CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL

LAWS

LLDA vs. CA, G.R. No. 120865-71December 7, 1995

FACTS: The Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) was created through
RA No. 4850 in order to execute the policy towards environmental protection and
sustainable development so as to accelerate the development and balanced growth
of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces and towns.

PD No. 813 amended certain sections of RA 4850 since water quality studies have
shown that the lake will deteriorate further if steps are not taken to check the same.
EO 927 further defined and enlarged the functions and powers of the LLDA and
enumerated the towns, cities and provinces encompassed by the term “Laguna de
Bay Region”.

Upon implementation of RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), the

municipalities assumed exclusive jurisdiction & authority to issue fishing
privileges within their municipal waters since Sec.149 thereof provides:
“Municipal corporations shall have the authority to grant fishery privileges in the
municipal waters and impose rental fees or charges therefore…”

Big fishpen operators took advantage of the occasion to establish fishpens & fish
cages to the consternation of the LLDA.

The implementation of separate independent policies in fish cages & fish pen
operation and the indiscriminate grant of fishpen permits by the lakeshore
municipalities have saturated the lake with fishpens, thereby aggravating the
current environmental problems and ecological stress of Laguna Lake.

The LLDA then served notice to the general public that (1) fishpens, cages & other
aqua-culture structures unregistered with the LLDA as of March 31, 1993 are
declared illegal; (2) those declared illegal shall be subject to demolition by the
Presidential Task Force for Illegal Fishpen and Illegal Fishing; and (3) owners of
those declared illegal shall be criminally charged with violation of Sec.39-A of RA
4850 as amended by PD 813.

A month later, the LLDA sent notices advising the owners of the illegally
constructed fishpens, fishcages and other aqua-culture structures advising them to
dismantle their respective structures otherwise demolition shall be effected.

ISSUES:
1. Which agency of the government – the LLDA or the towns and municipalities
comprising the region – should exercise jurisdiction over the Laguna lake and its
environs insofar as the issuance of permits for fishery privileges is concerned?
2. Whether the LLDA is a quasi-judicial agency?

HELD:
1. Sec.4(k) of the charter of the LLDA, RA 4850, the provisions of PD 813,and
Sec.2 of EO No.927, specifically provide that the LLDA shall have exclusive

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 1

 CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS

jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface water for any projects or
activities in or affecting the said region. On the other hand, RA 7160 has granted to
the municipalities the exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges on municipal
waters. The provisions of RA 7160 do not necessarily repeal the laws creating the
LLDA and granting the latter water rights authority over Laguna de Bay and the
lake region.

Where there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, latter should
prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute.
The special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of
special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. Implied repeals are not
favored and, as much as possible; effect must be given to all enactments of the
legislature. A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent
general law by mere implication.

The power of LGUs to issue fishing privileges was granted for revenue purposes.
On the other hand, the power of the LLDA to grant permits for fishpens, fish
cages, and other aqua-culture structures is for the purpose of effectively regulating
& monitoring activities in the Laguna de Bay region and for lake control and
management. It partakes of the nature of police power which is the most pervasive,
least limitable and most demanding of all state powers including the power of
taxation. Accordingly, the charter of the LLDA which embodies a valid exercise of
police power should prevail over the LGC of 1991 on matters affecting Laguna de
Bay.

2. The LLDA has express powers as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body in respect
to pollution cases with authority to issue a “cease and desist order” and on matters
affecting the construction of illegal fishpens, fish cages and other aqua-culture
structures in Laguna de Bay.

Sec.149 of RA 7160 has not repealed the provisions of the charter of the LLDA,
RA 4850, as amended. Thus, the LLDA has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue
permits for enjoyment of fishery privileges in Laguna de Bay to the exclusion of
municipalities situated therein and the authority to exercise such powers as are by
its charter vested on it.

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 2

 CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS

Hizon vs CA Gr No. 119619 Dec. 3, 1996 – Second Division

FACTS: Accused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First
Fishermen Fishing Industries, Inc., caught fish with use of obnoxious or poisonous
substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes
which were illegally caught thru the use of obnoxious/poisonous substance
(sodium cyanide).Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty to the charge.
As defense, they claimed that they are legitimate fishermen of the First Fishermen
Industries, Inc., a domestic corporation licensed to engage in fishing. They alleged
that they catch fish by the hook and line method and that they had used this method
for one month and a half in the waters of Cuyo Island. On July 9, 1993, the trial
court found the thirty one petitioners guilty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction was proper.

