342 Phil. 618
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
1. Private respondent Jose Bolivar was granted by the Bureau of Forestry, now Bureau of Forest Development, on September 17, 1963, Nipa-Bacauan (NB) Permit No. 1897, covering 16.0 hectares in Pontevedra, Capiz, while [one] Julio de Jesus was issued by the defunct Philippine Fisheries Commission, now Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Fishpond Permit No. 5423 on June 21, 1965, covering 35.0 hectares likewise located at Pontevedra, Capiz.‘1. That the area covered by the Nipa-Bacauan Permit No. 1897 of Jose Bolivar and the area covered by Fp.[No.] 5423 of Julio de Jesus are embraced and covered by the Miscellaneous lease application of Roberto Cordenillo.
2. On August 13, 1963, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo filed with the Bureau of Lands, now Lands Management Bureau, a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) over about 134.0 hectares in the same locality, which area included the areas under private respondent Jose Bolivar’s NB Permit and Julio de Jesus’ fishpond permit. Simultaneously, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo entered and occupied the area he applied for and, subsequently, constructed a fishpond on a ten (10)- hectare portion thereof. This ten (10)-hectare portion was later on found to be within the area under private respondent Jose Bolivar’s NB Permit.
3. Both private respondents Jose Bolivar and Julio de Jesus filed protests against the MSA of petitioner Roberto Cordenillo. The protests were investigated and heard by the District Land Officer and District Forester of Roxas City and also by the Committee on Investigations of the then Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR). After the investigation and ocular inspection, said committee submitted its report on October 15, 1973, containing, among others, the following observation:
The Bureau of Forest Development is hereby ADMONISHED for having renewed the Nipa-Bacauan Permit of Jose Bolivar even after it had previously declared itself as having no jurisdiction over the area in question, which area is a part of the Tinagong Dagat Bay. The same Office is enjoined to exercise more caution and due diligence in acting on similar cases in the future to avoid damage or prejudice to innocent parties affected by such action, in this case, Mr. Bolivar. To repair the damage Mr. Bolivar may have suffered from the erroneous action of that Bureau, it is hereby reinterated that special preference be given by the Office and other agencies of this Department concerned in securing for him a similar permit over any adjoining or neighboring area.‘PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Order of the then Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, dated January 28, 1974, is hereby modified in the sense that Fishpond Permit No. 5423 in the name of Julio de Jesus and the miscellaneous sales application of Roberto Cordenillo shall remain cancelled and rejected, respectively; that Roberto Cordenillo illegally occupied and developed a portion of the area covered by Nipa-Bacauan Permit No. 1897 of Jose Bolivar and, accordingly, Roberto Cordenillo shall vacate said area occupied and all improvements introduced and found therein are forfeited in favor of the government and that Jose Bolivar is given preference over the area covered by his Nipa-Bacauan Permit No. 1897.
xxx’
5. Not satisfied, private respondent Jose Bolivar sought a reconsideration of the above-mentioned order by filing the requisite motion and memorandum, dated February 25 and March 21, 1974, respectively. On the basis thereof, the then Minister of Natural Resources Jose Leido, Jr., issued an Order dated March 31, 1980, modifying the aforesaid Order dated January 28, 1974 of Undersecretary Jose D. Drilon, Jr., the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
xxx’‘WHEREFORE, THE Order of the Minister of Natural Resources dated March 31, 1980 is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof, the Order of then Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose D. Drilon (sic), dated January 28, 1974, directing, inter alia that Roberto Cordenillo secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectare (sic) which he has developed, is hereby reinstated.
xxx
6. Petitioner Roberto Cordenillo filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned Order dated March 31, 1980 of Minister Jose Leido, Jr., and the same motion was denied on September 4, 1980.
7. Accordingly, on September 25, 1980, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo appealed to the Office of the President the aforementioned Order dated March 31, 1980 of Minister Jose Leido, Jr.
8. On October 29, 1981, the Office of the President, through then Acting Presidential Executive Assistant Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
xxx’It is significant to point out at this juncture that prior to private respondent Bolivar’s aforementioned twin Motions dated March 17, 1988 and June 2, 1988 praying for the issuance of a fishpond lease agreement covering the twenty (20) hectares adjoining petitioner Cordenillo’s ten (10) hectares of fishpond, and for a categorical declaration that the entire decretal portion of Drilon Order dated January 28, 1974, was reinstated or revived by the Decision dated October 29, 1981 as rendered by Acting Presidential Executive Assistant Joaquin T. Venus, Jr. of the Office of the President, the Secretary and the Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture had already earlier made official issuances to the effect that the decretal portion of the Drilon Order dated January 28,1974 was and should be deemed, reinstated or revived by the Venus Decision dated October 29, 1981.
xxx
9. On november 19, 1981, private respondent JOSE bolivar moved to reconsider the aforementioned Decision dated October 29, 1981. In a Resolution dated March 19, 1982, the Office of the President resolved to dismiss private respondent Jose Bolivar’s motion for reconsideration and declared subject Decision dated October 29, 1981 as final.
10. Pursuant to the above-mentioned Resolution dated March 19, 1982 of the Office of the President, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo filed his Fishpond Application over an area of approximately ten (10) hectares on October 2, 1985, while private respondent Jose Bolivar filed the Fishpond Application covering the adjoining area of twenty (20) hectares on August 31, 1985.
11. Subsequently, or on October 8, 1985, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo sought clarification from the Office of the President on the correct or proper interpretation of its Decision dated October 29, 1981, specifically as to wether said Decision reinstated the whole dispositive portion of the Order of then Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose D. Drilon, Jr. dated January 28, 1974, or only that part thereof, directing petitioner Roberto Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area approximately ten (10) hectares developed by him as stated in the subject Decision.
12. In reply, the Office of the President informed petitioner Roberto Cordenillo in its letter of April 2, 1986, that ‘x x x the Decision of this Office in O.P. Case No. 1836 dated October 29, 1985 (sic), has the effect of reinstating the Order of then Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose Drilon (sic), dated January 28, 1974, only insofar as it directed Roberto Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectares which he has developed.’
13. Meanwhile, it appearing that the BFAR has not acted upon his fishpond application for the twenty (20)-hectare area mentioned in the Drilon Order dated January 28, 1974, which was reinstated in the O.P. Decision of October 29, 1981, and considering further that a portion thereof still remains in the possession of petitioner Roberto Cordenillo, private respondent Jose Bolivar filed with the Office of the President the instant ‘Ex-PARTE MOTION (For Issuance of the Writ of Implementation)’ on March 17, 1988, praying for the issuance of an Order directing BFAR and the Department of Agriculture to issue to him (private respondent Jose Bolivar) a twenty-five (25)-year fishpond lease agreement over an area of twenty (20) hectares adjoining the ten (10) hectares shown in the sketch to the Drilon Order of January 28,1974, and the Capiz P.C. Provincial Command to clear the aforesaid area of occupants and to deliver the physical possession thereof to private respondent Jose Bolivar.
14. In a ‘SUPPLEMENTAL TO EX-PARTE MOTION (for the Issuance of an Order of Implementation),’ dated June 2, 1988, private respondent Jose Bolivar, through counsel, adverted to the Memorandum of Fisheries Regional Director Matias A. Guieb dated October 29, 1985, finding petitioner Roberto Cordenillo to have acted in bad faith when he occupied the entire area of 47.9852 hectares covered by his rejected Fishpond Permit Application No. 36939 without the benefit of a lease agreement and with full knowledge of the pending controversy over the said area before the DANR. Additionally, private respondent Jose Bolivar prayed for a declaration that the entire decretal portion of the Drilon Order dated January 28, 1974, was reinstated or revived by the O.P. Decision dated October 29, 1981.”[3]
“After a close and perceptive study, this Office is persuaded to uphold x x x x Bolivar’s view that the Decision of this Office dated October29, 1981 [i.e., the Venus Decision] reinstated the entire dispositive portion of the Drilon [sic] order of January 28, 1974, not just that portion thereof (par. 4) advising Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectares he has developed. It is noteworthy that, long before the rendition by this Office on April 2, 1986 of the clarificatory opinion requested by Cordenillo on the effect of its Decision on the Drilon [sic] order, Fisheries Regional Director Matias A. Guieb had shared the view of Bolivar’s counsel that what was reinstated by the O.P. Decision of October 29, 1981, was the entire portion of the Drillon [sic] order. Thus, in his memorandum for the BFAR Director, dated August 5, 1985, Director Guieb stated in part:‘This Office share[s] the view of the Counsel of Jose Bolivar that what was reinstated was the Order dated January 28, 1974, not a portion thereof.
Moreover, as may be immediately discerned from the body of O.P. Decision dated October 29, 1981 [i.e., the Venus Decision], what was resolved therein was solely the issue of who between the contending parties is entitled to the award of the 10-hectare portion of the subject fishpond area, nothing more or less. This is as it should be, because that was the lone and only issue raised by Cordenillo in his appeal from the MNR Order of March 31, 1980. If said Decision intended to revive only that particular potion of the Drillon [sic] order relative to the award of the 10 hectares, it should have categorically and emphatically ruled on the right, or rather the disqualification, of Bolivar to acquire the 20 hectares decreed in the Drillon [sic] order. Strangely enough though, said Decision was conspicuously silent on this point. Withal, it is hard to believe that such an important matter, which the subject Decision had discarded and cast into oblivion, despite the precise and categoric[al] language of the dispositive portion of the Drillon [sic] order, would have been left in the said Decision to mere implication. Having opted not to discuss or mention even in passing the issue of Bolivar’s preferential right to apply for the 20-hectare area, the Decision in question must be taken, in effect, to have affirmed the same and those embodied in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the decretal portion of the Drillon [sic] order. Consequently, the matter of Bolivar’s right to the award of the 20 hectares not having been controverted or traversed in the subject Decision, the same must be deemed to have been definitively settled or set to rest, along with the other issues discussed in the dispositive portion of the Drillon [sic] order. This must be so, for the Decision of this Office of October 29, 1981, retroacts to the date of the Drillon [sic] order of January 28, 1974. And, having acquired the character of finality as of March 19, 1982, said Decision had, for all legal intents and purposes, concluded the legality, among others, of the conditional award to Bolivar of the 20 hectares and precludes the subsequent determination of the very same issue.On May 29, 1993, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforequoted Resolution. Said Motion was anchored on the following grounds: (1) that the decision rendered by the Office of the President dated April 2, 1986 whereby said office clarified that the Drilon Order was reinstated “only insofar as it directed Roberto Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectares which he has developed,” had already become final and executory, thus rendering null and void for being an issuance tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the aforequoted Resolution dated May 7, 1993, which in effect reverses aforesaid April 2, 1986 decision; (2) that the aforequoted Resolution was issued in violation of petitioner’s right to due process; and (3) that the aforequoted Resolution was not supported by the true facts and the laws and jurisprudence of the case.
xxx
It may be apropos to mention that Cordenillo did not appeal the Drillon [sic] order. Hence, in so far as he is concerned, said order had preclusive effect, not only [as to] that portion giving him preferential right to apply by lease for the 10-hectare fishpond area, but the entirety thereof.
This Office also notes that, in his ‘Appeal Memorandum’ filed with this Office, dated September 23, 1980, Cordenillo prayed for the reinstatement of the entire Drillon [sic] order of January 28, 1974. Likewise, in his subsequent ‘Memorandum’ dated April 20, 1981, Cordenillo asked this Office to uphold the Drillon [sic] order, without qualification or condition whatsoever. Thus, there was no need for Cordenillo to seek clarification on the effect of the October 29, 1981 Decision of this Office on the Drillon [sic] order of January 28, 1974. For its part, this Office cannot be faulted for rendering the aforementioned interpretative ruling, considering that the only issue raised before it at that time was who between Bolivar and Cordenillo is entitled to the 10 hectares in question.
For this Office to adhere to its previous interpretation that its Decision of October 29, 1981 did not revive the entire Drillon [sic] order of January 28, 1974, would enable Cordenillo to apply not only for the 20 hectares awarded to Bolivar but also the rest of the 134 hectares covered by his rejected miscellaneous sales application. This, to say the least, is in accord neither with justice nor equity which this Office will not countenance.
Upon the foregoing premises, this Office finds, and so holds, that its Decision of October 29, 1981, reinstated and revived the entire dispositive portion of the order of then DANR Secretary Jose D. Drillon [sic] dated January 28, 1974, in DANR Case No. 3909.”[10]
“Anent the first ground, we are not persuaded by movant’s argument that the Resolution of this Office, dated May 7, 1993, is null and void ‘for lack of jurisdiction and a grave discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction,’ allegedly because its clarificatory Order/Decision, of April 2, 1986 had already become final and executory. Being merely interpretative of the main Decision in O.P. Case No. 1863, said clarificatory Order/Decision, assuming the same to have acquired the character of finality, cannot affect, much less divest x x x Bolivar of his preferential right acquired under the Drillon [sic] Order of January 28,1974, which was revived in its entirety by O.P. Decision dated October 29, 1981, to apply for the adjoining area suitable for fishpond purposes covering twenty (20) hectares. This is only as it should be, considering that movant did not appeal the Drillon [sic] order directing, among others, that he secure from the then Bureau of Fisheries a fishpond lease agreement over the 10-hectare fishpond area developed by him.‘x x x As far back as 1935, it has already been settled doctrine that a plea of denial of procedural due process does not lie where a defect consisting of an absence of notice of hearing was thereafter cured by the alleged aggrieved party having had the opportunity to be heard on a motion for reconsideration. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard. There is then no occasion to impute deprivation of property without due process where the adverse party was heard on a motion for reconsideration constituting as it does sufficient opportunity for him to inform the Tribunal concerned of his side of the controversy. x x x [W]hat due process contemplates is freedom from arbitrariness and what it requires is fairness or justice, the substance rather than the form being paramount, the conclusion being that the hearing on a motion for reconsideration meets the strict requirement of the process.’
