Natres LTD digests

BORACAYFOUNDATION,INC.,Petitioner vs. THEPROVINCEOFAKLAN,REPRESENTEDBYGOVERNORCARLITOS.MARQUEZ,THEPHILIPPINERECLAMATION AUTHORITY,ANDTHEDENR-EMB(REGIONVI),Respondents June26, June26,2012 2012 G.R.No. G.R. No.196870 196870 FACTS: Boracay Boracay Island Island (Boracay) (Bor (Borac (Boracay) acay), ay), , a tropical trop tropic tropical ical al paradise paradise located locat locate located ed d in in the the Western Western Visayas Visayas region reg region regiion on of of the the Philippin Philippines es andone of thecountry ’’s most popular popular tourist tourist destinatio destinations. ns. Theisland comprises comprises the barangays of Manoc-man Manoc-manoc,Balabag,and oc,Balabag,and Yapak, Yapak, all within within themunicipalityof themunicipalityof Malay, in theprovince theprovince of Aklan. Aklan. Responde Respondent nt Provinceoperatesbothportstoprovidestructuralfacilitiessuitedforlocals,touristsandguestsandtoprovidesafety andsecuritymeasures.In2005,Boracay2010Summitwasheldandparticipatedinbyrepresentativesfromnational andsecuritymeasures.In2005,Boracay2010 Summitwasheldandparticipatedinbyrepresentativesfromnational governmentagencies,localgovernmentunits(LGUs),andtheprivatesector.Thesummityieldedareportwhich showedthattherewasaneed showedthattherewasaneedtoexpandth toexpandtheportfacilitiesatCaticlandu eportfacilitiesatCaticlanduetocongestio etocongestionintheholdin nintheholdingareaofthe gareaofthe existingport,causedbyinadequatefacilities,thustouristssufferedlongqueueswhilewaitingfortheboatridegoing totheisland.

On May 7, 2009, the Sangguniang resp respon responden ondent dent nt t Province Prov Provin Province ince ce issuedResolution issue issued dResolu Resolutio tion n No. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of responde 2009110,whichauthorizedGovernorMar 2009110,whichautho rizedGovernorMarqueztofileanapp queztofileanapplicationtoreclaimthe2.64h licationtoreclaimthe2.64hectaresoffore ectaresofforeshorearea shorearea inCaticlan,Malay,AklanwithrespondentPRA.WithinthesamemonthofOctober2009,respondentProvince deliberat deliberatedonthepossib edonthepossibleexpans leexpansionfromitsorigi ionfromitsoriginalpropo nalproposedrecla sedreclamatio mationareaof2.64hectares nareaof2.64hectaresto to forty(40) forty fort y(40) (40) hectaresinordertomaximizetheutilizationofitsresourcesandasaresponsetothefindingsofthePreliminary GeohazardAssessmentstudywhichshowedthattherecessionandretreatoftheshorelinecausedbycoastalerosion andscouringshouldb andscouringshouldbethefirst ethefirstmajorconcern majorconcerninthe intheprojectsite projectsiteandnearby andnearbycoastalarea. coastalarea. Respon Responden dent t PRA approv approvedthe edthe reclam reclamati ation on projec project t on April April 20, 2010 2010 inits Resol Resoluti ution on No. 4094 4094 and authorizeditsGeneralManager/ChiefExecutiveOfficer(CEO)toenterintoa authorizeditsGeneralManager/ChiefExecutiveOfficer(CEO) toenterintoaMOAwithrespondentProvinceforthe MOAwithrespondentProvinceforthe implementationofthereclamationproject.OnApril27,2010,DENR-EMBRVIissuedtorespondentProvinceECCR6-1003-096-7100(thequestionedECC)forPh R6-1003-096-7100(thequestioned R6-1003-096-7100 (thequestionedECC)forPhase1oftheReclamationProjecttotheextentof2.64hectarestobe ECC)forPhase1ofth ase1oftheReclamation eReclamationProjecttot Projecttotheextent heextentof2.64hecta of2.64hectarestobe restobe donealongtheCaticlansidebesid donealongtheCaticlansidebesidetheexistingje etheexistingjettyport.OnJun ttyport.OnJune1,2011,petitioner e1,2011,petitionerfiledtheinstantP filedtheinstantPetitionfor etitionfor EnvironmentalProtectionOrder/Issuan EnvironmentalProtectionOrder/IssuanceoftheWritofContinuing ceoftheWritofContinuingMandamus.OnJune7,2011,thisCourtissue Mandamus.OnJune7,2011,thisCourtissued d aTemporaryEnvironmentalProtectionOrder(TEPO)andorderedtherespondentstofiletheir aTemporaryEnvironmentalProtectionOrder(TEPO) andorderedtherespondentstofiletheirrespectivecomments respectivecomments tothepetition.AfterreceivingacopyoftheTEPOonJune9,2011,respondentProvinceimmediatelyissuedanorder tothepetition.AfterreceivingacopyoftheTEPOonJune9,2011, respondentProvinceimmediatelyissuedanorder to the Provin Provincia cial l Engin Engineer eering ing Office Office and the the concer concerned ned contra contracto ctor r to cease cease and desist desist from from condu conducti cting ng any constructionactivitiesuntilfurtherordersfromthisCourt. PetitioneralsoquestionstheclassificationmadebyrespondentProvincethatthereclamationprojectis merelyanexpansionof merelyanexpansionoftheexistingjettyport,w merelyanexpansionofthee theexistingjettyport,whenthe xistingjettyport,whentheprojectdescriptionsembodiedinthedifferentdocuments hentheprojectdescr projectdescriptionsembo iptionsembodiedinthe diedinthedifferent differentdocuments documents filedbyrespondentProvincedescribecomme filedbyrespondentProvincedescribecommercialestablishmentstobebu rcialestablishmentstobebuilt,amongothers,toraisereven ilt,amongothers,toraiserevenuesfor uesfor theLGU;thus,itshou theLGU;thus,itshouldhavebe ldhavebeenclassifiedas enclassifiedasa a newproject.Petitionerlikew newproject.Petitionerlikewisecriesfoul isecriesfoultothem tothemannerbywh annerbywhich ich respondentProvinceallegedlycircumventedthedocumentaryrequirementsoftheDENR-EMBRVIbytheactof connectingthereclamationprojectwithitspreviousprojectin1999andclaimingthatthenewprojectisamere expansionofthepreviousone. ISSUE: Whet Whethe her r or not not resp respon onde dent nt Prov Provin ince ce faile failed d to perf perfor orm m a full full EIA EIA as requ requir ired ed by laws laws and and regulationsbasedon regulationsbasedonthescope thescopeandclassificationo andclassificationofthepro ftheproject ject RULING:RespondentProvincefiledaManifestationandMotionstatingthattheECCissuedbyrespondentDENREMBRVIcoveredanare EMBRVIcoveredanareaof2,691sq aof2,691squaremeters uaremetersinCaticlan,and inCaticlan,anditsapplication itsapplicationforreclamation forreclamationof40hectare of40hectareswith swith respondentPRAwasconditionedonitssubmissionofspecificdocumentswithin120days.RespondentProvince claimsthatits claimsthatits failuretocomplywithsaidcond failuretocomplywithsaidcondition itionindicate indicateditswaivertopursue ditswaivertopursuethesucceedi thesucceedingphase ngphasesof sof the reclamationprojectandthatthesubjectmatterofthiscasehadthusbeenlimitedto2.64hectares.Respondent PRA,foritspart,declaredthroughitsGeneralManagerthattheAklanBeachZoneRestorationandProtectionMarine PRA,foritspart,declaredthroughitsGeneralManagerthattheAklan BeachZoneRestorationandProtectionMarine DevelopmentProjectwillnowbeconfinedtothereclamationanddevelopmentofthe2.64hectares,moreor DevelopmentProjectwillnowbeconfinedtothereclamation anddevelopmentofthe2.64hectares,moreorless. less. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz – Galandines – Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

TheCourtnotessuchmanifestationofrespondentProvince.Assuming,however,thattheareainvolvedinthe subjectreclamat subjectreclamationprojec ionprojecthasbeenlimitedto2.64hectare thasbeenlimitedto2.64hectares,thiscasehasnotbecomemoot s,thiscasehasnotbecomemootandacademic,as andacademic,as allegedbyrespondents,becausetheCourtstillhastocheckwhetherrespondentshadcompliedwith allegedbyrespondents,becausetheCourtstillha stocheckwhetherrespondentshadcompliedwithallapplicable allapplicable environmentallaws,rules,andregulationspertainingto environmentallaws,rules, andregulationspertainingtotheactualr theactualreclamationproject. eclamationproject. WerecognizeatthispointthattheDENRisthegovernmentagencyvestedwithdelegatedpowerstoreviewand evalua evaluateallEIArepor teallEIAreports, ts, andtogrant ordenyECCs toproject toproject propon proponent ents.Itis s.Itis the DENRthathasthedutyto DENRthathasthedutyto implementthe implementthe EISsystem. Itappears,however,that Itappears,however,that respondentDENR-E respondentDENR-EMBRVIsevaluation MBRVIsevaluation ofthisreclamation ofthisreclamation projectwasproblematic,basedonthevalidquestionsraisedbypetitioner. projectwasproblematic,basedonthevalid questionsraisedbypetitioner. Respon Respondent dent DENR-E DENR-EMBRVI MBRVI should should conduct conduct a thorou thorough gh anddetailed anddetailed evalua evaluatio tion n ofthe projec project t toaddress toaddress the questionofwhetherthiscouldbedeemedasagroupo questionofwhetherthis couldbedeemedasagroupofsingleprojects(transport fsingleprojects(transportterminalfacility,building, terminalfacility,building, etc.)in acontiguousareamanagedbyrespondentPr acontiguousareamanagedbyrespondentProvince,oras acontiguousareamanagedbyrespondentProvince,orasasingleproject. ovince,orasasingleproject. Theverydefinitionof TheverydefinitionofanEIA TheverydefinitionofanEIApointstowhat anEIApointsto pointstowhatwasmostlikely whatwasmostlikelyneglectedbyrespondent wasmostlikelyneglectedby wasmostlikelyneglectedbyrespondentProvince neglectedbyrespondentProvinceas respondentProvinceasproject Provinceasprojectproponent, asprojectproponent, projectproponent, proponent, andwhatwasinturnoverlookedbyrespondentDENRandwhatwasinturn overlookedbyrespondentDENR-EMBRVI,for EMBRVI,foritisdefinedasfollows: itisdefinedasfollows: An[EIA]isaprocessthatinvolves predictingandevaluatingthelikelyimpact andevaluatingthelikelyimpactsofa sofa project(includin project(includingcumulativ gcumulative e impacts)on impacts)on theenvironment theenvironment theenvironment duringconstruction duringconstruction,commissio ,commissioning,operatio ning,operation n andabandonment.It andabandonment.It alsoincludes designing designing appropriate appropriate preventive, mitigat mit mitigating mitiga igating ting ing and enhancem enhancement ent measur measures es addres add address addr ressin essing sing ing g these thes these these e consequences conseq consequenc uences es to protecttheenvironmentand protecttheenvironmentandthecommunity’s thecommunity’swelfare. welfare. Asmaybegleanedfromthebreakdownofthe2.64hectaresasdescribedbyrespondentProvinceabove,asignificant portionofthereclaimedareawouldbedevotedtotheconstructionofacommercialbuilding,andtheareatobe utilizedfortheexpansionofthejettyportconsistsofamere3,000squaremeters(sq.m). utilizedfortheexpansionofthejettyportconsistsofamere3,000 squaremeters(sq.m).Tobetruetoitsdefinition, Tobetruetoitsdefinition, theEIAreportsubmittedbyrespondentProvinceshouldattheveryleastpredicttheimpactthattheconstruction ofthenewbuildingsonthereclaimedlandwouldhaveonthesurroundingenvironment.Thesenewconstructions andtheirenvironmentaleffects andtheirenvironmentaleffectswerenot werenotcoveredby werenotcoveredbytheoldstudies coveredby coveredbytheoldstudiesthatrespondent theoldstudiesthat theoldstudiesthatrespondentProvince thatrespondentProvincepreviously respondentProvincepreviouslysubmitted Provincepreviouslysubmitted previouslysubmitted submitted fortheconstructio fortheconstructionoftheoriginaljettyportin1999,andwhichitre-sub noftheoriginaljettyportin1999,andwhichitre-submitted mittedin in itsapplicationforECCinthis itsapplicationforECCinthis allegedexpansion,insteadofconductingupdatedandmorecomprehensivestudies. allegedexpansion,insteado allegedexpansion,insteadofconductingupdateda fconductingupdatedandmorecomprehensivestudies. ndmorecomprehensivestudies. AnyimpactontheBoracaysidecannotbetotallyignored,asCaticlanandBoracayareseparatedonlybyanarrow strait.Thisbecomesmoreimperativebecauseofthe strait.Thisbecomesm oreimperativebecauseofthesignificantcontributionsofBo significantcontributionsofBoracay racay ’swhite-sandbeachtothe country’ country’s tourism tourism trade, whichrequiresrespondentProvinceto proceed proceed withutmost caution caution inimplementing projectswithinitsvicinity. TheCourtchoosestoremandthesematterstorespondentDENR-EMBRVIforittomakeaproperstudy,andifit shouldfindnecessary,torequirerespondentProvincetoaddresstheseenvironmentalissuesraisedbypetitioner andsubmitthecorrectEIAreportasrequiredbytheprojectsspecifications.TheCourtrequiresrespondentDENREMBRVItocompleteitsstud EMBRVItocompleteitsstudyandsubmitareport yandsubmitareportwithinanon-ext withinanon-extendibleperi endibleperiodofthreemont odofthreemonths.Resp hs.Respondent ondent DENR-EMBRVIshouldestablishtotheCourtinsaidreportwhytheECCitissuedforthesubject DENR-EMBRVIshouldestablishtotheCourtin saidreportwhytheECCitissuedforthesubject projectshouldnot becanceled.

