ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony

c ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony c Section 1.
ccc
c   c   ccc c c   cc   c  c c
c c  c c c
c  ccc c c cc
c   cc
c  cc
c c c c  c  cc
cc c c
c ccccc c
c  cc
c  c
c  c    c cc   cc c c  c  c  c c c

c  c
 c cc c  ccc
  c c  c c  c

cc    c c
c   c c c  cc
c  c
c  c c  c  c c c     c c c  cc

c
c cc
ccc cc
c   c cc cc
c  c
cc c    c   c cc! c c  c   c  c c c  c   c
cc c c c
ccc
c 
cc  Three fold goals of the national economy:

^c ?
ity, a more e
itable distrib
tion of opport
nities, income and wealth ^c urowth, a s
stained increase in the amo
nt of goods and services prod
ced by a nation for the benefit of the people ^c 2rod
ctivity, capacity or degree of effectiveness for making greater o
tp
t o
t of every
nit of inp
t employed.  @trategies to accomplish goals: 1.c To develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos 2.c 2romote ind
strialization and f
ll employment 3.c 2rotect Filipino enterprises against
nfair foreign competition 4.c To give all economic sectors optim
m opport
nity to develop 5.c ?nco
rage private enterprises, cooperatives and similar collective organizations c The Regalian Doctrine ^c |mperi
m, government a
horoity expressed thro
gh sovereignty ^c Domini
m, capacity of the state to own or ac
ire property ^c ÿ
ra Regalia, that all lands were held from the crown  Ownership is vested in the state, not in the head of the state. ^c ll lands that were not ac
ired from the government, either by p
rchase or by grant, belong to the p
blic domain. n exception to the r
le wo
ld be any land that sho
ld have been in the possession and occ
pant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial ^c p| |T@ c Only agric
lt
ral lands of the p
blic domain may be alienated c ?xploration, development and
tilization of nat
ral reso
rces shall be
nder the f
ll control and s
pervision of the state either by directly
ndertaking s
ch ?DU or thro
gh co-prod
ction, joint vent
re or prod
ction sharing agreements c ll agreements with
alified private sector may be for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for another 25 years

c The
se and enjoyment of the marine wealth of the archipelagic waters, territorial sea, territorial sea, and excl
sive economic zone shall be reserved for Filipino citizens c Utilization of nat
ral reso
rces in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons may be allowed on a ͞small scale͟ to Filipino citizens or cooperatives THE IPRA CASE ʹ CRUZ V. SEC. OF DENR, et al. c 2etitioners |sagani Cr
z and Cesar ?
ropa bro
ght this s
it for prohibition and mandam
s, assailing constit
tionality of certain provisions of Rep
blic ct 8371, otherwise known as the |ndigeno
s 2eoples Rights ct of 1997. nd its |mplementing R
les and Reg
lations c @ome provisions of the |2R amo
nt to an
nlawf
l deprivation of the @tate͛s ownersip over lands of the p
blic domain as well as minerals and other nat
ral reso
rces therein, in violation of the regalia doctrine embodies in @ec 2, rticle X|| of the Constit
tion: 1.c @ection 3(a) ʹ defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, @ection 3(b) defines ancestral lands 2.c @ection 5, ncestral domains, inalienable p
blic lands, bodies of water, mineral and other reso
rces fo
nd within ancestral domains are private b
t comm
nity property of the indigeno
s peoples 3.c @ection 6 defines composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands 4.c @ection 7 rights of |2s over ancestral domains 5.c @ection 8 rights of |2s over ancestral lands 6.c @ection 57 which provides for priority rights of |2s in benefits over nat
ral reso
rces within the areas they claim, right to enter into agreements with non-|2s for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years 7.c @ection 58 which gives |2s responsibility over the area they claim c ll encompassing definition of p and D violate rights of private landowners c 2etitioners
estion provision of the |2R defining the powers and j
risdiction of the NC|2 and making c
stomary law applicable to the settlement of disp
tes involving p and D on the gro
nd that these provisions violate the d
e process cla
se. ^c @ection 51-53, 59, process of delineation and recognition of D, vest on NC|2 the sole a
thority to delineate D and p ^c @ection 52 Upon certification from NC|2 that a partic
lar area is an D, the j
risdiction of other officials over said land terminates ^c @ection 63, c
stomary law shall be applied first, in case of do
bt / ambig
ity in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the |2s ^c C
stomary law shall be
sed ^c @ection 66 NC|2 has j
risdiction over all claims and disp
tes involving rights of the |2s c 2etitioners assail validity of R
le V||, 2art ||, @ection 1 of the NC|2 administrative order #1, series of 1998, which provides that the administrative relation of the NC|2 to the office of the president is characterized as a lateral b
t a
tonomo
s relationship for p
rposes of policy and program coordination.