HELD: Not Guilty. Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing penalized under
sections 33 and 38 of P.D. 704 which provide as follows:

“Sec. 33. Illegal fishing, illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal
fishing; dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. -- It shall be
unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or
gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity as
defined in paragraphs (l), (m) and (d), respectively, of section 3 hereof: Provided,
That mere possession of such explosives with intent to use the same for illegal
fishing as herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter provided: Provided,
That the Secretary may, upon recommendation of the Director and subject to such
safeguards and conditions he deems necessary, allow for research, educational or
scientific purposes only, the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance
or electricity to catch, take or gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in the
specified area: Provided, further, That the use of chemicals to eradicate predators
in fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific fishery practices without
causing deleterious effects in neighboring waters shall not be construed as the use
of obnoxious or poisonous substance within the meaning of this section: Provided,
finally, That the use of mechanical bombs for killing whales, crocodiles, sharks or
other large dangerous fishes, may be allowed, subject to the approval of the
Secretary.”

The prosecution failed to explain the contradictory findings on the fish samples
and this omission raises a reasonable doubt that the one ton of fishes in the cage
was caught with the use of sodium cyanide.

Apparently, the members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force
Bantay Dagat were the ones engaged in an illegal fishing expedition. This method
of fishing needs approximately two hundred (200) fishermen to execute. What the
apprehending officers instead discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in their

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 3

 CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS

sampans fishing by hook and line. The authorities found nothing on the boat that
would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat and
the fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens were tested, albeit
under suspicious circumstances, that petitioners were charged with illegal fishing
with the use of poisonous substances.

“The authorities found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of
illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat and the fishermen were in order. It
was only after the fish specimens were tested, albeit under suspicious
circumstances, that petitioners were charged with illegal fishing with the use of
poisonous substances.”

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 4

 CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS

Navarro vs IAC Gr No. 68166

FACTS: Sinforoso Pascual sits in the midst of a land registration case. The story
begins on 1946 upon his desire to register land on the northern section of his
existing property. His current registered property is bounded on the east by Talisay
River, on the West by Bulacan River and on the North by the Manila bay. Both
rivers flow towards the Manila Bay. Because of constantly flowing water, extra
land of about 17 hectares formed in the northern most section of the property. It is
this property he sought to register.

The RTC denied the registration claiming this to be foreshore land and part of
public domain (accretion formed by the sea is public dominion). His Motion for
Reconsideration likewise burned. In 1960, he attempted registry again, claiming
that the Talisay and Bulacan rivers deposited more silt resulting on accretion. He
claimed this land as riprarian owner. The Director of Lands, Director of Forestry
and the Fiscal opposed.

Then a new party surfaced. Emiliano Navarro jumped into the fray opposing the
same application, stating the he leased part of the property sought to be registered.
He sought to protect his fishpond that rested on the same property. Sinforoso was
not amused and filed ejectment against Mr. Navarro, claiming that Navarro used
stealth force and strategy to occupy a portion of his land. Pascual lost the case
against Navarro so he appealed. During the appeal, his original land registration
case was consolidated and tried jointly. Pascual died, and then his heirs took over
the case.

On 1975, the court decided that the property was foreshore land and therefore part
of public domain. The RTC dismissed the complaint of Pascual for ejectment
against Navarro and also denied his land registration request. Pascual’s heirs
appealed and the RTC was reversed by the IAC. The Appellate court granted
petition for registration since according to the Court, the accretion was caused by
the two rivers, not Manila Bay. Hence it wasn’t foreshore land.

The confusion though, lies in the fact that the accretion formed adjacent to Manila
Bay which is a sea. Aggrieved, the Director of Forestry moved for reconsideration
but the Government insists it is foreshore and hence, public domain. The Appellate
court denied all motions of the Director and the Government.
The matter went to the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accretion taking place on property adjacent to the sea
can be registered under the Torrens system.

HELD: It cannot be registered. This is land of Public domain. Pascual claimed

ownership under Article 457 of the Civil Code saying that the disputed 14-hectare
land is an accretion caused by the joint action of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers
Art 457: Accretion as a mode of acquiring property and requires the concurrence of
the following requisites: (1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 5

 CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS

and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river;
and (3) that the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the
river.

Unfortunately, Pascual and Heirs claim of ownership based on Art 457 is

misplaced. If there’s any land to be claimed, it should be land ADJACENT to the
rivers Talisay and Bulacan. The law is clear on this. Accretion of land along the
river bank may be registered. This is not the case of accretion of land on the
property adjacent to Manila Bay.