RESIDENTMARINEMAMMALSOFTANONSTRAITv.SECRETARYANGELOREYES RESIDENTMARINEMAMMALSOFTANONSTRAITv.SE CRETARYANGELOREYES GRNO.180771,APRIL21,2015 LEONARDO-DECASTRO,J

PetitionersinG.R.No.180771,collectivelyreferredtoasthe"ResidentMarineMammals"inthepetition,arethe toothedwhales,dolphins,porpoises, toothedwhales,dolphins,porpoises,andother andothercetaceanspecies, cetaceanspecies,whichinhabit cetaceanspecies,whichinhabitthewatersinand whichinhabit whichinhabitthewatersinandaroundthe thewatersinandaroundtheTañon aroundtheTañon Tañon Strait.TheyarejoinedbyGloriaEstenzoRamos(Ramos)andRose-LizaEisma-Osorio(Eisma-Osorio)astheirlegal guardiansandasfriends(tobecollectivelyknownas"theStewards")whoallegedlyempathizewith,andseekthe

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

protectionof,theaforementionedmarine protectionof,theaforementionedmarinespecies.Alsoimpleaded species.Alsoimpleadedasan species.Alsoimpleadedasanunwill asanunwill asanunwillingco-petitionerisformerPresident ingco-petitionerisformerPresident ingco-petitionerisformerPresident GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo,forherexpressdeclarationandundertakingintheASEANChartertoprotecttheTañon Strait,amongothers. Petitioners Petitionersin in G.R.No.181527are G.R.No.181527are theCentralVisayasFisherfo theCentralVisayasFisherfolkDevelopme lkDevelopmentCenter(FIDEC ntCenter(FIDEC),a ),a non-stock, non-stock,nonnonprofit,non-governmentalorganization,establishedforthewelfareofthemarginalfisherfolkinRegionVII;andCerilo D.Engarcial (Engarcial) (Engarcial),RamonYanong(Yanong) ,RamonYanong(Yanong) andFrancisco Labid(Labid),in Labid(Labid),in theirpersonalcapacities theirpersonalcapacities andas representativesofthesubsistencefisherfolk representativesofthesubsistencefisherfolkofthemunicipalities ofthemunicipalitiesofAloguinsanand ofthemunicipalitiesofAloguinsanandPinamungajan,Cebu. ofAloguinsanand ofAloguinsanandPinamungajan,Cebu. Pinamungajan,Cebu. NamedasrespondentsinbothpetitionsarethelateAngeloT.Reyes,asthenSecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnergy (DOE);JoseL.Atienza, (DOE);JoseL.Atienza,asthenSecretaryoftheDENR; asthenSecretaryoftheDENR;LeonardoR.Sibbal LeonardoR.Sibbaluca,asthenDENRRe uca,asthenDENRRegional gionalDirector Directorfor for RegionVIIandChairmanoftheTañonStraitProtectedSeascapeManagementBoard;JapanPetroleumExploration Co.,Ltd.(JAPEX) Co.,Ltd.(JAPEX),acompanyorganiz ,acompanyorganizedandexistingunderthelawsofJapanwithaPhilippin edandexistingunderthelawsofJapanwithaPhilippinebranchoffice ebranchoffice;and ;and SupplyOilfieldServices,Inc.(SOS),astheallegedPhilippineagentofJAPEX. InG.R.No.181527,thefollowingwereimpleadedasadditionalpublicrespondents:AlanC.Arranguez(Arranguez) andAntonioLabios(Labios), andAntonioLabios(Labios),intheir andAntonioLabios(Labios),intheirc intheircc apacitiesasthenDirector apacitiesasthenDirectorofthe oftheEMB,RegionVIIandthen oftheEMB, EMB,RegionVIIandthenRegionalDirector EMB,RegionVIIandthenR RegionVIIandthenRegionalDirector RegionalDirectorof egionalDirectorof of theDOE,RegionVII,respectively FACTS: ThiscaseconsistsoftwoconsolidatedPetitionsfiledunderRule65ofthe1997RulesofCourt,concerningService ContractNo. ContractNo. 46(SC-46), whichallowedthe exploratio exploration,development n,development, , andexploitationof andexploitationof petroleumresource petroleumresourcess withinTañonStrait,anarrow withinTañonStrait,anarrowpassageofwatersituatedbetweenthe ait,anarrowpassageof passageof passageofwatersituatedbetweentheislandsofNegros watersituatedbetweentheislandsofNegrosandCebu. islandsofNegrosand andCebu. ThePetitiondocketed ThePetitiondocketedasG.R.No.180771isanoriginalPetiti asG.R.No.180771isanoriginalPetitionforCertio onforCertiorari,Mand rari,Mandamus,andInjunc amus,andInjunction, tion,which which seekstoenjoinrespondentsfromimplementingSC-46andtohaveitnullifiedforwillfulandgrossviolationofthe 1987Constitutionandcertaininternationalandmunicipallaws 1987Constitutionandcertaininternationaland municipall municipallaws aws . 3 Likewise,thePetitiondocketedasG.R. Likewise,thePetition docketedasG.R.No.181527is No.181527isanoriginalPetition anoriginalPetitionforC forC ertiorari,Prohibition,andMandamus, ertiorari,Prohibition,andMandamus, whichseekstonullifytheEnvironmentalComplianceCertificate(ECC)issuedbytheEnvironmentalManagement Bureau(EMB)oftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR),RegionVIIinconnectionwithSC46;toprohibitrespondents 46;toprohibitrespondentsfromimplementin fromimplementingSC-46;andtocompelpublicrespondent gSC-46;andtocompelpublicrespondentstoprovidepetition stoprovidepetitioners ers accesstothepertinentdocumentsinvo accesstothepertinentdocumentsinvolvingtheTañonS lvingtheTañonStraitOil traitOilExplorationProject. ExplorationProject. Petitioners'Allegations Protestingtheadverseecological Protestingtheadverseecologicalimpactof impactofJAPEX'so JAPEX'soilexploration ilexplorationactivitiesin activitiesintheTañon theTañonStrait,petitioners Strait,petitionersResident Resident MarineMammalsandStewar MarineMammalsandStewardsaverthatastudymadeaftertheseismic dsaverthatastudymadeaftertheseismicsurveyshowedthatthefishcatc dsaverthatastudymadeaftertheseismicsurveyshowedthatthefishcatch surveyshowedthatthefishcatchwas hwas was reduceddrasticallyby50to70percent.Theyclaimthatbeforetheseismicsurvey,theaverageharvestperdaywould reduceddrasticallyby50to70percent.Theyclaimthat beforetheseismicsurvey,theaverageharvestperdaywould befrom15to20kilos; befrom15to20kilos;butafterthe butaftertheactivity activity,thefisher ,thefisherfolkcou folkcouldonlycatc ldonlycatchanaverage hanaverageof1to2kilosaday.Th of1to2kilosaday.They ey attributethis"reducedfishcatch"tothedestructiono attributethis"reducedfishcatch" tothedestructionofthe''payao,"also fthe''payao,"alsoknownas knownas the"fishaggregatingdevice"or "art "artif ific icial ial reef reef." ." Peti Petiti tion oner ers s Resi Reside dent nt Mari Marine ne Mamm Mammal als s and and Stew Stewar ards ds also also impu impute te the the inci inciden dence ces s of "fis "fish h kill"observedbysomeof kill"observedbysomeofthelocalfisherfolk thelocalfisherfolktoth thelocalfisherfolktothe tothe toth eseismicsurvey.Andtheyfurtherallege eseismicsurvey. seismicsurvey.Andtheyfurtherallege seismicsurvey.AndtheyfurtherallegethattheECC thattheECCobtainedby obtainedby privaterespondentJAPEXisinvalidbecausepublicconsultationsanddiscussionswiththeaffectedstakeholders,a pre-requisitetotheissuanceoftheECC,werenot pre-requisitetotheissuanceof theECC,werenotheldpriortotheEC heldpriortotheECC'sissuance. C'sissuance. Initsseparatepetition,petitionerFIDECconfirmspetitionersResidentMarineMammalsandStewards'allegations ofreducedfishcatchandlackofpublicconsultationso ofreducedfishcatchandlackofpublicconsultationsordiscussionswith ofreducedfishcatchandla ckofpublicconsultationsor ckofpublicconsultationsordiscussionswiththe rdiscussionswiththefisherfolkand discussionswiththefisherfolkandotherstakeholdersprior thefisherfolkand fisherfolkandotherstakeholdersprior otherstakeholdersprior CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017