c s the votes were e
ally divided 7 to 7, the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated
pon. fter redeliberation, voting remained the same. 2
rs
ant to T
le 56, @ection 7, of the r
les of civil proced
re, the petition is dismissed. c 2UNO ʹ provisions of the |2R do not contravene the constit
tion ^c ncestral domains refer to all areas generally belonging to |CCs/|2s comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and nat
ral reso
rces therein held
nder a claim of ownership thro
gh their ancestors, comm
nally or individ
ally since time immemorial ^c ncestral lands refers to lands occ
pied, possessed and
tilized by individ
als, families and clans who are members of the |CCs/|2s since time immemorial, by themselves or thro
gh their predecessor-in-interest,
nder claims of individ
al or traditional gro
p ownership, contin
o
sly to the present ^c Native title refers to pre-con
est rights to lands and domains which, as far bak as memory reaches, have been held
nder a claim of private ownership by |CCs/|2s, have never been p
blic lands ^c Carino v. |ns
lar government ʹ Carino was awarded his land. The decision largely rested on the North merican constit
tionalist͛s concept of ͞d
e process͟ as well as the prono
nced policy to ͞do j
stice to the natives͟, Carino is the only case that specifically and categorically recognizes native title ^c |n light of the Carino case, p and D are not part of the lands of p
blic domain, they are private ^c 2
blic domain: agric
lt
ral, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks ^c ?xamining the |2R, there is nothing in the law that grants to the |CCs/|2s ownership over the nat
ral reso
rces within their ancestral domains ^c |CCs/|2s are merely granted the right to ͞manage and conserve͟ them for f
t
re generations, ͞benefit and share͟ the profits from their allocation
tilization, and ͞negotiate the terms and conditions for their exploration͟ for the p
rpose of ͞ens
ring ecological environmental protection and conservation meas
res͟ ʹ stewardship Alienation of natural resources SANTA ROSA MINING CO. V. LEIDO, JR. c 2etitioner assails validity of 2residential Decree No 1214 which re
ires holders of s
bsisting and valid patentable mining claims located
nder the provisions of the 2hilippine Bill of 1902 to file a mining lease application within one year from the approval of the decree. c 2etitioner accordingly filed a mining lease application, b
t ͞
nder protest͟ c 2etitioner contends tthat its 50 mining claims had already been declared as its own private and excl
sive property by a j
dgment of the CF|. lso, that they already had a vested right over its mining claims even before 2D1214 c Respondents claim that petitioner did not exha
st all administrative remedies. They also cited the pendency of petitioner͛s appeal with the office of the president, of the r
ling of the respondent secretary of nat
ral reso
rces which stated that 44 of the mining claims were void

c c

c c

c

for lack of valid ͞tie points͟ as re
ired
nder the 2hilippine Bill of 1902, and that all the mining claims have been abandoned and cancelled for petitioner͛s non compliance. /N property right is absol
te Decision: 2roperty right is not absol
te b
t is merely a possessory right. 2etitioner͛s claims are still
npatented. They can be lost thro
gh abandonment of forfeit
re or they may be revoked for valid legal gro
nds. /N 2D1214 is
nconstit
tional Decision: 2D1214 is constit
tional. |t is a valid exercise of the sovereign power of the state, as owner, over lands of p
blic domain of which petitioner͛s mining claims still form a part, and over the patrimony of the nation, which mineral deposits are a val
able asset. ere location does not mean absol
te ownership over the land / mining claim, to r
le otherwise wo
ld imply that location is all that is needed to ac
ire and maintain rights over a located mining claim. The locator sho
ld faithf
lly and consistently comply with the re
irements for ann
al work and improvements in the located mining claim.

