Tan v.

Director of Forestry

WENCESLAO VlNZONS TAN, THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, APOLONIO THE SECRETARY

OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES JOSE Y. FELICIANO, respondents-appelllees, 
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, APOLONIO RIVERA, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
AND NATURAL RESOURCES JOSE Y. FELICIANO, respondents-appellees, RAVAGO
COMMERCIAL CO., JORGE LAO HAPPICK and ATANACIO MALLARI, intervenors, 

Sometime in April 1961, the Bureau of Forestry issued Notice No. 2087, advertising for public
bidding a certain tract of public forest land situated in Olongapo, Zambales, provided tenders were
received on or before May 22, 1961. This public forest land, consisting of 6,420 hectares, is located
within the former U.S. Naval Reservation comprising 7,252 hectares of timberland, which was turned
over by the United States Government to the Philippine Government. 

On May 5, 1961, petitioner-appellant Wenceslao Vinzons Tan submitted his application in due form
after paying the necessary fees and posting tile required bond therefor. Nine other applicants
submitted their offers before the deadline.

On June 7, 1961, then President Carlos P. Garcia issued a directive to the Director of the Bureau of
Forestry, declaring the area formerly covered by the Naval Reservation be made a forest reserve for
watershed purposes. It is also desired that the bids received by the Bureau of Forestry for the
issuance of the timber license in the area during the public bidding conducted last May 22, 1961 be
rejected in order that the area may be reserved as above stated. 

On August 3, 1961, Secretary Cesar M. Fortich of Agriculture and Natural Resources sustained the
findings and recomendations of the Director of Forestry who concluded that "it would be beneficial to
the public interest if the area is made available for exploitation under certain conditions.

The Office of the President in its 4th Indorsement dated February 2, 1962, signed by Atty. Juan
Cancio, Acting Legal Officer, "respectfully returned to the Honorable Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources for appropriate action," the papers subject of Forestry Notice No.
2087 which was referred to the Bureau of Forestry for decision. 

Finally, of the ten persons who submitted proposed the area was awarded to herein petitioner-
appellant Wenceslao Vinzons Tan, on April 15, 1963 by the Bureau of Forestry. Against this award,
bidders Ravago Commercial Company and Jorge Lao Happick filed motions for reconsideration
which were denied by the Director of Forestry on December 6, 1963. 

On May 30, 1963, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Benjamin M. Gozon — who
succeeded Secretary Cesar M. Fortich in office — issued General Memorandum Order No. 46,
series of 1963, pertinent portions of which state: 

xxx xxx xxx 

SUBJECT: ... ... ... 

(D)elegation of authority to the Director of Forestry to grant ordinary timber licenses. 

1. ... ... ...

2. The Director of Forestry is hereby authorized to grant (a) new ordinary timber
licenses where the area covered thereby is not more than 3,000 hectares each; and
(b) the extension of ordinary timber licenses for areas not exceeding 3,000 hectares
each; 

3. This Order shall take effect immediately (p. 267, CFI rec.).

Thereafter, Jose Y. Feliciano was appointed as Acting secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, replacing secretary Benjamin M. Gozon. Upon assumption of office he Immediately
promulgate on December 19, 1963 General memorandum Order No. 60, revoking the authority
delegated to the Director of Forestry, under General Memorandum order No. 46, to grant ordinary
timber licenses, which order took effect on the same day, December 19, 1963. Pertinent portions of
the said Order read as follows: 

xxx xxx xxx 

SUBJECT: Revocation of General Memorandum Order No 46 dated May 30, 1963

— 

1. In order to acquaint the undersigned with the volume and Nature of the work of the
Department, the authority delegated to the Director of forestry under General
Memorandum Order No. 46, dated May 30, 1963, to grant (a) new ordinary timber
licenses where the area covered thereby is not more than 3,000 hectares each; and
(b) the extension of ordinary timber licenses for areas not exceeding 3,000 hectares
each is hereby revoked. Until further notice, the issuance of' new licenses , including
amendments thereto, shall be signed by the secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. 

2. This Order shall take effect immediately and all other previous orders, directives,
circulars, memoranda, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Order are hereby
revoked. 

On the same date that the above-quoted memorandum took effect, December 19, 1963, Ordinary
Timber License No. 20-'64 (NEW) dated April 22, 1963, in the name of Wenceslao Vinzons Tan, was
signed by then Acting Director of Forestry Estanislao R. Bernal without the approval of the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources. On January 6, 1964, the license was released by the Office of
the Director of Forestry. It was not signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as
required by Order No. 60 aforequoted. 

On February 12, 1964, Ravago Commercial Company wrote a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources shall be considered by tile Natural Resources praying that, pending
resolution of the appeal filed by Ravago Commercial Company and Jorge Lao Happick from the
order of the Director of Forestry denying their motion for reconsideration, OTI No. 20-'64 in the name
of Wenceslao V. Tan be cancelled or revoked on the ground that the grant thereof was irregular,
anomalous and contrary to existing forestry laws, rules and regulations. 

