Saado vs Court of Appeals

356 SCRA 546

FACTS:
The defunct Philippine Fisheries Commission issued an Ordinary Fishpond
Permit in favor of Saado covering 50 hectares situated in Brgy. Monching, Siay,
Zamboanga del Sur. Later, Saado entered into a contract of fishpond development
and financing with private respondent Nepomuceno. On September 28, 1979, the
Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources recommended the conversion of the
Ordinary Fishponde Permit into a 25-year fishpond loan agreement which was later
on approved in favor of petitioner. To oppose the said loan, Nepomuceno informed
the Bureau of Fisheries about his financing/development contract with the
petitioner..
On July, 17, 1981, Saado filed a complaint against Nepomuceno with the RTC
for recovery of possession and damages, alleging that Nepomuceno failed to deliver
Sanados share of the net harvest among other things. While this case was pending,
the then Minister of Agriculture and Food canceled the Fishpond Lease Agreement,
forfeiting the improvements thereon in favor of government. Later, said order was
reconsidered to the extent that Nepomuceno was given priority to apply for the area
and that his improvements thereon were not considered forfeited in favor of the
government.
Saado elevated the matter to the Office of the President but appeal was
dimissed on July 19, 1989. Meanwhile, the trial court rendered a decision over
Sanados complaint for recovery of possession in his favor.
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Office of the President has any legal
effect on the civil case for recovery of possession.
RULING:
The action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or in
suspending or revoking, a license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public
convenience and necessity is administrative or quasi-judicial. The act is not purely
administrative but quasi-judicial or adjudicatory since it is dependent upon the
ascertainment of facts by the administrative agency, upon which a decision is to be
made and rights and liabilities determined. As such, the July 31, 1989 decision
of the Office of the President is explicitly an official act of and an exercise
of quasi-judicial power by the Executive Department headed by the
highest officer of the land. It thus squarely falls under matters relative to
the executive department which courts are mandatorily tasked to take
judicial notice of under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. Judicial
notice must be taken of the organization of the Executive Department, its
principal officers, elected or appointed, such as the President, his powers
and duties.