SMC V. CA c @ C p
rchased land from @ilverio 2erez and filed and application for its registration (CF|) c @olicitor ueneral alleges that said parcel of land was incl
ded in p
blic domain and that @ C being a private corporation, is dis
alified from holding alienable lands of the p
blic domain. c CF| granted the application c C reversed lower co
rts decision c @C: /N the evidence presented by the petitioner is s
fficient eno
gh to warrant a r
ling that @ C and/or its predecessor-in-interest has a registrable right to property c Decision: Open, excl
sive and
ndisp
ted possession of alienable p
blic land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land,
pon completion of the re
isite period of 30 years ceases to be p
blic land and becomes private property. However, it m
st be CONCpU@|V?p
?@TBp|@H?D. c 2erez͛s doc
mentary evidence, and testimony, being
ncorroborated, is simply self serving and
ndeserving of any weight. Y

      c
c c  c c c c c  cc   

c cc   c cc  c

c c  c c  c !c c c" #c$  c c%  c% cc c   c  c c&'())c c* c  c+ ,  'c ! c c  c c c  c c c c c ccc cccc c&-)')))c c* c  c c 

 c c  ccc  c &).c! 'c *

c c c! c c c

 c/c c 



c c c  c c 

c c c% c,c ccc c   c c  c c c   

c &!c0 c
 c1&0
2'c  c c/3
'c ! c  c c  c c c   c  c  c& 'c  c c  # c4 c% c  c+  c 

c0c  c c +  c c4 c1''2c* c%  c cc c   c c4 c$ c0c

+  c5 c c% c4 c+  c,

c5 c  c, c+  c 1&'-'(-'())))2c&  'c cc  c c4 c  c, c+  c1&'())))2c&  c c* c   c c 670c 8  c c c  c c c


 c/3
c c c  c c
%
"6c c 'c  c c c ! c  c c  c c% c$'c  c c  9c c "7:65;c !  c 'c c c, c1 c c!2c!  c 'c c c c c <c 

! c c    c!  c c c  c c !c   'c!  c 

! c c  c c    c c ccc c c,c  c c    c c
c c c!  c c    c cc c!  c c c c  ccc  c  c('c
 c=66c6 c c   c 'c c!c c c c!> c c c


 c/3
c cc!  c c 

c cc  c'c c   c 

! c c  c c   c c c4 c c)c  c!> c c c


 c/3
'c-(c  c c?c c c c c cc!  'c 

c   c c, c c% c$c7  c c


 c/3
'c c&0
c   c c
c c !  c c 

c!  c cc  'c c c 

 c c c

c c   c c  c c c   c c c, c! c c c  cc  cc "   c c c  > c c



cc c  c c c  c c   c!c  c


 c/3
c5  c c&0
c c
cc c c  c c c  c c cc  c c c c  c c  c,c c&0
c
c c c c-c/c())(c@  'c c


 c/3
cA  c c  c(c cB'c
 c=66c c c-c  Acc p
 p 
Y
 c 2etitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents from proceeding with the bidding of the Roponggi property c 4 properties
nder the reparations agreement ʹ Nampeidai, Kobe commercial, Kobe residential, Roponggi c 2etitioners raise the ff iss
es: ÷c Can the Roponggi property and others of its kinds be alienated by the 2hilippine govt? ÷c Does the C?, etc. have the a
thority and j
risdiction to sell Roponggi property? ÷c 
thority of the government to alienate the Roponggi property and make it available for the sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities ÷c Bidding proced
res being discriminatory against Filipino citizens by denying them right to be informed c Respondents aver that the s
bject property is not
nder o
r laws b
t
nder ÿapanese laws, that Roponggi has ceased to become property of p
blic dominion, that is has become patrimonial property and that the intention to convert it to private
se has been manifested by overt acts s
ch as the transfer of embassy to Nampeidai, iss
ance of Os for the alienation of ÿapanese properties, iss
ance of ?O296, ?nactment of CR2, holding of p
blic bidding, acknowledgement

c c c c c c c

of the senate of government͛s intention to remove Roponggi from p
blic p
rpose, the co
rt͛s dismissal of petition in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee Decision: Roponggi is of p
blic dominion
nless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. The respondents failed to do this. Roponggi property o
tside the commerce of man The fact that the Roponggi property has not been
sed for a long time does not a
tomatically convert it to patrimonial property There is no formal declaration from the government to withdraw it from being s
ch bandonment cannot be inferred from non-
se alone, it m
st be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises pex sit
s r
le is misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienablity of the real properties proc
red thro
gh reparations nor the existence in what body of the a
thority to sell them 2etition granted

