WENCESLAO VINZONS TAN,​ petitioner-appellant​,​ ​vs.

​ THE DIRECTOR OF
FORESTRY, APOLONIO RIVERA, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
AND NATURAL RESOURCES JOSE Y. FELICIANO​,​ respondents-appellees​,
RAVAGO COMMERCIAL CO., JORGE LAO HAPPICK and ATANACIO
MALLARI​, ​intervenors​.​
|||

G.R. No. L-24548, [October 27, 1983], 210 PHIL 244-267

FACTS:

Sometime in April 1961 (seryoso wala talagang date lol), the Bureau of
Forestry issued Notice No. 2087​ 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 submitted his application on May 5. Nine others did
before the deadline.

The area was granted to the petitioner. On May 30, 1963, Secretary Benjamin
Gozon of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued General Memorandum Order
No. 46, authorizing Dir. Of Forestry to grant new Ordinary Timber Licenses (OTL)
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 Jose

Feliciano (replacing Gozon) promulgated on December 19, 1963 General
Memorandum Order No. 60, revoking the authority delegated to the Director of
Forestry to grant ordinary timber licenses. On the same date, OTL no. 20-’64 in
the name of Tan, was ​signed by then Acting Director of Forestry, Estanislao
Bernal, without the approval of Feliciano. On January 6, 1964, the license was
released​ by the Director of Forestry, unsigned by Feliciano as directed by No. 60.

Ravago Commercial Company and Jorge Lao Happick 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 Tan’s OTL null and void (but the same was not
granted to Ravago). Petitioner-appellant moved for a reconsideration of the
order, but the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources denied the motion.
ISSUES:
I. ​Whether or not petitioner’s timber license is valid (No)
​ II. ​Whether or not petitioner has exhausted administrative remedies available
(No)

RULING:

I
Petitioner’s 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. (The
license was released to the petitioner on ​January 6, 1964​ while on the other
hand, the authority of the Director of Forestry to issue license was revoked on
December 19, 1963​). 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.

II
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.