Galandines Galandines

–

totheissuanceoftheECC.Moreover,itallegesthatduringtheseismicsurveysanddrilling,itwasbarredfrom enteringandfishingwithina7-kilometerradiusfromthepointwheretheoilrigwaslocated,anareagreaterthan the1.5-kilometerradius"exclusionzone"statedintheIEE.Italsoagreesintheallegationthatpublicrespondents DENRandEMBabusedtheirdiscretionwhentheyissuedanECCtopublic DENRandEMBabusedtheirdiscretionwhenthey issuedanECCtopublicrespondentDOEandprivaterespondent respondentDOEandprivaterespondent JAPEX JAPEX withou without t ensuri ensuring ng the strict strict complia compliance nce with with the procedu procedural ral and substa substanti ntive ve require requiremen ments ts under under the Environment Environmental al Impact Impact Assessmentsystem, Assessmentsystem, theFisheriesCode,and theirimplementingrules theirimplementingrules andregulations. andregulations. It furtherclaimsthatdespite furtherclaimsthatdespiteseveralrequestsf severalrequestsforcopies orcopiesofall orcopiesofallthedocumentspertainingto ofall ofallthedocumentspertainingtotheproject thedocumentspertainingtot thedocumentspertainingtotheproject theprojectinTañon heprojectinTañon inTañonStrait, Strait, onlycopiesofthePAMB-TañonStrait onlycopiesofthePAMB-TañonStraitResolutionandtheECCw ResolutionandtheECCweregiventothefisherfolk. eregiventothefisherfolk. PublicRespondents'Counter-Allegations Publicrespondents,throughtheSolicitorGeneral,contendthatpetitionersResidentMarineMammals Publicrespondents,throughtheSolicitorGeneral, contendthatpetitionersResidentMarineMammalsandStewards andStewards havenolegalstandingto havenolegalstandingtofilethepresentpetition;that havenolegalstandingtofile filethepresentpetition;thatSC-46does thepresentpetition;that thepresentpetition;thatSC-46does SC-46doesnotviolatethe1987C SC-46doesnot notviolatethe1987Constitutionand notviolatethe1987Constitutionandthevarious onstitutionandthevarious lawscitedin lawscitedin thepetitions;thattheECCwasissuedinaccorda thepetitions;thattheECCwasissuedinaccordancewithexisti ncewithexistinglawsandregulatio nglawsandregulations;thatpublic ns;thatpublic respondentsmaynotbecompelledbymandamustofurnishpetitionerscopiesofalldocumentsrelatingtoSC-46; andthatallthepetitionersfailedtoshowthattheyareentitledtoinjunctiverelief.Theyfurthercontendthatthe issuesraisedinthesepetitionshavebeenrenderedmootandacademicbythefactthatSC-46hadbeenmutually terminatedbythepartiestheretoeffectiveJune21,2008. ISSUE: WhetherornotServiceContractNo.46islegal(NO) *ThepetitionersinsistthatSC-46isnullandvoidfor *ThepetitionersinsistthatSC -46isnullandvoidforhavingviolatedSection2,ArticleX havingviolatedSection2,ArticleXIIofthe1987C IIofthe1987Constitution onstitution HELD: Insummarizingthematters Insummarizingthemattersdiscussedin Insummarizingthemattersdiscussedinthe discussedintheConCom,we theConCom,weestablishedthat ConCom,weestablished ConCom,weestablishedthatparagraph establishedthatparagraph4, thatparagraph4,withthesaf paragraph4, 4,withthesafeguardsin withthesafeguardsinplace, eguardsinplace, place, istheexceptiontoparagraph1,Section2ofArticleXII.ThefollowingarethesafeguardsthisCourtenumeratedin LaBugal: Suchservicecontr Suchservicecontractsmaybeentere actsmaybeenteredintoonlywith dintoonlywithrespecttominer respecttominerals,petr als,petroleumandoth oleumandothermineraloi ermineraloils.The ls.The grantthereofissubjecttoseveral grantthereofissubjecttoseveralsafeguards,amongwhicharetheserequirements: subjecttoseveralsafeguards,among safeguards,among safeguards,amongwhicharetheserequirements: whicharetheserequirements: (1)Theservicecontractshallbecraftedinaccordancewithagenerallawthatwillsetstandardoruniformterms, conditionsandrequirements,presumablytoattainacertainuniformityinprovisionsandavoidthepossibleinsertion oftermsdisadvantageoustothecountry. (2)ThePresidentshallbethesignatoryforthego (2)ThePresidentshallbe thesignatoryforthegovernmentbecause,supposedlybeforeanagreementis vernmentbecause,supposedlybeforeanagreementispresented presented tothePresidentforsignature,itwillhavebeenvettedseveraltimesover tothePresidentforsignature,it willhavebeenvettedseveraltimesoveratdifferentlevelsto atdifferentlevelstoensurethatitconforms ensurethatitconforms tolawandcanwithstandpublicscrutiny. tolawandcanwithstandpublicscrutiny. (3)Withinthirtydays (3)Withinthirtydaysoftheexecutedagree oftheexecutedagreement, ment,thePresident thePresidentshallreport shallreportittoCongresstogive ittoCongresstogivethatbranchof thatbranchof governmentanopportunitytolook governmentanoppor tunitytolookovertheagreement overtheagreementandinterposetimely andinterposetimelyobjections,if andinterposetimelyobjections,ifan objections,ifan objections,ifany. y. Adheringtotheaforementionedguidelines,thisCourtfindsthatSC-46isindeednullandvoidfornoncompliance withtherequirementsofthe1987Constitution. Moreover,SC-46was Moreover,SC-46wasnotexecutedforthe Moreover,SC-46wasnot notexecutedforthemerepurpose executedforthemere executedforthemerepurposeofgatheringinformation merepurposeof purposeofgatheringinformationonthe of gatheringinformation gatheringinformationonthe onthepossibleenergyreso possibleenergyresources urces intheTañonStraitasit intheTañonStraitasit alsoprovidesfortheparties alsoprovidesfortheparties'rightsandobligati 'rightsandobligationsrelati onsrelatingtoextractio ngtoextractionandpetroleum nandpetroleum CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

productionshouldoilincommercialq productionshouldoilincommercialquantitiesbefo uantitiesbefoundtoexistinth undtoexistinthearea.WhilePres earea.WhilePresidentialDecreeNo identialDecreeNo.87may .87may serveasthegenerallawuponwhichaservi cecontractforp etroleumexplorationandextrac serveasthegenerallawuponwhichaservicecontractforp etroleumexplor etroleumexplorationandextractionmaybeauthorized, ationandextractionmaybeauthorized, tionmaybeauthorized, theexploitationandutilizationofthisenergyresourceinthepresentcasemaybeallowedonlythrougha lawpassed theexploitationandutilizationofthisenergyresourceinthepresentcasemaybeallowedonlythroughalawpassed byCongress,sincetheTañonStraitisaNIPASarea.Sincethereisnosuchlawspecificallyallowingoilexploration and/orextractionintheTañonStrait,noenergyresourceexploitationandutilizationmaybedoneinsaidprotected seascape. WHEREFORE,thePetitionsinG.R.Nos.180771and181527areGRANTED,ServiceContractNo.46isherebydeclared NULLANDVOIDforvio NULLANDVOIDforviolatingthe1987C latingthe1987Constitution,R onstitution,RepublicActN epublicActNo.7586,and o.7586,andPresidentialDecr PresidentialDecreeNo.1586. eeNo.1586.

InternationalServicefortheAcquisitionofAgri-BiotechApplications,Inc.,et.al. InternationalServicefortheAcquisitionofAgri-Biotech Applications,Inc.,et.al. vs. GreenpeaceSoutheastAsia(Philippines),et.al. (G.R.Nos.209271,209276,209301and209430)8December2015

1991, NCBP NCBP formul formulate ated d the Philip Philippin pine e Biosaf Biosafety ety Guide Guidelin lines es which which gover governs ns the the regula regulatio tion n of the FACTS: In 1991, importati importation on or introduct introduction, ion, movement movement and field release release of potential potentially ly hazardous hazardous biological biological materials materials in the Philippines.ThesamewasfollowedbytheGuidelinesonPlannedReleaseofGeneticallyManipulatedOrganisms (GMOs)andPotentiallyHarmfu (GMOs)andPotentiallyHarmfulExoticSpecie lExoticSpecies(PHES). s(PHES). Intern Internati ation onal al Servic Service e for the Acquis Acquisitio ition n of Agri-B Agri-Biot iotech ech Applic Applicati ations ons, , Inc. Inc. (ISAAA) (ISAAA), , Univer Universit sity y of the Phili Philipp ppin ines es Los Los Baño Baños s Foun Founda dati tion on, , Inc. Inc. (UPL (UPLBF BFI) I) and and UP Mind Mindan anao ao Foun Founda dati tion on, , Inc. Inc. (UPM (UPMFI FI) ) exec execut uted ed a MemorandumofUndertaking,inpursuanceofacollaborativeresearchanddevelopmentprojecton MemorandumofUndertaking,inpursuanceof acollaborativeresearchan acollaborativeresearchanddevelo ddevelopmentpr pmentprojectoneggplantsth ojectoneggplantsthat eggplantsthat at areresistanttothefruitandshootborer. areresistanttothefruitandshoot borer. Green Greenpea peace, ce, MASIPA MASIPAG G and individ individual ual respon responden dents ts filed filed a petit petition ion for writ writ of kalikas kalikasan an and writ writ of continuingmandamuswithprayerfortheissuanceofTemporaryEnvironmentalProtectionOrder(TEPO)alleging that that the Bttalong Bttalong fieldtrials fieldtrials (The (The crysta crystal l toxingene toxingenes s from from the soil soil bacter bacterium ium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (Bt) were were incorporatedintotheeggp incorporatedintotheeggplantgenometop lantgenometoproducethe roducetheprotein protein CrylAcwhichistoxictotargetinsectpests.)violate theirconstitutionalrigh theirconstitutionalrighttoh theirconstitutionalrighttohealthandabalancedecologyconsideringthat ttohealthand ealthandabalanced abalancedecologycon ecologyconsideringth sideringthat at therequiredEnviro thereq therequiredEnvironmentalCompliance uiredEnvironmentalCom nmentalCompliance pliance Certif Certifica icate te (ECC) (ECC) under under PD 1151 1151 was not not secure secured d prior prior to the projec project t implem implement entati ation on and that that there there is no independent,peer-re independent,peer-reviewedstudyont viewedstudyonthesafetyofBtt hesafetyofBttalongforhuman alongforhumanconsumptionan consumptionandtheenvironme dtheenvironment.While nt.While theresponde therespondentsconten ntscontendthat dthat allenvironment allenvironmentallaws allaws were compliedwith,includ compliedwith,includingpublicconsu ingpublicconsultatio ltationsin nsin the affect affected ed commu communit nities ies and that that the Bt talong talong projec project t is not not covere covered d by the Philip Philippin pine e Enviro Environme nmenta ntal l Impact Impact StatementLaw StatementLaw ISSUES: Wheth Whether er the law on enviro environme nmenta ntal l impact impact statem statement ent/as /asses sessme sment nt applie applies s on projec projects ts involv involving ing the

introductionandpropagationofGMOsinthecountry RULING:

Yes.EO514mandatesthat Yes.EO514mandatesthatconcerned concerneddepartments departmentsandagencie andagencies,mostpart s,mostparticularlypetitioners icularlypetitionersDENR-EMB, icularlypetitionersDENR-EMB,BPIand DENR-EMB,BPIand DENR-EMB, BPIand FPA,tomakeadeterminationwhethertheEISsystemshouldapplytothereleaseofGMOsintotheenvironment andissuejointguidelinesonthematter. All governme government nt agencies agencies as well as private private corporati corporations, ons, firms and entities entities whointend to undertake undertake activitiesorprojectswhichwillaffectthequ activitiesorprojectsw hichwillaffectthequalityofenvironmen alityofenvironmentarerequired tarerequiredtoprepareade toprepareadetailedEnvironme tailedEnvironmental ntal ImpactStatement(EIS) ImpactStatement(EIS)prior ImpactStatement(EIS)priortoundertakingsuch priortounde toundertakingsuchdevelopment rtakingsuchdevelopmentactivity. developmentactivity. activity. Anenvironmentallycriticalproject(ECP)isconsideredbytheEMBas“likelytoh avesignificantadverse impac impact t that that may be sensit sensitive ive, , irreve irreversi rsible ble and divers diverse” e” and which which “incl “include ude activ activiti ities es that that have have signif signific icant ant environmentalconsequences.” Inthiscontext, andgiventheoverwhe andgiventheoverwhelming lming scientific scientific attention attention worldwide worldwide onthepotential onthepotential hazardsof hazardsof GMOsto human human health health andthe environm environment, ent, their their releaseinto releaseinto theenvironmentthrough theenvironmentthrough field testing testing would would definitelyfallunderthe definitelyfallunderthecategoryof categoryofECP. ECP. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

