Case Digest: Gaudencio Demaisip v. The Court of Appeals

25 September 1959 :: G.R. No. L-13000

FACTS:

The late Geronimo Destacamento filed his application for a fishpond permit on 01 April 1927.  Before his death, Destacamento, without the knowledge and consent of the Director of Forestry, executed a deed of sale covering the lots in question in gavor of Seragin Villanueva – an act which was illegal and contrary to the rules of the permit granted him.  Nevertheless, the Director of Forestry requested Villanueva to apply for a fishpond permit over the same lots, but the latter neglected and failed to do so. 

Gaudencio Demaisip then filed with the Fish and Game Administration a fishpond permit application for the same lots.  He complied with all the prerequisites necessary for the issuance of a fishpond permit, namely, payment of annual rental of P21 and posting a surety bond in the sum of P350.  When said fishpond permit was ready to be issued to Demaisip, Villanueva executed a deed of sale covering the lots in question in favour of Luis Buenaflor who started to occupy the land and introduced improvements thereon consisting of a big dam.

The Director of Fish and Game Administration decided that Demaisip be given due course upon payment of an additional rental of P16 which is 1% of the value of improvements assessed at P1,600.  However, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reversed the said decision.  Demaisip then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over the said case, due to the fact that Demaisip had not exhausted all administrative remedies before approaching the judiciary.

HELD:

It is true that plaintiff did not appeal from the decision of the Secretary of Agreculture and Natural Resources to the President, but such failure cannot preclude the plaintiff from taking court action in view of the theory that the Secretary of a department is merely an alter-ego of the President.  The presumption is that the action of the Secretary bears the implied sanction of the President, unless disapproved by the latter.  It is therefore incorrect to say that plaintiff’s action should not be entertained.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that there is interference of the courts with the acts of executive officers for such defense might only be valid in special civil actions – this is not one – wherein the petitioner must allege and prove that he has no other speedy and adequate remedy.