8/10/2019 Heirs of Pastoral v Secretary of Public Works - ARCELLANA

1/1

Heirs of Santiago Pastoral v secretary of Publicworks and Communications (1988)

Petition: CertiorariPetitioner: Heirs of Santiago PastoralRespondent: Secretary of public works and communications

DOCTRINE: the fact-finding power of the Secretary of Public Worksand Communications is merely "incidental to his duty to clear allnavigable streams of unauthorized constructions and, hence its grantdid not constitute an unlawful delegation of judicial power.

In the absence of any illegality, error of law, fraud or imposition, noneof which were proved by the petitioners in the instant case, saidfindings should be respected.

FACTS:

1. Residents of Dagupan City filed complaints with the secretarydenouncing the petitioners for encroachment into the Tulao River

that were prejudicial to public interest.

2. Evidence from hearing conducted by the City Engineer led the

Secretary to conclude that such encroachments such as dikes be

removed for being illegally constructed.

3. Petitioners sought annulment for lack of jurisdiction and contended

that they were issued permits by the Bureau of f isheries to construct

a fishpond on the adjoining parcel of property not covered by the

title.

Issue:WON the Secretary is authorized to declare the constructions as

prohibited and order their removal as public nuisances

WON The secretary also ruled on the validity of the petitioners titles.

Ruling + ratio: Yes. The Secretarys specific authority to remove illegally

constructed dikes under RA 2056 takes precedence over the fishpond

permit. This authority to investigate and clear public streams from

unauthorized encroachments and obstructions were granted as early as ACT

3708 of the Old phil legislature. Therefore there was no grave abuse ofdiscretion on the part of the Secretary.

NO. The fact-finding power of the secretary is only incidental to his duty or

authority to clear all navigable streams of unauthorized constructions. He

only passed judgment only to the extent that they were within the bed of a

river even if the encroachments were titled properties. He declared such

encroachments as prohibited and ordered their removal pursuant to his

authority under RA 2056. He never declared that the titles over the lots were

null and void.

Jurisprudence also recognizes such authority as the Supreme Court

stated that the fact-finding power of the Secretary is only incidental to his

duty to clear all navigable streams of unauthorized constructions and hence,

its grant did not constitute unlawful delegation of judicial power.

DISPOSITION: The decisions of the Secretary are reinstated.