On March 9, 1964, acting on the said representation made by Ravago Commercial Company, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources promulgated an order declaring Ordinary Timber
License No. 20-'64 issued in the name of Wenceslao Vinzons Tan, as having been issued by the
Director of Forestry without authority, and is therefore void ab initio.

On April 18, 1964, on the basis of the denial of his motion for reconsideration by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, petitioner-appellant filed the instant case before tile court a
quo (Court of First Instance, Manila), Special Civil Action No. 56813, a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with preliminary prohibitory injunction.

Petitioner-appellant prayed for judgment making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction against
the respondents- appellees; declaring the orders of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources dated March 9, March 25, and April 11, 1964, as well as all his acts and those of the
Director of Forestry implementing said orders, and all the proceedings in connection therewith, null
and void, unlawful and of no force and effect; ordering the Director of Forestry to renew OTI No.
20-'64 upon expiration

After the said hearing, on January 20, 1965, the court a quo, from the evidence received, resolved
not only the question on the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction but also the motion to
dismiss, declared that the petition did not state a sufficient cause of action, and dismissed the same
accordingly. To justify such action, the trial court, in its order dismissing the petition, stated that "the
court feels that the evidence presented and the extensive discussion on the issuance of the writ of
preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction should also be taken into consideration in resolving
not only this question but also the motion to dismiss, because there is no reason to believe that the
parties will change their stand, arguments and evidence". His motion for reconsideration having
been denied, petitioner-appellant Wenceslao Vinzons Tan appealed directly to this Court. 

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted with grave
abuse of discretion, considering that the petitioner was d e n i e d o f t h e e q u a l
p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e l a w s , b y d e p r i v i n g h i m o f h i s constitutional right to property
without due process of law, and in effect, by impairing the obligation of contracts.

RULING:

No, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources did not act with grave abuse of discretion.

A perusal of the records of the case shows that petitioner-appellant's contentions are untenable. As
already observed, this case was presented to the trial court upon a motion to dismiss for failure of
the petition to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (Rule 16 [g], Revised Rules of Court),
on the ground that the timber license relied upon by the petitioner- appellant in his petition was
issued by the Director of Forestry without authority and is therefore void ab initio.

What more can be of greater importance than the interest of the public at large, more particularly the
welfare of the inhabitants of Olongapo City and Zambales province, whose lives and properties are
directly and immediately imperilled by forest denudation. 

The area covered by petitioner-appellant's timber license practically comprises the entire Olongapo
watershed. It is of public knowledge that watersheds serves as a defense against soil erosion and
guarantees the steady supply of water. As a matter of general policy, the Philippine Constitution
expressly mandated the conservation and proper utilization of natural resources, which includes the
country's watershed. Watersheds in the Philippines had been subjected to rampant abusive
treatment due to various unscientific and destructive land use practices. Once lush watersheds were
wantonly deforested due to uncontrolled timber cutting by licensed concessionaries and illegal
loggers. This is one reason why, in paragraph 27.of the rules and regulations included in the
ordinary timber license it is stated: 

The terms and conditions of this license are subject to change at the discretion of the
Director of Forestry, and that this license may be made to expire at an earlier date,
when public interests so require.

In the light of petitioner-appellant's arguments, it is readily seen that the whole controversy hinges on
the validity or invalidity of his timber license. 

WE fully concur with the findings of the trial court that petitioner- appellant's timber license was
signed and released without authority by then Acting Director Estanislao R. Bernal of Forestry, and
is therefore void ab initio. 

Granting arguendo, that petitioner-appellant's timber license is valid, still respondents-appellees can
validly revoke his timber license. As pointed out earlier, paragraph 27 of the rules and regulations
included in the ordinary timber license states: "The terms and conditions of this license are subject
to change at the discretion of the Director of Forestry, and that this license may be made to expire at
an earlier date, when public interests so require". A timber license is an instrument by which the
State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is
promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a
license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public
welfare as in this case. 

This Court held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or
property rights.

As provided in the aforecited provision, timber licenses are subject to the authority of the Director of
Forestry. The utilization and disposition of forest resources is directly under the control and
supervision of the Director of Forestry. However, "while Section 1831 of the Revised Administrative
Code provides that forest products shall be cut, gathered and removed from any forest only upon
license from the Director of Forestry, it is no less true that as a subordinate officer, the Director of
Forestry is subject to the control of the Department Head or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, who, therefore, may impose reasonable regulations in the exercise of the powers of the
subordinate officer". The power of control of the Department Head over bureaus and offices includes
the power to modify, reverse or set aside acts of subordinate officials. Accordingly, respondent-
appellee Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has the authority to revoke, on valid
grounds, timber licenses issued by the Director of Forestry. There being supporting evidence, the
revocation of petitioner-appellant's timber license was a wise exercise of the power of the
respondent- appellee (Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources) and therefore, valid.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, THE ORDER APPEALED FROM IS

HEREBY .AFFIRMED IN TOTO. COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER-APPELLANT.