OposaV.Factoran [G.R.No.101083.July30,1993.] Facts: Theprincipalpetitionersareallminorsdulyrepresentedandjoinedbytheirrespectiveparents.Therespondentin thiscasewasthentheSecretaryoftheDepartment thiscasewasthenthe thiscasewasthentheSecretaryoftheDepartmentof SecretaryoftheDepartmentof ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources. EnvironmentandNaturalResources.IntheirComplaintfiled IntheirComplaintfiled beforetheRTC,thepetitionersallegedthatthey“areallciti zensoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,taxpayers,and entitledtothefullbenefit,useandenjoymentofthenaturalresourcetreasurethatisthecountry'svirgintropical rainforests."Thesamewasfiledforthemselvesandotherswhoareequallyconcernedaboutthepreservationof saidresourcebutare"sonumerousthatitisimpracticabletobringthemallbeforetheCourt."Theminorsfurther asseveratethatthey"representtheirgenerationaswellasgenerationsyetunborn."Thepetitionersprayedfor,in thesaidcomplaint,thatthetrialcourtorderthe thesaidcomplaint,thatthe thesaidcomplaint,thatthetrialcourtorderthecancellationof trialcourtorderthecancellationof cancellationof allTimberLicenseAgreements(TLA)inthecountry allTimberLicenseAgreements(TLA)inthecountry andthattherespondentceaseanddesistfromreceiving,accepting, andthattherespondentceaseanddesistfromreceiving,accepting,processing,renewingor andthattherespondentceaseanddesist fromreceiving,accepting,processing,renewingor fromreceiving,accepting, processing,renewingorapprovingn approvingnewtimber ewtimber licenseagreements. Inthesaidcomplaint,petitionerssaidthat,asofthattime,atotalof3.89millionhectaresforcommerciallogging purposeswereundertheTLAissuedtoprivatecorporationsbytherespondentDENRandatthatratethePhilippines willbebereftofforest willbebereftofforestresourcesafter willbebereftofforestresourcesafterseveralyears. resourcesafterseveralyears. ThecasewasdismissedbytheRTConthegro Thecasewasdismissedby ThecasewasdismissedbytheRTConthegroundthecomplaintlack theRTConthegroundthecomplaintlack undthecomplaintlackedofcauseofaction.Petitionerscontendthat edofcauseofaction.Petitionerscontendthat thecomplaintclearlyandunmistakablystatesacauseofactionasitcontainssufficientallegationsc thecomplaintclearlyandunmistakablystatesacauseof actionasitcontainssufficientallegationsc actionasitcontainssufficientallegationsc oncerningtheir righttoasoundenvironmentbasedonArticles19,20and21oftheCivilCode(HumanRelations),Section4of ExecutiveOrder ExecutiveOrder (E.O.) (E.O.) No.192 creating creating the DENR, Section Section 3 ofPresidential ofPresidential Decree (P.D.) (P.D.) No.1151 (Philippine (Philippine Environmental Environ mentalPolicy),Secti EnvironmentalPolicy),Section16,ArticleIIofthe19 Policy),Section16,ArticleIIofthe19 on16,ArticleIIofthe19 87Constitutionrecognizingtherightofthepeopletoabalanced 87Constitutionrecog 87Constitu tionrecognizing nizing therightofthepeopletoabalanced andhealthfulecology,theconceptofgenerationalgenocideinCriminalLawandtheconceptofman'sinalienable righ right t to self self-p -pre rese serv rvat atio ion n and and self self-p -per erpet petua uati tion on embo embodie died d in natu natura ral l law. law. Peti Petiti tion oner ers s likew likewis ise e rely rely on the the respondent' respondent'scorrela scorrelativeoblig tiveobligation, ation,perSection4ofE.O. perSection4ofE.O.No.192,thesafegu No.192,thesafeguardthepeople ardthepeople'srighttoahealthf 'srighttoahealthful ul environment. Ontheotherhand,therespondentsaverthatthepetitionersfailedtoallegeintheircomplaintas Ontheotherhand,therespondentsaverthatthepetitionersf ailedtoallegeintheircomplaintaspecificlegalright pecificlegalright violatedbytherespondentSecretaryforwhichanyreliefisprovidedbylaw.Theyseenothinginthecomplaintbut violatedbytherespondentSecretary violatedbytherespondentSecretaryforwhichanyreliefis forwhichanyreliefisprovidedbylaw.Theyseenothinginthecomplaintbut providedbylaw.Theyseenothinginthecomplaintbut vagueandnebulousallegationsconcerningan"environmentalright"whichsupposedlyentitlesthepetitionersto the"protectionbythestateinitscapacityasparenspatriae."Suchallegations,accordingtothem,donotreveala validcauseofaction. Issue: Whetherornotthepetitionersin Whetherornotthepetitionersinthiscasehavea thiscasehavea causeofactionagainstrespondentDENR. causeofactiona causeofactionagainstrespondentDENR. Held: TheCourt,ingrantingthepetition,saidthat: “Wedonotagreewiththetrialcourt'sconclusionth “Wedonotagreewiththetrialcourt'sconclusionthatthe “Wedonotagreewiththetrialcourt'sconclusionthatthe atthe petitionersfailedtoallegewithsufficientdefinitenessa petitionersfailedtoallegewithsufficientdefinitenessa specific specific legalright involved involved or a specific specific legalwrong committed,and committed,and thatthe complaint complaint is replete withvague assumptionsandconclusionsbasedon assumptionsandconclusionsbasedonunverifieddata.Ar unverifieddata.Areadingof eadingofthecomplaintitselfbeliestheseconclusions. thecomplaintitselfbeliestheseconclusions. thecomplaintitselfbeliestheseconclusions. Thecomplaintfocusesononespecificfundamentallegalright Thecomplaintfocusesononespecificfundamental legalright —therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologywhich, therighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology balancedandhealthfulecologywhich, which, forthefirsttimeinournation'sconstitutionalhistory,issolemnlyincorporatedinthefundamentallawinSection 16,ArticleIIofthe1987Constitution.ThisrightuniteswiththerighttohealthwhichisprovidedforintheSection 15ofthesamearticle. WhiletherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyistobefoundundertheDeclarationofPrincipl WhiletherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyistobefoundundertheDeclarat ionofPrinciplesandState esandState PoliciesandnotundertheBillofRights,itdoesnotfollowthatitislessimportantthananyofthecivila PoliciesandnotundertheBillofRights,itdoesnotfollowthatitislessimportantthananyofthecivila ndpolitical ndpolitical rightsenumeratedinthelatter.Sucharightbelongstoadifferentcategoryofrightsaltogetherforitconcerns nothinglessthanself-preservationandself-perpetuation —aptlyandfittinglystressedbythepetitioners —the advancementofwhichmayevenbesaidtopredateallgovernm advancementofwhich advancementofwhichmayevenbe mayevenbesaidtopredateallgovernmentsandconstitutions. saidtopredateallgovernmentsandconstitutions. entsandconstitutions. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

Asamatteroffact,thesebasicrightsneednotevenbewrittenintheConstitutionfortheyareassumedtoexist fromtheinceptionofhumankind.Iftheyarenowexplicitlymentionedinthefundamentalcharter,itisbecauseof thewell-foundedfear thewell-foundedfearofitsframersthatunless ofitsframersthatunlesstherightstoa therightstoa balancedandhealthfulecolo balancedandhealthfulecologyandtohealthare gyandtohealthare mandatedasstatepolicies mandatedasstatepoliciesbytheConstitutionitself, mandatedasstatepoliciesbythe bytheConstitutionitself,therebyhighlightingtheirco Constitutionitself,therebyhighlightingtheirco Constitutionitself,therebyhighlightingtheircontinuingimportancea ntinuingimportanceandimposing ndimposing uponthestateasolemnobligationtopreservethef uponthestateasolemnobligationtopreservethefirstandprotectandadvancethesecond,thedaywouldnotbe lemnobligationtopreservethefirstandprotectand irstandprotectand irstandprotectandadvancethesecond,thedaywouldnotbe advancethesecond,thedaywouldnotbe toofarwhenallelsewouldbelostnotonlyforthepresentgeneration,butalsoforthosetocome —generations whichstandtoinheritnothingbutparchedearthincapableofsustaininglife.Therighttoabalancedandhealthful ecologycarrieswithitthecorrelativeduty ecologycarrieswithitthecorrelativedutytorefrain ecologycarrieswithit thecorrelativedutyto thecorrelativedutytorefrainfrom torefrainfromimpairingthe refrainfromimpairingtheenvironment.” fromimpairingthe impairingtheenvironment.” environment.”

MetropolitanManilaDevelopmentAuthorityvsConcernedResidentsofManilaBay G.R.No.171947-48,December18,2008 FACTS:In1999,theConcernedResidentsofManilaBay(CROMB)filedanactionformandamustocompelthe MetropolitanManilaDevelopmentAuthority(MMDA)andothergovernmentagenciestocleanuptheManilaBay. CROMBarguedthatthe CROMBarguedthattheenvironmentalstate environmentalstateof environmentalstateoftheManilaBay oftheManilaBay oftheManilaBayisalready theManilaBayisalreadydangerousto isalreadydangerousto isalreadydangeroustotheirhealthandtheinaction dangeroustotheirhealthand theirhealthandtheinaction theirhealthandtheinaction ofMMDAandtheother ofMMDAandtheotherconcernedgovernmentagencies concernedgovernmentagenciesviolatestheirrights violatestheirrightstolife,health, tolife,health,and andabalancedecology abalancedecology guaranteedby guaranteedbytheConstitution. anteedbytheConstitution.CROMBalso CROMBalsoaverredunder CROMBalsoaverredundertheEnvironmental averredunder averredundertheEnvironmentalCode,it theEnvironmentalCode,it theEnvironmentalCode,itisMMDA’s isMMDA’sdutytocleanup isMMDA’sdutyto dutytocleanup dutytocleanup theManilaBay. ThetrialcourtagreedwithCROMBandorderedMMDAetaltocleanuptheManilaBay.MMDAassailedthedecision onthegroundthatMM DA’sdutyundertheEnvironmentalCodeismerelyadiscretionarydutyhenceitcannotbe compelledbymandamus.Further, compelledbymandamus.Further,MMDAargued compelledbymandamus.Further,MMDAarguedthattheRTC’sorderwasfor MMDAarguedthatth thattheRTC’s eRTC’sorderwas orderwasfora fora ageneralclean-upoftheManilaBay ageneralclean generalclean generalclean -upoftheManilaBay yetundertheEnvironmentalCode,MMDAwasonlytaskedtoattendtospecificincidentsofpollutionandnotto undertakeamassiveclean-upsuchasthatorderedbythecourt. ISSUE:WhetherornotMMDAmaybeco ISSUE:WhetherornotMMDAmaybecompelledbymandamustocleanupManila mpelledbymandamustocleanupManilaBay. Bay. HELD:Yes.It HELD:Yes.It istruethat inorder for MMDA MMDA toimplemen toimplement t laws laws like theEnvironm theEnvironment entalCode, alCode, the proces process s of implementingusuallyinvolvestheexerciseofdiscretioni.e.,wheretosetuplandfills.Butthisdoesnotmeanthat theirfunctionormandateunderthelawis theirfunctionor mandateunderthelawisalreadydiscretionary.Lookingcloser,MMDA’s alreadydiscretionary.Lookingcloser,MMDA’s functiontoalleviatethe problemonsolidandliquidwastedisposalproblemsisaministerialfunction.Inshort,MMDAdoesnothavethe discretiontowhetherornotalleviatethegarbagedisposalproblemin discretiontowhetheror notalleviatethegarbagedisposalprobleminMetroManila,particularly MetroManila,particularlyintheManilaBay intheManilaBay area. area. While While the impleme implementa ntatio tion n of the MM MMDA’ DA’s s mandate mandated d tasks tasks may entail entail a decisi decision on-making on-ma -making proces process, s, the enforcementofthelawortheveryactofdoingwhatthelawexactstobedoneisministerialinnatureandmaybe compelledbymandamus. Anenttheissueon whetherornotMMDA’staskundertheEnvironmentalCodeinvolvesageneralcleanup,the SupremeCourtruledthatMMDA’smandateundertheEnvironmentalCodeistoperformcleaningingeneraland notjusttoattendtospecificincidentsofpollution.Hence,MMDA,togetherwiththeothergovernmentagencies, mustacttocleanuptheManilaBayasorderedbytheRTC.

G.R.No. G.R.No.L-2746 L-27 L-2746 46 December6, Dece Decemb mber er 6,1906 1906 MATEOCARIÑO,petitioner-appellant,vs.THEINSULARGOVERNMENT,respondent-appellee. Doctine: ThereexistsnoconclusivepresumptionthatpublicagriculturallandsinthePhilippinesafteralapseof ThereexistsnoconclusivepresumptionthatpublicagriculturallandsinthePhilippinesafter Thereexistsnoconclusivepresum ptionthatpublicagriculturallandsinthePhilippinesafteralapseof alapseofthirtyorany thirtyorany othernumberofyears,the othernumberofyears,theGovernmentofSpainhadgrantedto years,theGovernmentof Governmentof GovernmentofSpainhadgrantedtothepossessor Spainhadgrantedtothepossessorthereofalegaltitlethereto. thepossessorthereofa thereofalegaltitlethereto.


Facts: Theappellant,onthe23dofJune,1903,byhisattorneyinfact,MetcalfA.Clarke,filedapetitionintheCourtofLand RegistrationaskingthathebeinscribedastheownerofatractoflandinthemunicipalityofBa Registrationaskingthathebeinscribedastheownerofa tractoflandin tractoflandinthemunicip themunicipalityofBaguio,inthe alityofBaguio,intheprovince guio,intheprovince province ofBenguet,containing146hectares.TheGovernmentofthePhilippineIslands,appearedintheCourtofLand Registrationandopposedth Registrationandopposedthepetition.The epetition.TheGovernmento GovernmentoftheUnitedSta ftheUnitedStatesthatthelandw testhatthelandwaspartofthemilitary aspartofthemilitary reservationofBaguio.JudgmentwasenteredintheCourtofLandRegistr reservati onofBaguio.JudgmentwasenteredintheCourtofLandRegistr ationinfavoroft hepetitioner,from reservationofBaguio.JudgmentwasenteredintheCourtofLandRegistrationinfavoroft hepetitioner,fromwhich which judgmenttheresponden judgmenttherespondentsappealedinaccordancewiththe respondentsappealedin tsappealedin tsappealedinaccordancewiththe accordancewiththe accordancewiththe lawthenin forcetotheCourtof forcetothe CourtofFirstInstanceof FirstInstanceofthe the provinceofBenguet.Thecasewasthereintrieddenovo,andjudgmentwasentereddismissingthepetition.The petitionerhasbroughtthecaseherebybillofexceptions.Thepetitionerpresentednodocumentaryevidenceof title,exceptapossessoryinformationobtainedin1901.BytheprovisionsoftheMortgageLaw,underwhichthis posse possesso ssory ry inform informati ation on was obtain obtained ed (art. (art. 394), 394), it produ produced ced only only those those effec effects ts which which the laws laws give give to mere mere possession. Issue:WhetherornotMateoistherightfulownerofthelandbyvirtueofhispossessionofitforsometime. Held: No.PrescriptiondoesnotrunagainsttheGovernmentastoitspubliclands.Thegovernmentisstilltheabsolute owneroftheland(regaliandoctrine).Furt owneroftheland(reg aliandoctrine).Further,Mateo’spossessionof her,Mateo’spossessionofthelandhasnotbeenofsuc thelandhasnotbeenofsuchacharacteras hacharacteras

torequirethepresumption torequirethepresumptionofagrant.Noon ofagrant.Noonehaslivedup ofagrant.Noonehasliveduponitformany ehaslivedup ehasliveduponitformany onitformany years.Itwasneverusedforany years.Itwasneveru years.Itwasneverusedforanythingbut sedforany thingbut pasturageofanimals,exceptinsignificantportionsthereof,andsincetheinsurrectionagainstSpainithasapparently notbeenusedbythepetitionerforanypurpose. notbeenusedbythepetitionerforany purpose. WhiletheStatehasalwaysrecognized WhiletheStatehasalwaysrecognizedtherightofth therightoftheoccupanttoad eoccupanttoadeedifhepro eedifheprovesapossessionf vesapossessionforasufficient orasufficient lengthoftime,yetithasalwaysinsistedthathe lengthoftime,yetit hasalwaysinsistedthathemustmakethatproofbeforetheproperadministrativeofficers, mustmakethatproofbeforetheproperadministrativeofficers,and and obtainfromthemhisdeed,anduntilhedidtheStateremainedthe obtainfromthemhisdeed,and untilhedidtheStateremainedtheabsoluteowner. absoluteowner.

