Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

109 Phil 851:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-12659. October 28, 1960.]

ABELARDO LANDINGIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAULO GACAD, Defendant-Appellee.

Joaquin Ortega for Appellant.

Sulpicio Soriano for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; FISHERIES; SALAMBAO OR PARIGDIG NOT A FISH CORRAL; ORDINANCE LIMITING DISTANCES BETWEEN FISH CORRALS INAPPLICABLE TO SALAMBAO OR PARIGDIG. — From the very ordinance (Ordinance No. 9, series of 1949, of Sual, Pangasinan) invoked by plaintiff-appellant and the description of a parigdig given by plaintiff-appellant himself, there is no question that parigdig is not a fish corral if the intention of the municipal council of Sual was to consider fish corral and parigdig as the same fishing contraptions, it would have listed the two items together, in one group, inasmuch as they both have the same license fees. Consequently, a parigdig not being a fish corral, the ordinance in question limiting distances between fish corrals doe not apply to salambao or parigdig.


D E C I S I O N


PAREDES, J.:


Plaintiff Abelardo Landingin is the owner of two fishing contraptions locally known as parigdig constructed in 1954, in Calpay Shoal, Municipality of Sual, Pangasinan for which he paid the municipal licenses thereof up to the year 1955. In 1949, an ordinance was enacted and approved by the Municipal Council of Sual, limiting the distance of fish corrals to a minimum of 200 meters from each other. About January 3, 1955, defendant Paulo Gacad commenced the construction of a parigdig 10 meters from and at a place north and fronting the parigdig of plaintiff, nearer to the center of Calpay Shoal, thereby blocking the flow of fish locally known as "Armang" to plaintiff’s parigdig. A committee appointed by the municipal Mayor of Sual to investigate the case, reported that defendant’s parigdig was constructed within 10 meters from plaintiff’s parigdig. As defendant insisted to continue with the operation of his parigdig, the plaintiff filed an action for injunction in the Court of first Instance of Pangasinan to compel the defendant to remove his parigdig. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued, commanding the defendant to desist from committing further acts tending to block, fully or partially, the flow of fish locally known as "armang" to the plaintiff’s parigdig. On March 18, 1955, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendant, based upon the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. The plaintiff appealed and in his brief alleged that the order of dismissal was erroneous.

The pertinent portions of Ordinance No. 9 of the Municipal Council of Sual, provide:clubjuris

SECTION. 1. LICENSE AND FEES. The privilege of taking fish from the municipal waters other than erecting fish corrals, traps and other fishing tackles, operating fishponds, or oysters culture beds, or catching bangos fry shall be granted to persons qualified to pay all necessary fees promulgated by this ordinance, payment of the corresponding fees for the fishing apparatus used herein specified: Provided, that no fisherman or fishermen shall catch fish within 200 meters from a fish corral unless himself is the owner of the corral, provided further, that this fees herein which is an annual fee, may be paid quarterly, if so desired by the applicant:clubjuris

a) Fish Corrals, baclad or pasabing:clubjuris

From 1 m. 3 m. high P40.00

3 m. 5 m. 80.00

5 m. above 120.00

b) Sapiao one light only 120.00

Sapiao with two or more lights 200.00

c) Salambao or Parigdig 40.00

x       x       x


(Emphasis supplied.)

Plaintiff-appellant claims that the case comes within the operation and purview of the above quoted ordinance, stating that (1) a parigdig is a fish corral; (2) The defendant has not secured the required license for his parigdig, and, therefore, is not entitled to the Court’s protection, and (3) Granting, arguendo, that the ordinance does not embrace parigdig, in the distance limitations, the court, nevertheless, is called upon to determine the necessity of a reasonable distance between parigdigs.

There is no question in our mind that parigdig is not a fish corral. From the very ordinance just quoted, "fish corrals, baclad or pasabing," under (a), and "Salambao" or parigdig, under (c), are entirely distinct and separate items. If the intention of the municipal council was to consider fish corral and parigdig as the same fishing contraptions, it would have listed the two items together, inasmuch as they all have the same license fees, in one group. Moreover, Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471, defines fish corral as follows:ClubJuris

"A ‘fish corral’ or ‘baclad’ means a stationary weir or trap devised to intercept and capture fish, consisting of rows or stakes or bamboo, palma brava or other materials fenced with either split bamboo mattings or wire nettings with one or more enclosures usually with easy entrance but difficult exit, and with or without leaders to direct the fish to the catching chambers or pound." clubjuris

The alleged sketch showing the construction of parigdig, attached as Annex ‘A’ to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, submitted by plaintiff-appellant, is not before us. Counsel for plaintiff-appellant, however, described the parigdig as follows:ClubJuris

"As can be seen in the sketch, parigdig constitutes two (2) identical structures 12 meters apart. Each structure is composed of two parallel posts, 5 rows of posts parallel to each other, on top of which are joined bamboo railings similar to raft. Between these two structures, a fishing net is hanged with a circumference of 50 meters, more or less, attached to four posts equipped with ropes and pulley to enable the net to be raised or lowered at will." clubjuris

This description of a parigdig, does not coincide with the description of a fish corral given in the said Act No. 4003, which further strengthens the conclusion that a parigdig is not the same as a "fish corral." The failure of said ordinance to prescribe a distance limitation for contraptions other than fish corrals, shows the legislative intention of allowing the use of parigdig and contraptions, other than fish corrals, at any place the fisherman may choose, without regard to distance. In other words, one parigdig may be constructed and operated at a distance of less than 200 meters from another parigdig.

Having reached the above conclusion, it follows that the complaint must be dismissed, for failure to state a cause of action, irrespective of whether the defendant has or has no license to construct and operate a parigdig. At any rate, the municipality of Sual, and not the plaintiff, can take action for the enforcement of the ordinance in question. Regarding the necessity of determining and prescribing distances between parigdigs, so as to avoid chaos and confusion among fishermen, the plaintiff may make representations to the same Municipal Council to that effect.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152