Furthermore, Manila Bay is a sea. Accretion on a sea bank is foreshore land and
the applicable law is not Art 457 but Art 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866.
This law, while old, holds that accretion along sea shore cannot be registered as it
remains public domain unless abandoned by government for public use and
declared as private property capable of alienation.

Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 provides as follows:

Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the action
of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer washed by the
waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the
establishment of special industries, or for the coast-guard service, the Government
shall declare them to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto
and as increment thereof.

The IAC decision granting registration was reversed and set aside. Registration
cannot be allowed.

“Accretion along an area adjacent to the sea is public domain, even if the accretion
results from rivers emptying into the sea. It cannot be registered.”

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 6

 CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS

People of the Philippines vs Vergara Gr No. 110286 April 2, 1977

FACTS: In the morning of 04 July 1992, a team composed of deputized Fish

Warden and President of the Leyte Fish Warden Association Jesus P. Bindoy,
Police Officers Casimiro Villas and Diosdado Moron of the Palo PNP Station,
Leyte, Fish Wardens Mario Castillote and Estanislao Cabreros and Fish Examiner
Nestor Aldas of the Department of Agriculture were on board, "Bantay-Dagat," a
pumpboat, on "preventive patrol" along the municipal waters fronting barangays
Baras and Candahug of Palo, Leyte, when they chanced upon a blue-colored
fishing boat at a distance of approximately 200 meters away. The boat, 30 feet
long, had on board appellant Renerio Vergara and his three co-accused Bernardo
Cuesta, Pedro Dagaño and Ernesto Cuesta, Jr., and was on parallel course toward
the general direction of Samar.

Momentarily, the team saw appellant throw into the sea a bottle known in the
locality as "badil" containing ammonium nitrate and having a blasting cap on top
which, when ignited and thrown into the water, could explode. The explosion
would indiscriminately kill schools and various species of fish within a certain
radius. Approximately three seconds after appellant had thrown the "badil" into the
sea, the explosion occurred. Vergara and Cuesta dove into the sea with their gear
while Dagaño and Cuesta, Jr., stayed on board to tend to the air hose for the divers.

The team approached the fishing boat. SP02 Casimiro Villas boarded the fishing
boat while Fish Warden Jesus Bindoy held on to one end of the boat. Moments
later, Vergara and Cuesta surfaced, each carrying a fishnet or "sibot" filled with
about a kilo of "bolinao" fish scooped from under the water. Having been caught
red-handed, the four accused were apprehended and taken by the patrol team to the
"Bantay-Dagat" station at Baras, and later to the police station in Palo, Leyte. The
fishing boat and its paraphernalia, as well as the two fishnets of "bolinao," were
impounded. Accused Renerio P. Vergara was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by P.D.
No. 1508.

ISSUE: Whether the court has acted correctly in finding accused-appellant guilty
of violating Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by P.D. No.
1508.

RULING: Yes. The Court is convinced that the trial court has acted correctly in
finding accused-appellant guilty of the offense charged.

Sections 33 and 38 of P.D. No. 704, as amended by P.D. No. 1058, read:

Sec. 33. Illegal fishing; illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing;
dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. — It shall be unlawful
for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish
or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives,
obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity as defined in

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 7

 CASE DIGESTS IN NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
LAWS

paragraphs (1), (m) and (d), respectively, of section 3 hereof: Provided, That mere
possession of such explosives with intent to use the same for illegal fishing as
herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter provided: Provided, That the
Secretary may, upon recommendation of the Director and subject to such
safeguards and conditions he deems necessary, allow for research, educational or
scientific purposes only, the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance
or electricity to catch, take or gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in specified
area: Provided further, That the use of chemicals to eradicate predators in
fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific fishery practices without causing
deleterious effects in neighboring waters shall not be construed as the use of
obnoxious or poisonous substance within the meaning of this section: Provided,
finally, That the use of mechanical bombs for killing whales, crocodiles, sharks or
other large dangerous fishes, may be allowed, subject to the approval of the
Secretary.

Sec. 38. (1) By the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years to
twenty-five (25) years in the case of mere possession of explosives intended for
illegal fishing; by imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years to life
imprisonment, if the explosive is actually used: Provided, That if the use of the
explosive results in 1) physical injury to any person, the penalty shall be
imprisonment ranging from twenty-five (25) years to life imprisonment, or 2) in
the loss of human life, then the penalty shall be life imprisonment to death.

CLEAN WATER ACT Page 8