D

  
 
  ;"c5 c-BB(c/ c.'c--c c cc c  c& 

c  c
* c c0#  c4 c5 c(c c(-c c c #  c c c   c , c04c5 c(c  ! c c  c    c c c    c c  c c   c c c #   'c   

c c c c c  c c  c('c
 c=66c c c-c  c04c5 c(-c  c c@05"c  c c   c c   c>  C

 'c C   'c c   Cc c



c c c #   'c    

'c c c c c   c c  c  c c c  c  

 c!c c@05"c c
  c4 c5 cc,c   ccc # c  c  c c



c,c,  c  c  c c c c c -c  Dc! c   c  c   C c



c, c c12c c  c c c c  c  Ec c
  c4 c5 c(c,c   ccc  c c!c:  c c6 

c c% c&  C c




c, c(c c  c  c c c c@ 

c
  c4 c5 ccc c c!  

c c c   'c*'c c c c c'c  c c   c c c   c c % c
  c c c&  'c6 'c c   c   c c  c    c c c , c cc  'c c  c c  c  c c cc c   c!  cc c 6 ccc
 c c, c@ 

c
  c4 c9c c " cc c

' c&  Fc 

 c c c  c c& 

c@ 

c5 c.B'cc

 'cc c     c,c c c   c c  c c  c c  c cc  c c c   c c c #   'c   

'c c c c c   c  c c 0#  c4 c5 c('cc  c& 

c@ 

c5 c.B'cc

 'c  c c c c  c c #   'c   

c c c c c   c cA

 'c    c c  Ac,'c ,  'cc!

c , c!c
 c=66'c  c(c c c-c   c$c c c cc  c  c cc  

 c,'c0#  c 4 c5 c(-c,c   c0#  c4 c5 c('c c   c  c cA

 'c    c c  Ac c c   c  c& 

c@ 

c5 c.B'cc

 'c c  c # c  c,c c

 c  c 'c   'c  c c  cc c    c ,c6 c  c, 'c cc  c c c  c c  

c c c 'c c   c c& 

c@ 

c5 c.B'cc

 'c c  c # c  c,'cc   c   cc c0#  c4 c5 c(-c   'cc  cc
c   c c& 

c@ 

c5 c.B'cc

 'c  c # c  c,'c c  c  

 c c c  'c c c  'c,c c c  

c,c c   c cc0#  c4 'cc   c c  c c c c 8 cC  cc c 'c ,  'cc  c c c   c 'c  c  c c 



c  c!c c 'ccc  c  c  c c0#  c4 c5 c(c   c cc  'c c!> c c  c cc  ! c #  c c c  c , c c c c
  'c c 'c c c #  c cc  c , c cc 'cc c! c   c!c c   c  c c C 

c c c  c  'c   c c

 c  c  c  c c



c  c  c& 

c@ 

c5 c.B'cc

 'c  c  c0#  c4 c5 c(c&  c& , 'c!  c C #

 c,c c   c c c c c  c  c c !c   Gc #

c cc cc !c

c c  c c0#  c4 c 5 c(-c,c   c0#  c4 c5 c(c   c c!c c c@05"c  c c c  c c c  c c
 c=66'c  c(c c c-c  c c 8+0"0 4"0'c c  cc@6%60@c cc c  REPUBLIC V. ROSEMOOR c 2etitioners discovered marble deposits in the mo
ntains of Biak na Bato, BUlacan. 2etitioners were iss
ed picence No. 33 c ?rnesto aceda, minister of D?NR, Rosemoor͛s license was cancelled by him.