a/& es, s#%9e!& -a&&e/ an. !a#se o2 a!& on, 1ave al/ea.6 %e!o-e 2 nal. - !ri"ate respondent 2ico ar$&es that res :&dicata does not apply in cases where the $o"ernment has to e'ercise its inherent power to re$&late. - 4espondent 2irector held resol&tion of the motion to dismiss in abeyance and ordered that an in"esti$ation be cond&cted. - !etitioner filed the instant petition prayin$ for the iss&ance of a writ of preliminary in:&nction or restrainin$ order. T4 $ranted.

# 2: DANR Case No. )**+ - .hile 28N4 7ase No. *191 was still pendin$, pri"ate respondent 8n$eles 2ico filed with the 2irector of 9ands a free patent application for a dry portion of 9ot /19-7 co"ered by +ishpond !ermit of %&ibete. - The 2irector of 9ands re:ected the application of pri"ate respondent 2ico. - 8 motion for reconsideration ha"in$ been denied, pri"ate respondent 2ico appealed to the -ecretary of 8$ric&lt&re and Nat&ral 4eso&rces. - That &nder the same set of facts fo&nd in 28N4 7ase No. *191 ISSUE:S ; <ELD: . N res :&dicata applies in this case. YES. RATI=NALE: - I& s al/ea.6 5ell(se&&le. n o#/ 9#/ s0/#.en!e &1a& &1e .e! s ons an. o/.e/s o2 a.- n s&/a& ve agen! es /en.e/e. 0#/s#an& &o &1e / 3#as ( 9#. ! al a#&1o/ &6, 1ave, #0on &1e / 2 nal &6, &1e 2o/!e an. % n. ng e22e!& o2 a 2 nal 9#.g-en& 5 &1 n &1e 0#/v e5 o2 &1e .o!&/ ne o2 /es 9#. !a&a.

T1e /#le o2 /es 9#. !a&a 51 !1 2o/% .s &1e /eo0en ng o2 a -a&&e/ on!e 9#. ! all6 .e&e/- ne. %6 !o-0e&en& a#&1o/ &6 a00l es as 5ell &o &1e 9#. ! al an. 3#as (9#. ! al a!&s o2 0#%l !, e>e!#& ve o/ a.- n s&/a& ve o22 !e/s an. %oa/.s a!& ng 5 &1 n &1e / 9#/ s. !& on. - 28N4 7ase No. *191, entitled >8n$eles 2ico "s. J&an %&ibete,> was decided by the office of the !resident on No"ember 1/, 19=9. -ince the same was not bro&$ht to the co&rts for :&dicial re"iew, the same has lon$ become final and e'ec&tory. - 28N4 7ase No. 3//? not ha"in$ been bro&$ht li;ewise to the co&rts for :&dicial re"iew, has also become final and e'ec&tory. - The ne't step that pri"ate respondent sho&ld ha"e ta;en from the 2ecision of the -ecretary of 8$ric&lt&re and Nat&ral 4eso&rces in 28N4 7ase 3//? was to appeal the same to the office of the !resident within 3@ days from receipt of said 2ecision. - !ri"ate respondent recei"ed the 2ecision on -eptember *1, 19?@ and sho&ld ha"e appealed the same by ctober */, 19?@. )nstead she filed a motion for reconsideration only on No"ember 3, 19?@. 7learly, the J&ly 9, 19?@ decision of the -ecretary of 8$ric&lt&re and Nat&ral 4eso&rces in 28N4 7ase No. 3//? had become final and e'ec&tory. - 3oreo"er, a caref&l re"iew of her alle$ed >newly disco"ered e"idence> does not s&pport the char$e of fra&d alle$edly committed by %&ibete and 4etirado. - The matter of which lot J&an %&ibete impro"ed as a fishpond and which ri$hts he sold to 4etirado was in"esti$ated T.)7A. #oth in"esti$ations more than three years apart with in"esti$ators from different offices showed that J&an %&ibete occ&pied and impro"ed 9ot /19-7 altho&$h in the different doc&ments, incl&din$ maps, which ma;e &p this case, it was desi$nated as 9ot /1?. - Th&s, no merit can be $i"en to pri"ate respondent(s alle$ed pieces of e"idence as all these B82 already been st&died thoro&$hly in separate in"esti$ations. - The matter ha"in$ become final, it was $ra"e ab&se of discretion on the part of p&blic respondent 2irector of the #&rea& of +isheries and 86&atic 4eso&rces to $i"e d&e co&rse to pri"ate-respondent(s letter-petition re6&estin$ for a re-openin$ of the fishpond conflict in"ol"ed herein.

( T1e &e-0o/a/6 /es&/a n ng o/.e/ s 1e/e%6 -a.e 8ERMANENT.

You might also like