Cruzv.SecretaryofDENR GR.No.135385,Dec.6,2000

DOCTRINE: 

Examining Examining theIPRA, thereis thereis nothinginthe nothinginthe lawthatgrants totheICCs/IPs ownership ownershipover over thenatural thenatural resourceswithintheir resourceswithintheirancestral ancestraldomains. domains.



Ancestraldomainsandancestrallandsaretheprivatepropertyof Ancestraldomainsandancestrallands aretheprivatepropertyofindigenouspeoplesanddonotconstitute indigenouspeoplesanddonotconstitute partofthelandofthepublicdomain.



Therightof ownership ownership andpossessionby andpossessionby theICCs/IPs to their their ancestraldomains ancestraldomains is a limited limited form of ownershipanddoes ownershipanddoesnotincludetherighttoalienatethesa notincludetheright toalienatethesa me. me.

FACTS: 

Petiti Petition oners ers Isagan Isagani i Cruz Cruz and Cesar Cesar Europ Europa a filed filed a suit suit for prohib prohibiti ition on and mandam mandamus us as citize citizens ns and taxpayers,assailingtheconstitutionalityofcertainprovisionsofRepublicActNo.8371,otherwiseknown astheIndige nousPeople’sRightsActof nousPeople’sRightsActof1997(IPRA)anditsimplementingrulesand 1997(IPRA)anditsimplementingrulesandregulations(IRR). regulations(IRR).



Thepetitione Thepetitionersassailcerta rsassailcertainprovisi inprovisionsoftheIPRAanditsIRRonthegroundthat onsoftheIPRAanditsIRRonthegroundthattheseamoun theseamounttoan ttoan hepublicdomainaswellasmineralsandother mineralsandother unlawfuldeprivationoftheState’sownershipoverlandsoft hepublicdomainaswellas

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

naturalresou naturalresourcesther rcestherein,inviolatio ein,inviolationoftheRegalian noftheRegalianDoctrine Doctrineembodie embodiedinSection2,ArticleXIIofthe dinSection2,ArticleXIIofthe Constitution. 

TheSolicitor TheSolicitorGeneral Generalis is oftheviewthattheIPRAispartlyunco oftheviewthattheIPRAispartlyunconstit nstitution utionalonthegroun alonthegroundthatitgrants dthatitgrants ownershipovernaturalresour ownershipover naturalresourcestoindigenous ownershipovernaturalresourcestoindigenouspeoplesandpraysthatthepetitionbegrantedinpa cestoindigenous peoplesandpraystha peoplesandpraysthatthepetitionbegra tthepetitionbegra ntedinpa rt. rt.

ISSUE:Dotheprovisions ISSUE:DotheprovisionsofIPRAcon ofIPRAcontravenethe travenetheRegalianDoctr RegalianDoctrine? ine? HELD:No,theprovisionsofIPRAdonotcontravenetheConstitution. 

Examining Examining theIPRA, thereis thereis nothinginthe nothinginthe lawthatgrants totheICCs/IPs ownership ownershipover over thenatural thenatural resourceswithintheirancestraldomain.Ownershipoverthenaturalresourcesintheancestraldomains remainswiththeStateandtherightsgrantedbytheIPRAtotheICCs/IPsoverthenaturalresourcesintheir ancestraldomainsmerelygivesthem,asownersandoccupantsofthelandonwhichtheresourcesare found,therighttothesmallscaleutilizationoftheseresources,andatthesametime,apriorityintheir largescaledevelopmentandexploitation.



Additionally,ancestrallandsandancestraldomainsarenotpartofthelandsofthepublicdomain.Theyare Additionally,ancestrallandsandancestraldomainsarenotpartofthelandsofthe publicdomain.Theyare privatelandsandbelongtotheI privatelandsandbelongtotheICCs/IPsbynativetitle, CCs/IPsbynativetitle,whichisaconceptof whichisaconceptofprivatelandtitlethat privatelandtitlethatexisted existed irrespectiveofanyroyalgrantfromtheState.However,therightofownershipandpossessionbythe ICCs/IPsoftheirancestraldomainsisalimitedformofownershipanddoesnotincludetherighttoalienate ICCs/IPsoftheirancestraldomainsisa limitedformofownershipanddoesnotincludetherighttoalienate thesame.

Magallonav.Ermita(2011) J.Carpio,EnBanc

Facts: In1961,Congress In1961,CongresspassedRe In1961,CongresspassedRepublicAct passedRepublicActNo.3046(RA publicActNo.3046(RA3046) No.3046(RA3046)demarcatingthe No.3046(RA3046)demarcatingthemaritimebase 3046) demarcatingthemaritimebaselinesofthePhilippinesas maritimebaselinesof linesofthePhilipp thePhilippinesas inesas anarchipelagicState.3ThislawfollowedtheframingoftheConvention anarchipelagicState.3Thislawfollowedthe framingoftheConventionontheTerritorialSeaandtheCont ontheTerritorialSeaandtheContiguous iguous Zonein1958(UNCLOSI),codifying,amongothers,thesovere Zonein1958(UNCLOSI),codifying,amon gothers,thesovereignrightofStatespartiesoverthe ignrightofStatespartiesovertheir"territorialsea," ir"territorialsea," thebreadthofwhich,however,wasleftundetermined. thebreadthofwhich,however,wasleft undetermined. InMarch2009,CongressamendedRA3046byenactingRA9522,thestatutenowun InMarch2009,Congressamen dedRA3046byenactingRA9522,thestatutenowunderscrutiny.Thechang derscrutiny.Thechangewas ewas promptedbytheneedto promptedbytheneedtomakeRA3046compliantwithth makeRA3046compliantwiththetermsofthe etermsoftheUnitedNationsCo UnitedNationsConventiononth nventionontheLawof eLawof theSea(UNCLOSIII),wh theSea(UNCLOSIII),whichthePh ichthePhilippinesratified ilippinesratifiedon27Feb on27February1984. ruary1984. Amongothers,UNCLOSIIIprescribesthewater-landratio,length,andcontourofbaselinesofarchipelagicStates likethePhilippinesandsetsthed likethePhilippinesandsetsthedeadlineforthe eadlineforthefilingofapplicationfo filingofapplicationfortheextend rtheextendedcontinentals edcontinentalshelf.Complying helf.Complying withtheserequirements,RA9522shortened withtheserequirements,RA9522shortenedonebaseline,optimized onebaseline,optimizedthelocationofsomebasepoin thelocationofsomebasepointsaroundthe tsaroundthe Philip Philippin pine e archip archipela elago go and classi classifie fied d adjace adjacent nt territ territori ories, es, namely namely, , the Kalaya Kalayaan an Island Island Group Group (KIG) (KIG) and the ScarboroughShoal,as"regimesofislands"whoseislandsgeneratetheirownapplicablemaritimezones. ScarboroughShoal,as"regimesofislands"whoseislands generatetheirownapplicablemaritimezones. Petitioners,professorso Petitioners,professorsoflaw,lawstud flaw,lawstudentsand entsandalegislator,in alegislator,intheirrespe theirrespectivecapacitiesas ctivecapacitiesas"citizens,taxpaye "citizens,taxpayersor. rsor. ..legislators,"asthecasemaybe,assailtheconstitutionalityofRA9522ontwoprincipalgrounds,namely:(1)RA 9522reducesPhilippinemaritimeterritory,andlogically,thereachofthePhilippinestate'ssovereignpower,in violationofArticle1ofthe1987Constitution,embodyingthetermsoftheTreatyofParisandancillarytreaties,and violationofArticle1ofthe1987 Constitution,embodyingthetermsoftheTreatyofParisandancillarytreaties,and (2)RA9522opensthecountry'swaterslandwardofthebaseline (2)RA9522opensthecountry' swaterslandwardofthebaselinestomaritimepassagebyallvesselsandaircrafts, stomaritimepassagebyallvesselsandaircrafts, undermin undermining ing Philippin Philippine e sovereign sovereignty ty and national national security, security, contraven contravening ing the country's country's nuclear-fr nuclear-free ee policy, policy, and damagingmarineresou damagingmarineresources,in damagingmarineresources,inviolationofrelevantco rces,inviolationof violationofrelevantconstitutionalprovisions. relevantconstitutionalprovisions. nstitutionalprovisions. Inaddition,petitionerscontendthatRA9522'streatmentoftheKIGas"regimeofislands"notonlyresultsinthe lossofalargemaritimeareabutalsoprejudicesthelivelihoodof lossofalarge maritimeareabutalsoprejudicesthelivelihoodofsubsistencefishermen.Tobuttresstheirargument subsistencefishermen.Tobuttresstheirargument of territoria territorial l diminution diminution, , petitione petitioners rs facially facially attack attack RA 9522for what it excluded excluded andincluded itsfailureto —

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz Galandines Galandines 2CAY2016-2017 –

referenceeithertheTreatyofParisorSabahanditsuseofUNCLOSIII'sframeworkofregimeofislandstodetermine referenceeithertheTreatyofParisorSabahanditsuseofUNCLOSIII'sframeworkof regimeofislandstodetermine themaritimezonesoftheKIGandtheScarboroughShoal. Issue:WhethertheconstitutionalprovisionontheprotectionofthesubsistenceoffishermenisviolatedbyRA9522. (NO.) Held: Petitioners'invocationofnon-executoryconstitutionalprovisionsinArticleII(DeclarationofPrinciplesandState Policies)mustalsofail.OurpresentstateofjurisprudenceconsiderstheprovisionsinArticleIIasmerelegislative guides,which,absentenablinglegislation,"donotembodyjudiciallyenforceableconstitutionalrights...."Article IIprovisionsserveasguidesinformulatingandinterpretingimplementinglegislation,aswellasininterpreting executoryprovisionsoftheConstitution.AlthoughOposav.Factorantreatedtherighttoahealthfulandbalanced ecologyunderSecti ecologyunderSection16ofArticle on16ofArticleIIasanexception, IIasanexception,thepresentpetit thepresentpetitionlacksfact thepresentpetitionlacksfac ionlacksfactualbasistosubs ionlacksfactualbasis tualbasistosubstant ualbasistosubstanti tosubstantiatethe tantiatethe iatethe atethe claimedconstitutionalviolation.Theotherprovisionspetitionerscite,relatingtotheprotectionofmarinewealth (ArticleXII,Section2,paragraph2)andsubsistencefishermen (ArticleXII,Section2,paragraph2)andsubsistencefishermen(ArticleXIII,Section7), (ArticleXIII,Section7),arenotviolatedbyR arenotviolatedbyRA A 9522. 9522. Infact,thedemarcationofthebaselinesenablesthePhilippinestodelimititsexclusiveeconomiczone,reserving solelytothePhilippinestheexploi solelytothePhilippinestheexploitatio tationofalllivingandnon-livingresou nofalllivingandnon-livingresourceswithi rceswithinsuchzone.Suchamaritime nsuchzone.Suchamaritime delineationbindstheinternationalcommunitysincethedelineationisinstrictobservanceofUNCLOSIII.Ifthe maritimedelineationiscontrary maritimedelineation iscontrarytoUNCLOS toUNCLOSIII,the III,theinternationalcommunity internationalcommunityw w illofcourserejectitandwillrefuseto illofcoursereject illofcourserejectitand itandwillrefuset willrefuseto o beboundbyit.UNCLOSIIIfavorsStateswithalongcoastlinelikethePhilippines.UNCLOSIIIcreatesasuigeneris maritimespace theexclusiveeconomiczone inwaterspreviouslypart inwaterspreviouslypartofthehighseas.UNCL ofthehighseas.UNCLOSIIIgrantsnew OSIIIgrantsnew rightstocoastalStatestoexclusivelyexploitthe rightstocoastalStatestoexclusivelyexploittheresourcesfoundwithinthiszo resourcesfoundwithinthiszoneupto200nauticalmiles. neupto200nauticalmiles.UNCLOS UNCLOS III,however,preservesthetraditionalfreedomofnavigationofotherStatesthatattachedtothiszonebeyondthe territorialseabeforeUNCLOSIII. —

—

FELIPEYSMAEL,JR.&CO.,INC.VSTHEDEPUTYEXECUTIVESECRETARY,ETAL 190SCRA673;GRNO.79538 18OCTOBER1990 FACTS:

Soonafterthechangeofgovernment,in1986,petitionersentletterstotheOfficeofthePresidentandtothe MinistryofNaturalResources(MNR)seeking(1)thereinstatementofitstimberlicenseagreement(TLANo.87), whichwascancelledalongwithnineother whichwascancelledalongwithnineotherconcessions,during whichwascancelledalongwith nineotherconcessions,during nineotherconcessions,duringtheMarcos theMarcosadministration;(2) administration;(2) therevocationofTLA therevocationofTLA therevocationofTLA NO.356whichwasissuedtoTwinPeaksDevelop NO.356whichwasissuedtoTwinPeaksD evelopmentandRealtyCorporationwithoutpublicbiddingandinviolation evelopmentandRealtyCorpor mentandRealtyCorporationwithou ationwithoutpublicbiddi tpublicbiddingandinviolation ngandinviolation offorestrylaws,rulesandregulations;and(3)theissuanceofan offorestrylaws,rulesandregulations;and (3)theissuanceofanorderallowingpetitionertotakepossessionofall orderallowingpetitionertotakepossessionofall logsfoundintheco logsfoundintheconcessionarea. logsfoundintheconcessionarea.Itall ncessionarea.Itallegedthatafterthe ItallegedthataftertheitsTLA egedthataftertheits egedthataftertheitsTLA itsTLAwascancelledw TLAwascancelledw wascancelledwithoutbeinggiven ithoutbeinggiventheopportunity theopportunity tobeheard,itsloggingareawasre-awardedtoo tobeheard,itsloggingareawasre-awardedtootherloggingconcessionaireswithouta therloggingconcessionaireswithoutaformalawardor formalawardorlicense,as license,as theseentitieswerecontrolledoro theseentitieswerecontrolledorownedbyrelatives wnedbyrelativesorcronieso orcroniesof f deposedPresidentMarcos. TheMinistrydeniedtherequestandruled TheMinistrydeniedtherequestandruledthatatimber thatatimberlicensewasnot thatatimberlicensewasnotacontractwithinthedue licensewasnot licensewasnotacontractwithinthedueprocessclauseof acontractwithinthedueprocessclauseof processclauseof theConstitution,butonlyaprivilegewhichcouldbewithdrawnwheneverpublicinterestorwelfaresodemands, andthatpetitionerwasnotdiscriminatedagainstinviewofthefactthatitwasamongtenconcessionaireswhose licenseswererevokedin1983. licenseswererevokedin1983.Italsoemphasizedthefac revokedin1983.Italso Italso Italsoemphasizedthefactthat emphasizedthefactthat emphasizedthefactthattherewas therewascurrentlya currentlyatotallog totallogbanbeingimposedon totallogbanbeing banbeingimposedon banbeingimposedon thesubjectareas. Aftertheloggingbanwaslifted,petitionerappealedtotheOfficeofthePresident,butthepetitionwasdeniedon thegroundthattheappealwasprematurelyfiled,th thegroundthattheappe alwasprematurelyfiled,thematternothavingbee ematternothavingbeenterminatedintheM nterminatedintheMNR. NR. NR. Hence, Henc Hence, e, petitionerfiledwiththeSupremeCourt petitionerfiledwiththeSupremeCourtapetitionfor petitionerfiledwiththeSupremeCourtapetitionforcertiorari. apetitionfor certiorari.

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

ISSUE:

Whether Whether publicrespon publicrespondent dentsactedwithgraveabuseofdiscret sactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamoun ionamounting ting tolackor excessof excessof jurisdicti jurisdictionin onin refusingtooverturnadministrativeordersissuedbytheirpredecessorsinthepastregime HELD:

Therefusalofpublicrespondentstoreversefinalandexecutoryadministrativeordersdoesnotconstitutegrave abuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictio abuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction. abuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction. n. Itisanestablisheddoctrineinthisjurisdictionthat Itisanestablisheddoctrineinthisjurisdictionthat thedecisionsandordersofadministrativeagencies thedecisionsandord ersofadministrativeagencieshave,upontheirfinality,the have,upontheirfinality,theforceandbindingeffe forceandbindingeffectofafinal ctofafinal judgmentwithinthe judgmentwithin judgmentwithinthe thepurviewofthed purviewofthedoctrineofres purviewofthedoctrineofresjudicata. octrineofres judicata. judicata. Thesedecisionsandorder Thesedecisionsandordersareasconclusiveup sandordersareasconclusiveuponthe onthe rightsoftheaffectedpartiesasthoughthesamehad rightsoftheaffectedpartiesasthoughthesamehadbeenrendered beenrenderedbyacourtofgeneraljurisdiction byacourtofgeneraljurisdiction.Theruleof .Theruleof resjudicatathusforbidsthereopeningofamatteroncedeterminedbycompetentauthorityactingwithintheir exclusivejurisdiction Petitionerdidnotavailofitsremedie Petitionerdidnotavailofitsremediesunderthe sunderthelaw law forattackingthevalidityoftheseadministrativeactionsuntil forattackingthevalidityofth forattackingthevalidityoftheseadministrativeactionsuntil after1986. aft after afte er1986. r 1986. By Bythe the timepetitionersent timepetition time time petiti petition oner ersent ersent its letter letter tothe tothe newly appointe appointedMinister inted dMinister d Minister Minister of the MNRrequestin MNRrequesting esting for reconsideration,thesewerealreadysettledmattersasfaraspetitionerwasconcerned. reconsideration,thesewerealreadysettledmattersasfaras petitionerwasconcerned. Thefactthatpetitionerfailedtoseasonablytakejudicialrecoursetohavetheearlieradministrativeactionsreviewed Thefactthatpetitionerfailedtoseasonablytakejudicialrecoursetohavethe earlieradministrativeactionsreviewed bythecourtsthroughapetitionforcertiorariisprejudicialtoitscause.Althoughthereisnospecifictimefram bythecourtsthroughapetitionforcertior bythecourtsthrougha petitionforcertiorariisprejudicia ariisprejudicialtoitscause.Althoughthereisno ltoitscause.Althoughthereisnospecifictime specifictimefram framefixed efixed fortheinstitutionofaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheROC,thesamemustneverthelessbe donewithina“reasonable donewithina“reasonabletime”.Failure donewithina“reasonabletime”.Failureto time”.Failuretofilethepetition tofilethepetitionfor filethepetitionforcertiorariwithin filethepetitionforcertiorariwithinareasonable forcertiorariwithinareasonableperiodoftimerenders areasonableperiodof periodoftimerenders timerenders thepetitionersusceptibletotheadverselegalconsequencesofthelaches. Lachesisdefinedasthefailureor Lachesisdefinedasthefailureorneglectforanu neglectforanunreasonablean nreasonableandunexplained dunexplainedlengthoftimeto lengthoftimetodothatwhichb dothatwhichby y exercisingduediligence,couldorshouldhavebeendoneearlier,ortoassertarightwithinareasonabletime, warrantingapresumptionthatthepartyentitletheretohaseitherabandoneditordeclinedtoassertit.Thelaws aidthosewhoarevigilant,notthosewhosleepupontheirrights. aidthosewhoarevigilant,not thosewhosleepupontheirrights. Inthecaseat Inthecaseat bar,petition bar,petitionerwaited erwaitedatleast3yearsbefor atleast3yearsbeforeitfinallyfile eitfinallyfiledapetition dapetitionforcertior forcertiorariwiththe ariwiththeCourt Court attacking attacking thevalidityof thevalidityof theassailedBureau theassailedBureauactions.Itsdelayconst actions.Itsdelayconstitute itutesunreaso sunreasonable nable andinexcusab andinexcusableneglect leneglect tantamounttolaches. tantamounttolaches.Thewrit tantamounttolaches.Thewritofcertiorarirequiringthereversalof Thewritofcertiorari ofcertiorarirequiring requiringthereve thereversalof rsaloftheseorderswillnotlie. theseorderswill theseorderswillnotlie. notlie. Moreimportantly,theassailedordersoftheMNRdisclosepublicpolicyconsideration,whicheffectivelyforestall judicialinte judicialinterference. rference.Publicres Publicrespondents, pondents,uponwhos uponwhoseshou eshoulders ldersrestst reststhetask hetaskofimplement ofimplementingthe ingthepolicyto policytodevelop develop andconservethecountry'snaturalresources,haveindicatedanongoingdepartmentevaluationofalltimberlicense andconservethecountry'snaturalresources,haveindicatedanongoingdepartmentevaluationofall timberlicense agreemen agreementsentered agreementsenteredint tsentered into,and into,and permitsor permitsor licensesissued licensesissued, , underthe und undertheprevio erthe erthepreviousdispen previousdispe previousdispensat usdispensatio nsation. sation. ion. n. Alonglineofcases Alongline ofcases establishthebasicrulethatthecou establishthebasicrulethatthecourtswillnotinterfe rtswillnotinterfereinmatterswhichar reinmatterswhichareaddressedto eaddressedtothesound thesounddiscretionof discretionof governmentagenciesentrustedwiththeregulationofactivitiescomingundertheirspecialtechnicalknowledgeand governmentagenciesentrustedwiththeregulationofactivitiescomingundertheirspecial technicalknowledgeand training. Timberlicenses,permitsandlicenseagreementsaretheprincipalinstrumentsbywhichtheStateregulatesthe utilizationanddispositionofforestresourcestotheendthatpublicwelfareispromoted.Anditcanhardlybe gainsaidthattheymerelyevidenceaprivilegegrantedbytheStateto gainsaidthattheymerelyevidencea privilegegrantedbytheStatetoqualifiedentities,anddonotvestin qualifiedentities,anddonotvestinthelatter thelatter apermanentorirrevocablerighttotheparticularconcessionareaandtheforestproductstherein.Theymaybe validlyamended,modified,replacedorrescindedbytheChiefExecutivewhennationalinterestssorequire.Thus, theyarenotdeemedcontractswithinthepurviewofthedueprocessoflawclause. theyarenotdeemedcontractswithinthepurviewofthe dueprocessoflawclause.


TheCourtexpressesitsconcernregardingallegedirregularitiesintheissuanceoftimberlicenseagreementstoa number number of loggingconcessio logg logging ingconcessionaire ing conces concessio sionai naires. naires res. s. . Should Sho Should Shou uld ld the the approp app apprrop opriate riate riate riate case case be brought brou brough broughtshowi ght tshowing showi showing ng a clear clear gr grave ave abuse abuse of discretiononthepartofconce discretiononthepartofconcernedofficialswithre rnedofficialswithrespecttotheimp specttotheimplementationofth lementationofthispublicpolicy,the ispublicpolicy,theCourtwill Courtwill nothesitatetostepin. However,inthiscase,theCour However,inthiscase,theCourtfindsnobasistoissueawritofcertiorariandtograntany However,inthiscase,theCourtfindsnobasistoissueawritofcertiorariandtograntany tfindsnobasistoissueawritofcertiorariandtograntany oftheaffirmativereliefssought.

