Scribd
Upload
643 views2 pages

Lovina V Moreno Digest

This case involves a dispute over whether private landowners could block a river called Sapang Bulati in Macabebe, Pampanga. Numerous residents complained that Lovina had obstructed the river, a navigable waterway, with constructions. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications found the obstructions to be a public nuisance and ordered their removal. Lovina challenged this, arguing that RA 2056 unconstitutionally delegated judicial power to the Secretary and that the river was actually private. The court concluded that while the Secretary's power to determine questions of fact was valid, RA 2056 was unconstitutional because it allowed administrative demolition of private constructions without a court proceeding.

Uploaded by

Maverick Jann Esteban
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
643 views2 pages

Lovina V Moreno Digest

This case involves a dispute over whether private landowners could block a river called Sapang Bulati in Macabebe, Pampanga. Numerous residents complained that Lovina had obstructed the river, a navigable waterway, with constructions. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications found the obstructions to be a public nuisance and ordered their removal. Lovina challenged this, arguing that RA 2056 unconstitutionally delegated judicial power to the Secretary and that the river was actually private. The court concluded that while the Secretary's power to determine questions of fact was valid, RA 2056 was unconstitutional because it allowed administrative demolition of private constructions without a court proceeding.

Uploaded by

Maverick Jann Esteban
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Lovina v Moreno

GR No. L-17821, 29 Nov. 1963

ISSUE:
W/N the ownership of navigable stream can be acquired by prescription.
W/N RA 2056 is unconstitutional due to unlawfully delegating to the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications the judicial power to determine
whether a river or stream is public and navigable.

RULES:
1. RA No. 2056 – Act prohibiting construction of dams, dikes or any other works
in public navigable waters…
2. Palanca v Commonwealth (69 Phil. 449) – beds of navigable streams is public
property and no acquirable by adverse possession.
3. Luisville Bridge Co. v US Secretary of War – the Sec. of War is to take action,
after hearing, for the removal of bridges unreasonably obstructing navigation.
Abatement as nuisances of property cannot be done except through court
proceedings.
4. Villena v Secretary of Interior (67 Phil. 451) – The Secretary’s is that of the
President in the absence of disapproval.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:
Numerous residents of Macabebe, Pampanga complained that Lovina had
blocked the “Sapang Bulati,” a navigable river in the same municipality and asked
that the obstructions be ordered removed, under the provisions of RA 2056. After
notice and hearing to the parties, the said Secretary of Public Works and
COmmunications found the constructions to be a public nuisance in navigable
waters, and ordered the land owners, Sps. Lovina, to remove the same. After receipt
of the decision, the Sps. Lovina filed a petition to restrain the Secretary from
enforcing his decision and which the CFI Manila rendered in favor of the spouses
saying that RA 2056 is unconstitutional due to undue delegation to the Secretary and
that Sapang Bulati is not a navigable river but a private stream.
Moreno, on the other hand, contends that it is not a case of undue delegation
for the power of determining the existence of a stream is only incidental to the
exercise of the power granted by the law.

CONCLUSION:
RA 2056 is unconstitutional. It cannot be held that the law is constitutional but
was applied unconstitutionally as the Lovino’s dikes were demolished through an
administrative, not judicial, proceeding. It will be noted that the questioned law merely
empowers the Secretary to remove unauthorized obstructions or encroachments upon
public streams, constructions that no private person was anyway entitled to make, because
the bed of navigable streams is public property, and ownership thereof is not acquirable by
adverse possession.
It is true that the exercise of the Secretary's power under the Act necessarily involves
the determination of some questions of fact, such as the existence of the stream and its
previous navigable character; but these functions, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, are
merely incidental to the exercise of the power granted by law to clear navigable streams of
unauthorized obstructions or encroachments, and authorities are clear that they are, validly
conferrable upon executive officials provided the party affected is given opportunity to be
heard, as is expressly required by RA2056.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy