TAN v DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY without authority is void ab initio.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
GR # 24548
October 27, 1983
Facts:
On April 15, 1963, petitioner-appellant Wenceslao Vinzon Tan won the
bididing for the license of logging operations on a public forest land situated in
Olongapo, Zambales. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Benjamin
Gozon issued General Memorandum, Order No. 46 which states that “The
Director of Forestry is hereby authorized to grant a new ordinary timber
licences where the area covered thereby is not more than 3,000 hectares each
and that the extension of an ordinary timber license for areas not exceeding
5,000 hectares.”
Thereafter Jose Y. Feliciano was appointed as Acting Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Upon assumption of office on December 19,
1963 he promulgated General Memorandum Order No. 46 which took effect on
the same day. Such General Memorandum is a revocation of General
Memorandum No. 46 which states that “Issuance of new licenses, including
amendments shall be signed by the secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.” On the same day the Acting Director of Forestry signed the timber
license of the petitioner without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources and was released by the Office of the Director of
Forestry on January 6, 1964.
On February 19, 1964. Ravago Commercial wrote a letter to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources praying that the license issued
to petitioner be cancelled or revoked on the ground that the grant was
irregular, anomalous and contrary to the existing forest rules, laws and
regulations.
On March 9, 1964, Feliciano promulgated an order declaring Ordinary
Timber License NO. 20-64 issued to petitioner by the Director of Forestry
order but Feliciano denied the motion.
On the basis of the denial for his motion to reconsideration, petitioner
filed the instant case before the court a quo, a petition for certiorari prohibiting
and mandamus with preliminary prohibitory injunction. Petitioner claims that
respondent unlawfully, illegally and arbitrarily acted in excess of their
jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion by revoking his license without a
valid cause, by denying him of equal protection of law, by depriving him of his
constitutional right to property without due process of law and by impairing
the obligation of contract. The court a quo, from the evidence received,
declared that the petition did not state a sufficient cause of action and
dismissed the same.
Petitioner, having his motion for reconsideration denied, appealed
directly to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the timber license issued to the petitioner is void ab
initio.
2. Whether or not petitioner has exhausted all his administrative
remedies.
3. Whether or not petitioner’s action is a suit against the State.
4. Whether or not the revocation of the petitioner’s timber license by the
respondent is a valid exercise of his power as Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources.
5. Whether or not petitioner’s timber license can still be revoked even if it
is valid.
Ruling:
1. Yes. The timber license issued to the petitioner is void ab initio.
Petitioner’s timber license was signed and released without the
authority of the by then Acting Director Estanislao Bernal of Forestry.
 At the time it was released, the Acting Director of Forestry had no
more authority to grant a license. The authority delegated to him was
contained in General Memorandum Order No. 46 which was revoked
by General Order No. 60 which removes the authority of the Director of
Forestry to grant license.
5. Yes. Petitioner’s timber license can still be revoked even if it is valid.
2. No. Petitioner has not exhausted all his administrative remedies.
Petitioner did not appeal the order of the respondent Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines
who issued Executive Proclamation No. 238 withdrawing the area from
private exploitation, and establishing it as the Olongapo Watershed
Forest Reserve. Considering the President has the power to review on
appeal the orders or acts of the respondents, the failure of the
petitioner to take that appeal is failure on his part to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
3. Yes. Petitioner’s action is a suit against the State.
modify, reverse or set aside acts of subordinate officials. Accordingly,
respondent as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has the
authority to revoke, on valid grounds the timber license issued by the
Director of Forestry.
Paragraph 27 of the rules and regulations included in the
ordinary timber license states that the terms and conditions of the
license are subject to change at the discretion of the Director of
Forestry. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the
due process of law but a privilege which can be withdrawn whenever
dictated by the public interest or welfare.
Petition DENIED.

Under the doctrine of State immunity, a suit against the State

cannot prosper unless the State has given its consent. Both the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Director of Forestry
acted in their capacity as officers of the State and representatives of
the sovereign authority discharging governmental powers. Petitioner’s
action is an attempt to circumvent the rule establishing State
exemption from suit. The promotion of public welfare and the
protection of the inhabitants near the public forest are property, rights
and interest of the State. Accordingly, it may not be circumvented by
directing the action against the officer of the State instead of against
the State itself.

4. Yes. The revocation of the petitioner’s timber license by the

respondent is a valid exercise of his power as Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources.

The Director of Forestry who issued the timber license of the

petitioner is under the supervision of the Head or Secretary of the
Agriculture and Natural Resources. The power and control of the
Department Heads over bureaus and offices includes the power to