G.R.No.183591 G.R.No.183591 183591 October142008 October October 142008 ProvinceofNorthCotabatovsGovernmentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines ProvinceofNorthCotabatovsGovernmentof theRepublicofthePhilippines FACTS: OnAugust5,2008,the OnAugust5,2008,theGovernment GovernmentoftheRe oftheRepublicofth publicofthePhilippines ePhilippinesandtheM andtheMoroIslamicLiber oroIslamicLiberationFront ationFront(MILF) (MILF) werescheduledtosignaMemorandumofAgreementoftheAncestralDomainAspectoftheGRP-MILFTripoli AgreementonPeaceo AgreementonPeaceof2001inKuala f2001inKualaLumpur,Malaysia. Lumpur,Malaysia. Invokingtherighttoinformationonmattersofpublicconcern,thepetitionersseektocompelrespondentsto discloseandfurnishthemthecompleteandofficialcopiesoftheMA-ADandtoprohibittheslatedsigningofthe MOAMO A-AD AD and and the the hold holdin ing g of publ public ic cons consul ulta tati tion on ther thereo eon. n. They They also also pray pray that that the the MO MOAA-AD AD be decl declar ared ed unconstitutional.TheCour unconstitut ional.TheCour tissuedaTROenjoi ningtheGRPf romsigningthesa unconstitutional.TheCourtissuedaTROenjoiningtheGRPf romsigningthesame. me. ISSUE:

Whetherornotthesigning WhetherornotthesigningoftheMOA,the oftheMOA,theGovernmentof GovernmentoftheRepublicof theRepublicofthePhilippinesw thePhilippineswouldbebind ouldbebindingitself ingitself toconcedetoorrecognizetheclaimoftheMoroIslamicLiberationFrontforancestraldomaininviolationof RepublicActNo.8371 RepublicActNo.8371 (THEINDIGENOU (THEINDIGENOUSPEOPLESRIGHT SPEOPLESRIGHTSACT SACT OF1997),particularly OF1997),particularly Section3(g)& Section3(g)& ChapterVII ChapterVII (DELINEATION,RECOGNITIONOFANCEST (DELINEATION,RECOGNITIONOFANCESTRALDOMAINS). RALDOMAINS). HELD:

No.Thisstrandbeginswiththestatementthatitis“thebirthrightofallMorosandallIndigenouspeoplesof Mindanaotoidentifythemselvesandbeacceptedas‘Bangsamoros.’”Itdefines“Bangsamoropeople”as Mindanaotoidentifythemselvesandbe acceptedas‘Bangsamoros.’”Itdefines“Bangsamoropeople”asthenatives thenatives ororiginalinhabitantsof ororiginalinhabitantsofMindanaoanditsadjacentisland ororiginalinhabitantsofMindanao MindanaoanditsadjacentislandsincludingPalaw anditsadjacentislandsinclud anditsadjacentislandsincludingPalawanand sincludingPalawanandthe ingPalawanandtheSuluarchipelagoatth anandthe theSuluarchipelagoatthetime Suluarchipelagoatthetime etime ofconquestorcolon ofconquestorcolonization,andtheirdescendantswhethermixedorof ization,andtheirdescenda ization, andtheirdescenda ntswhethermixedorof fullblood,includingthei fullblood,i fullblood,includingtheirspouses. ncludingtheirspouses. rspouses. Thus, Thus, the concep concept t of “Bangsa “Bangsamor moro,” o,” as define defined d in this this strand strand of the includes es not only only “Moros “Moros” ” as the MO MOAA-AD, includ traditionallyunderstoodevenbyMuslims,butallindigenouspeoplesofMindanaoanditsadjacentislands.The MOA-ADaddsthatthefreedomofchoiceofindigenouspeoplesshallberespected.Whatthisfreedomofchoice consistsinhasnotbeenspecificallydefined.TheMOA- ADproceedstorefertothe“Bangsamorohomeland,”the ownershipofwhichisvestedexclusivelyintheBangsamoropeopleby ownershipofwhichisvestedexclusively intheBangsamoropeoplebyvirtueoftheirpriorrightsof virtueoftheirpriorrightsofoccupation.Both occupation.Both partiestotheMOA-ADacknow partiestotheMOA-ADacknowledgethat ledgethatancestraldomain ancestraldomaindoesno doesnotformpart tformpartofthepu ofthepublicdomain. blicdomain.

Repub Republic lic Act No. 8371 8371 orthe Indige Indigenou nous s Peopl PeoplesRight esRights s Act of1997 provid providesfor esfor clearclear-cut cut proced procedure ure for the recognitionanddelineationofancestraldomain,whichentails,amongotherthings,theobservanceof recognitionanddelineationofancestraldomain,whichentails, amongotherthings,theobservanceofthefreeand thefreeand priorinformedconsentofth priorinformedconsentoftheIndigenou eIndigenousCulturalCommunitie sCulturalCommunities/Indigenou s/IndigenousPeoples.Notab sPeoples.Notably,thestatutedo ly,thestatutedoesnot esnot granttheExecutiveDepartmentoranygovernmentagencythepowertodelineateandrecognizeanancestral domainclaimbymereagreementorcompromise. Two, Two, Republ Republic ic Act No. 7160 7160 or the Local Local Govern Governmen ment t Code Code of 1991 1991 requir requires es all nation national al office offices s to condu conduct ct consultationsbeforeanyprojectorprogramcriticaltotheenvironmentandhumanecologyincludingthosethat maycallfortheevictionofaparticulargroupof maycallfortheevictionof aparticulargroupofpeopleresidingin aparticulargroupofpeopleresidinginsuchlocality,is peopleresidinginsuch peopleresidinginsuchlocality,isimpleme suchlocality,isimplemented locality,isimplementedthe implementedtherein.Th ntedtherein.TheM therein.TheMOArein.TheMOAeMOAOAADisonepeculiarprogramthatunequivocallyandunilaterallyvestsownershipofavastterritorytotheBangsamoro ADisonepeculiarprogramthatunequivocallyandunilaterallyvestsownershipofavastterritoryto theBangsamoro peopl people, e, which which could could perva pervasiv sively ely and drasti drastical cally ly result result to the diaspo diaspora ra or displa displacem cement ent of a great great numbe number r of inhabitantsfromtheirtotalenvironment. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

SOCIALJUSTICESOCIETY(SJS,et.a SOCIALJUSTICESOCIETY(SJS,et.al.vs.HON.JOSEL. l.vs.HON.JOSEL.ATIENZA,JR. ATIENZA,JR. G.R.No. G.R.No.156052 156052 156 052 07March2007 07March 07March 2007 CORONA,J.

FACTS:

Pursuanttothepolicepowerdelegatedto Pursuanttothepolicepowerdelegatedtolocalgovernmentunits, localgovernmentunits,theSa theSangguniangPanlunsodng ngguniangPanlunsodng ManilaenactedOrdinanceNo.8027sometimeonNovember20,2001. ManilaenactedOrdinanceNo.8027sometim ManilaenactedOrdinanceNo.8027sometimeonNovember20,2001.It eonNovember20,2001.It It wasapprovedbyherein respondent,asCityMayor,Hon.JoseAteinza,Jr.,onNovember28,2001andbecameeffectivea monthafter,followingitspublication.OrdinanceNo.8027reclassif monthafter,followingits monthafter,followingitspublication.OrdinanceNo.8027reclassifiedthe publication.OrdinanceNo.8027reclassifiedthe iedthe areadescribedtherein fromindustrialtocommercialanddirectedtheownersandoperatorsofbusinessesdisallowedand mentionedthereintoceaseanddesistfromoperatingtheirbusinesseswithinsixmonthsfrom mentionedthereintoceaseanddesistf romoperatingtheir romoperatingtheirbusinesseswithin businesseswithinsixmonths sixmonthsfromthe fromthe the dateofeffectivityoftheordinance.Amongthebusinessessituatedintheareaaretheso-called "Pandacan "Pandacan Terminals" Terminals" of the oil companies companies Caltex (Philippines (Philippines), ), Inc., Petron Petron Corporatio Corporation n and PilipinasShellPetroleumCorporation.However,onJune26,2002,theCityofManilaandthe DepartmentofEner DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)ente gy(DOE)enteredintoamemor redintoamemorandumof andumofunderstand understanding(MOU) ing(MOU)withtheoil withtheoil companiesinwhichtheyagreed companiesinwhichtheyagreedthat"the that"thescalingdown that"thescalingdownofthePandacan scalingdown scalingdownofthePandacanTerminals ofthePandacanTerminals[was]themost Terminals[was]themost viable viable and practi practicab cable le option option." ." Under Under the MOU, MOU, both both the oil compan companies, ies, as well well as the city city governmentofManilaandtheDOEcommittedtocreateprogramswhicharebeneficialtoall. The Sangguniang Panlungsodrat ratified ed the the MOU in Resolu Resolutio tion n No. 97.In 97.In the the same same resolution, resolu resolutio tion, n, Panlungsodratifi the Sanggunian declaredthattheMOUwaseffectiveonlyforaperiodofsixmonthsstartingJuly 25, 200 2002.T 2.Ther hereaf eafter ter, , the Sanggunian adopted adopted Resolu Res Resolution Resol olutio ution tion n No. No No.. 13 exte ex exttend tendi en nding ding ing ng the the vali validit lidi dity dity ty y of of ResolutionNo.97toApril30,2003andauthorizingMayorAtienzatoissuespecialbusinesspermits ResolutionNo.97toApril30,2003 andauthorizingMayorAtienzatoissuespecialbusinesspermits totheoilcompanies.ResolutionNo.13,s. totheoilcompanies.Reso lutionNo.13,s.2003alsocalledfor 2003alsocalledforareassessmentoftheo areassessmentoftheordinance. rdinance. Meanwhile,petitioners Meanwhile,petitioners filedthis original original action for mandamus praying praying thatMayor Atienza Atienza be compelledtoenforceOrdinanceNo.8027andordertheimmediateremovaloftheterminalsof the oil companies.Petitioner companies.Petitioners s contend contend thatrespondenthas the mandatory mandatory legal duty, under Section455(b)(2)oftheLocalGovernmentCode(RA7160),toenforceOrdinanceNo.8027and ordertheremovalofthePandacanTerminalsoftheoilcompanies.Instead,hehasallowedthem tostay.Respondent’sdefense,ontheotherhand,isthatOrdinanceNo.8027hasbeensuperseded tostay.Respondent’sdefense,ontheotherhand,is thatOrdinanceNo.8027hasbeensuperseded bytheMOUandtheresolutions.However,healsoconfusinglyarguesthattheordinanceand bytheMOUandtheresolutions.However,he alsoconfusinglyarguesthattheordinanceandMOU MOU arenotinconsistentwitheachotherandthatthelatterhasnotamendedtheformer.Heinsists thattheordinanceremainsvalidandinfullforceandeffectandthattheMOU thattheordinanceremainsvalidandinfull forceandeffectandthattheMOUdidnotinanyway didnotinanyway preventhimfromenforcingandimplementingit.Hemaintainsthatthe preventhimfromenforcingand implementingit.HemaintainsthattheMOUshouldbeconsidered MOUshouldbeconsidered asamereguidelineforitsfullimplementation. asamereguidelineforitsfull implementation.

ISSUE:

WhetherrespondenthasthemandatorylegaldutytoenforceOrdinanceNo.8027andorderthe removalofthePandacanTerminals.

RULING:

TheLocalGovernmentCodeimposesuponrespondenttheduty,ascitymayor,to"enforcealllaws andordinancesrelativetothegovernanceo andordinancesrelativeto thegovernanceofthecity." fthecity."Oneofthese OneoftheseisOrdinanceNo. isOrdinanceNo.8027.Asthe 8027.Asthe chiefexecutiveofthecity, chiefexecutiveofthecity,hehasthedutytoenforceOrd hehasthedutytoenforceOrdinanceNo. inanceNo.8027aslongasithasnot 8027aslongasithasnot beenrepealedbythe Sanggunianorannulledbythecourts. beenrepealedbythe orannulledbythecourts. annulle annulledby dby the courts courts.. Hehasno otherchoic otherchoice.It e.It ishis Sanggunianor ministerialdutytodoso.In Dimaporov.Mitra,Jr. ,itwasruledthat: Theseofficerscannotrefusetoperformtheirdutyonthegroundofanalleged invalidityofthestatuteimposingtheduty.Thereasonforthisis invalidityofthestatuteimposingthe duty.Thereasonforthisisobvious.Itmight obvious.Itmight seriouslyhinde seriouslyhinderthe rthe transact transactionofpublicbusine ionofpublicbusinessif ssif these officersweretobe officersweretobe permittedinallcases permittedinallcasestoquestiont toquestiontheconstitutionality heconstitutionality heconstitutionalityofstatutes ofstatutesandordinances ofstatutesandordinances


impo imposi sing ng duti duties es upon upon them them and and whic which h have have not not judi judici cial ally ly been been decl declar ared ed unconstitutional.Officersofthegovernmen unconstitutional.Officersofthegovernmentfromthehighesttothelowestare tfromthehighesttothelowestare creaturesofthelawandareboundtoobeyit. OrdinanceNo.8027wasenactedrightafterthePhilippines,alongwiththerestoftheworld, witnessedthehorroroftheSeptember11,2001attackontheTwinTowersoftheWorldTrade CenterinNewYorkCity.Theobjectiveoftheor CenterinNewYorkCity. Theobjectiveoftheordinanceistoprotectthe dinanceistoprotecttheresidentsofManilafro dinanceistoprotecttheresidentsofManilafrom residentsofManilafrom residentsofManilafrom thecatastrophicdevas thecatastrophicdevastatio tationthatwillsurelyoccurincaseofaterroris nthatwillsurelyoccurincaseofaterroristattack tattack onthePandacan Terminals.Noreasonexistswhy Terminals.Noreasonexistswhysuchaprotectivemeasureshouldbedelayed. Terminals.Noreasonexistswhysucha suchaprotectivemeasureshouldbedelayed. protectivemeasureshouldbedelayed. CHAVEZVPUBLICESTATESAUTHORITY G.R.No.133250July9,2002