Moreover, Bolivar’s right to apply for the adjoining area of twenty (20) hectares suitable for fishpond purposes had long become vested with the finality of our Decision of October 29, 1981 on March 19, 1982, which retroacts to the date of the Drillon [sic] order dated January 28,1974. Indeed, to sustain movant’s argument would mean that this miscellaneous lease application over the 134 hectares that was already rejected in the Drillon [sic] order remains valid and could be pursued by him. Certainly, this is far removed from the intention of this Office when it rendered its October 29, 1981 Decision wherein the only issue raised by movant and resolved therein was his right to lease the 10-hectare area.
Concerning the second ground, this Office finds itself hard put to concede validity to movant’s contention that he was denied due process because he was not afforded opportunity to be heard vis-à-vis [private respondent’s] x x x ‘EX-PARTE MOTION (For Issuance of the Writ of Implementation)’, in view of the instant motion interposed by movant seeking reconsideration of the questioned Resolution. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Maglasang vs. Ople x x x:
Lastly, for obvious lack of merit, this Office does not deem it necessary to pass upon the third ground invoked by movant, said Resolution of May 7, 1993 being decidedly congruent with the factual situation and in full accord with settled jurisprudence and legal principles.”[11]Undaunted, petitioner simply refuses to concede the futility of his baseless postulations; hence, the instant petition, which, needless to say, is totally devoid of merit.
“WHEREFORE, THE Order of the Minister of Natural Resources dated March 31, 1980 is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof, the Order of then Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose D. Drillon (sic), dated January 28, 1974, directing, inter alia that Roberto Cordenillo ‘secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectare (sic) which he has developed’ is hereby reinstated.On its face, the aforequoted dispositive portion of the Venus Order reinstated the Drilon Order directing, “inter alia” or among others, the grant to petitioner of the ten (10) hectares already developed by him into fishponds. Undoubtedly, the Venus Order acknowledged the existence of the other directives contained in the Drilon Order by using the term, “inter alia.” Non-mention thereof in the Venus Order, thus, cannot be deemed abrogation thereof, since such other directives were clearly part of the context within which the Drilon Order was undertaken.
SO ORDERED.”[13] [emphasis ours]
“The Decision of the Office of the President (O.P.) dated October 29, 1981 reinstated the entire dispositive portion of the Drilon Order of January 28, 1974, not just that portion thereof (paragraph 4) advising petitioner Roberto Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten(10) hectares he has developed. It may be immediately discerned from the O.P. Decision dated October 29, 1981, that what was resolved therein was solely the issue of who between the contending parties is entitled to the award of the ten (10)-hectare portion of subject fishpond area, nothing more or less. This is as it should be, because that was the lone and only issue raised by petitioner Roberto Cordenillo in his appeal from the MNR Order of March 31, 1980. If said Decision intended to revive only that particular portion of the Drilon Order of January 28, 1974 relative to the award of the ten (10) hectares, it should have categorically and emphatically ruled on the right, or rather, the disqualification, of private respondent Jose Bolivar to acquire the twenty (20) hectares decreed in the Drilon Order x x x. Strangely enough though, said Decision was conspicuously silent on this point. x x x Having opted not to discuss or mention even in passing the issue of private respondent Jose Bolivar’s preferential right to apply for the twenty (20) hectares area, the Decision in question must be taken, in effect, to have affirmed the same and those embodied in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the decretal portion of the Drilon Order. Consequently, the matter of private respondent Jose Bolivar’s right to award of twenty (20) hectares not having been controverted or traversed in the subject Decision, the same must be deemed to have been definitively settled or set to rest, along with the other issues discussed in the dispositive potion of the Drilon Order. This must be so, for the O.P. Decision of October 29, 1981, retroacts to the date of the Drilon Order of January 28, 1974. And having acquired the character of finality as of March 19, 1982, said Decision had, for all legal intents and purposes, concluded the legality, among others, of the conditional award to private respondent Jose Bolivar of the twenty (20) hectares and precluded the subsequent determination of the very same issue.Second. Petitioner also argues that the herein assailed issuances of the Office of the President are null and void for having been promulgated in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the April 2, 1986 Clarificatory Order also issued by the Office of the President, through then Deputy Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., categorically declared the Drilon Order to have been reinstated “only insofar as it directed Roberto Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectares which he has developed.”[16]
xxx
It may be apropos to mention that petitioner Roberto Cordenillo did not appeal the Drilon Order x x x. Hence, insofar as he is concerned, said order had preclusive effect, not only on that portion giving him preferential right to apply by lease for the ten (10)-hectare fishpond area, but the entirety thereof.
It should be noted that in his ‘Appeal Memorandum’ filed with the Office of the President x x x [when he appealed from the Leido Order], petitioner Roberto Cordenillo prayed for the reinstatement of the Drilon Order x x x. Likewise, in his subsequent ‘Memorandum’ x x x petitioner Roberto Cordenillo asked the Office of the President to uphold the Drilon Order x x x without qualification whatsoever. x x x”[15]