1. Wenceslao Tan applied for and was granted an Ordinary Timber License (OTL) for 6,420 hectares of land by the Director of Forestry in 1963.
2. However, the Director's authority to issue OTLs had been revoked, and the land area exceeded the 3000 hectare limit.
3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources declared the OTL null and void in 1964. The court upheld this decision, finding that the OTL was void from the beginning due to the Director's lack of authority. It also found that Tan did not exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing to the President.
1. Wenceslao Tan applied for and was granted an Ordinary Timber License (OTL) for 6,420 hectares of land by the Director of Forestry in 1963.
2. However, the Director's authority to issue OTLs had been revoked, and the land area exceeded the 3000 hectare limit.
3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources declared the OTL null and void in 1964. The court upheld this decision, finding that the OTL was void from the beginning due to the Director's lack of authority. It also found that Tan did not exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing to the President.
1. Wenceslao Tan applied for and was granted an Ordinary Timber License (OTL) for 6,420 hectares of land by the Director of Forestry in 1963.
2. However, the Director's authority to issue OTLs had been revoked, and the land area exceeded the 3000 hectare limit.
3. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources declared the OTL null and void in 1964. The court upheld this decision, finding that the OTL was void from the beginning due to the Director's lack of authority. It also found that Tan did not exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing to the President.
Topic: Doctrine of Non-suability Title: TAN vs DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY Reference: 152 SCRA 302
FACTS
Sometime in April 1961, the Bureau of Forestry issued notice
advertising for public bidding a certain tract of public forest land situated in Olongapo, Zambales consisting of 6,420 hectares, within the former U.S. Naval Reservation comprising 7,252 hectares of timberland, which was turned over by the US Government to the Philippine Government. Wenceslao Tan with nine others submitted their application in due form.
The area was granted to the petitioner. On May 30, 1963,
Secretary Gozon of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a general memorandum order authorizing Dir. Of Forestry to grant new Ordinary Timber Licenses subject to some conditions stated therein (not exceeding 3000 hectares for new OTL and not exceeding 5000 hectares for extension)
Thereafter, Acting Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Feliciano promulgated on December 19, 1963 a memorandum revoking the authority delegated to the Director of Forestry to grant ordinary timber licenses. On the same date, OTL in the name of Tan, was signed by then Acting Director of Forestry, without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. On January 6, 1964, the license was released by the Director of Forestry . Ravago Commercial Company wrote a letter to the Secretary of ANR praying that the OTL of Tan be revoked. On March 9, 1964, The Secretary of ANR declared Tans OTL null and void. Petitioner-appellant moved for a reconsideration of the order, but the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources denied the motion.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not petitioners timber license is valid?
2. Whether or not petitioner had exhausted administrative remedies available?
RULINGS
1. No, it cant be deemed valid.
Petitioners timber license was signed and released without
authority and is therefore void ab initio. In the first place, in the general memorandum dated May 30, 1963, the Director of Forestry was authorized to grant a new ordinary timber license only where the area covered thereby was not more than 3,000 hectares; the tract of public forest awarded to the petitioner contained 6,420 hectares In the second place, at the time it was released to the petitioner, the Acting Director of Forestry had no more authority to grant any license.
In view thereof, the Director of Forestry had no longer any
authority to release the license on January 6, 1964, and said license is therefore void ab initio. What is of greatest importance is the date of the release or issuance. Before its release, no right is acquired by the licensee. Granting arguendo, that petitioner-appellant's timber license is valid, still respondents-appellees can validly revoke his timber license. "A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation
The welfare of the people is the supreme law. Thus, no
franchise or right can be availed of to defeat the proper exercise of police power.
2. No, he did not.
Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedy in this case.
He did not appeal the order of the respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines. Considering that the President has the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of the respondents, the failure of the petitioner-appellant to take that appeal is failure on his part to exhaust his administrative remedies.