Facts: ThePhilippinegovernment(throughtheCommissio ThePhilippinegovernment(t hroughtheCommissionerofPublic nerofPublicHighways)signeda nerofPublicHighways)signedacontractwiththeConstruction Highways)signeda Highways)signedacontractwiththeConstruction contractwiththeConstruction andDevelopmentCorporationofthePhilippinestoreclaimcertain andDevelopmentCorporationo fthePhilippinestoreclaimcertainforeshoreandoffsho foreshoreandoffshoreareasof reareasofManilaBayand fortheconstructionoftheManila-CaviteCoastalRoad. PresidentMarcosissuedPD1084creatingPublicEstatesAuthorityandtransferredtoitthe'lands'reclaimedin ManilaBayfortheManila-CaviteRoadandReclamationPro ManilaBayfortheManila-CaviteRoad ManilaBayfortheManila-CaviteRoad theManila-CaviteRoadandReclamationPro andReclamationProject.Thereafter,P ject.Thereafter,PresidentAquinoissuedSpecial residentAquinoissuedSpecialPatent Patent No.3517,grantingandtransferringtoPEA"theparcelsoflandsoreclaimedundertheMCCRRP".ATCTwasalso issuedinthenameofPEAcovering3reclaimedislandsknownastheFreedomIslandslocatedatthesouthernportion issuedinthenameofPEAcovering3reclaimedislandsknownastheFreedomIslandslocatedat thesouthernportion oftheManila-CaviteCoastalRoad,ParañaqueCity,w oftheManila-CaviteCoast alRoad,ParañaqueCity,whichwerepartoftheselands hichwerepartoftheselandsacquiredbyPEA. acquiredbyPEA. PEAenteredintoaJointVentureAgreementwithAMARICoastalbayanddevelopmentcorporationto PEAenteredintoaJointVentureAgreementwithAMARICoastalbayanddevelopmentcorporationtodevelopthe PEAenteredintoaJointVentureAgreementwithAMARIC oastalbayanddevelopmentcorporationtodevelopthe developthe FreedomIslands.However,theJVA FreedomIslands.However,theJVAalsorequiredthe alsorequiredthereclamationof reclamationofanadditional250hectar anadditional250hectaresofsubmerged esofsubmergedareas areas surrou surroundi nding ng these these island islands s to complet complete e the config configura uratio tion n in the Master Master Develo Developmen pment t Plan Plan of the Southe Southern rn ReclamationProject-MCCRRP.PEA ReclamationProject-MC ReclamationProject-MCCRRP.PEAand CRRP.PEAand and AMARIenteredintotheJVAthrough AMARIenteredintotheJVAthroughnegotiationwithoutpublic negotiationwithoutpublicbidding. bidding. OnJune8,1995, OnJune8, OnJune8,1995, 1995, thenPresidentFidelV. thenPresidentFidelV.Ramos,through Ramos,throughthenExecutiveSecretary thenExecutiveSecretaryRubenTorres,appro RubenTorres,approvedtheJVA. vedtheJVA. OnNovember29,1996,thenSenatePresidentMacedadeliveredaprivilegespeechdenouncingtheJVAasthe "grandmotherofallscams".Thus,theSenateC "grandmotherofallscams".Thus,theSenateCommitteesinvestigatedonthematter ommitteesinvestigatedonthematterandc andc oncludedthefollowing: (1)thereclaimedlandsPEAseekstotransfe (1)thereclaimedlandsPEAseekstotransfertoAMARIundertheJVAarelandsofthepublicdomainwhichthe rtoAMARIundertheJVAarelandsofthepublicdomainwhichthe governmenthasnotclassifiedasalienablelandsandthereforePEAcannotalienatetheselands;(2)thecertificates oftitlecoveringtheFreedom oftitlecoveringtheFreedomIslandsarethus Islandsarethusvo vo id;and(3)theJVAitselfisillegal. id;and(3)theJVA id;and(3)theJVAitselfisillegal. PetitionerFrankChavez,asataxpayer,filedtheinstant PetitionerFrankChavez, PetitionerFrankChavez,asa asataxpayer,filedtheinstantPetitionfor taxpayer,filedtheinstantPetitionfor taxpayer,filedtheinstantPetitionforMandamuswith PetitionforMandamuswithPray MandamuswithPray MandamuswithPray Pray erforIssuanceofaWritof erforIssuanceofa erforIssuanceofaWritof PreliminaryInjunctionandTemporaryRestrainingOrder. OnMarch30,1999PEAandAMARIsignedana OnMarch30,1999PEAandAMARIsignedan 99PEAandAMARIsignedana a mendedJointAgreementw mendedJointAgreementwhichwasapprovedby hichwasapprovedbyPresidentEstrada. PresidentEstrada. UndertheAmendedJVA,AMARIwill UndertheAmendedJ VA,AMARIwillacquireandown acquireandownamaximumo amaximumof367.5hectares f367.5hectaresofr ofreclaimedlandwhichwillbe eclaimedlandwhichwillbe eclaimedlandwhichwill be titledinitsname. Issue:WhetherthestipulationsintheAmendedJVAorthetransfer Issue:Whetherthestipulationsinthe AmendedJVAorthetransfertoAMARIof toAMARIofcertainlands certainlandsreclaimedandstillto reclaimedandstillto bereclaimedareunconstitutional



–

Held: Yes.The157.84hectaresofreclaimedlan Yes.The157.84hectaresofreclaimedlandscomprisingth dscomprisingtheFreedomIslan eFreedomIslands,nowcovered ds,nowcoveredbycertificatesoftitle bycertificatesoftitlein in thenameofPEA,arealienablelandsofpublicdomain.PEAmayleasetheselandstoprivate thenameofPEA,arealienablelands ofpublicdomain.PEAmayleasetheselandstoprivatecorporationsbutmay corporationsbutmay notsellortransferownershipoftheselandstoprivatecorporations.PEAmayonlyselltheselandstoPhilippine citizens,subjecttotheownersh citizens,subjecttotheownershiplimitationsinthe1987C iplimitationsinthe1987Constitution.Since onstitution.SincetheAmended theAmendedJVAseekstotrans JVAseekstotransferto ferto AMARIownershipof77.34hectaresoftheFreedomIslands,suchtransferisvoidforbeingcontrarytoSection3 ArticleXIIoftheConstitutionwhichprohibitsprivatecorpor ArticleXIIoftheConstitutionwh ichprohibitsprivatecorporationsfromacquiringanykindofalienab ationsfromacquiringanykindofalienablelandofthe lelandofthe publicdomain. publicdomain. SincetheAmendedJVAalsosee SincetheAmendedJVAalsoseekstotransfertoAMA kstotransfertoAMARIownershipof RIownershipof290.156hectaresofstillsu 290.156hectaresofstillsubmergedareas bmergedareasof of ManilaBay,suchtransferisvoidforbeingcontrarytoSec.2articleXIIoftheConstitutionwhichprohibitsthe alienationofnaturalresourcesotherthanagriculturallandsofthepublic alienationofnaturalresourcesotherthan agriculturallandsofthepublicdomain.PEAmayreclaim domain.PEAmayreclaimthesesubmerged thesesubmerged areas.Thereafter,thegovernmentcanclassifythereclaimedlandsasalienableordisposable,andfurtherdeclare themnolongerneededf themnolongerneeded themnolongerneededforpublicservice.Still,th forpublicservice.Still,thetransferofsu orpublicservice.Still,thetransferofsu etransferofsuchreclaimedalienablelan chreclaimedalienablelandsofthepu dsofthepublicdomain blicdomain toAMARIwillbevoidinviewofsec3ArticleXIIoftheConstitutionwhichprohibitsprivatecorporationsfrom acquiringanykindofalienab acquiringanykindofalienablelandof lelandofthepublic thepublicdomain. domain. [G.R.No.74930.February13,1989.] RICARDOVALMONTE,OSWALDOCARBONELL,DOYDELCASTILLO,ROLANDO BARTOLOME,LEOOBLIGAR,JUNGUTIERREZ,REYNALDO BARTOLOME,LEOOBLIGAR,JU NGUTIERREZ,REYNALDOBAGATSING,JUN BAGATSING,JUN "NINOY"ALBA,PERCYLAPID,ROMMELCORROandROLANDOFADUL,petitioners, vs.FELICIANOBELMONTE,JR.,respondent.

Facts: Petitionersinthisspecialcivilactionformandamuswithpreliminaryinjunctioninvoketheirrighttoinformationand praythatrespondentbedirected: (a) TofurnishpetitionersthelistofthenamesoftheBatasangPambansamembersbelongingtotheUNIDO TofurnishpetitionersthelistofthenamesoftheBatasangPambansamembersbelongingtotheUNIDO andPDP-Labanwhowereabletosecurecleanloansimmediatelybe andPDP-Labanwhowere abletosecurecleanloansimmediatelybeforetheFebruary7election foretheFebruary7electionthruthe thruthe intercession/marginalnoteo intercession/marginalnoteofthethe fthethenFirstLadyI nFirstLadyImeldaMarcos;an meldaMarcos;and/or d/or (b) Tofurnishpe Tofur Tofurnishpetitionerswithcertifiedtruecopiesofthedocumentsevidencingtheirrespectiveloans;and/or nishpetitionersw titionerswithcertified ithcertifiedtrue truecopieso copiesofthe fthedocume documentsevide ntsevidencingth ncingtheirresp eirrespectiveloans ectiveloans;and/o ;and/orr (c) Toallowpetitioners Toallowpetitionersaccessto accesstothepub thepublicrecords licrecordsfor licrecordsforthesubjectinfor forthesubjectinformation for thesubjectinformation mation ThecontroversyarosewhenpetitionerValmonte,alawyerandamemberofthemedia,wrotetorespondent Belmonte,GeneralManageroftheGSIS,requestingthathe“befurnishedwiththe listofnamesoftheopposition membersof(the)BatasangPambansawhowereable membersof(the)BatasangPambansawhowereabletosecureacleanloanofP2millioneachonguaranty(sic)of tosecureacleanloanofP2millioneachonguaranty(sic)of Mrs.Imelda Marcos”.Alsointhesaidletter,hejustifiedhisr Alsointhesaidletter,hejustifiedhisrequestbyinvo equestbyinvokingtherighttoin kingtherighttoinformationund formationunderthe erthe FreedomConstitution.ThedeputygeneralcounseloftheGSIS,onbehalfofrespondentBelmonte,wrotebackto thepetitionerandrepliedthattheyarenotgrantingtherequestofthepetitionerandsaid thepetitionerandrepliedthattheyare notgrantingtherequestofthepetitionerandsaidthat that “[m]yopinioninthis regardisthataconfidentialrelationshipexistsbetweentheGSISandallthosewhoborrowfromit,whoeverthey maybe;thattheGSIShasadutytoitscustomerstopreservethisconfidentiality;andthatitwouldnotbe maybe;thattheGSIShasa dutytoitscustomerstopreservethisconfidentiality;andthatitwouldnotbeproperfor properfor theGSIStobreachthisconfidentialityunlessorderedbythe theGSIStobreachthisconf identialityunlessorderedbythe courts.” Beforereceivingthereplyoftherespondent,petitionerValmonte,alongwiththeotherpetitioners,filedtheinstant case.Inhiscomment,respondentraisesproceduralobjectionstotheissuanceofawritofmandamus,amongwhich case.Inhiscomment,respondentraisesproceduralobjectionstotheissuanceof awritofmandamus,amongwhich isthatpetitioners isthatpetitionershavefailed isthatpetitionershavefailedto havefailedtoexhaustadministrative toexhaustadministrativeremedies. exhaustadministrativeremedies. remedies.


Tothisobjection,petitionersclaimthattheyhaveraisedapurelylegalissue,viz.,whetherornottheyareentitled tothedocumentssought, tothedocumentssought,byvirtue tothedocumentssought,byvirtueoftheir byvirtueoftheirconstitutionalright oftheirconstitutionalrighttoinformation. constitutionalrighttoinformation. constitutionalrighttoinformation.Hence,it Hence,itisarguedthat isarguedthatthiscase thiscasef thiscasef ff alls underoneoftheexceptionsto underoneoftheexceptionstothe underoneoftheexceptionstothe theprincipleofexhaustion principleofexhaustionofadministrativeremedies. principleofexhaustionofadministrativer ofadministrativeremedies. emedies. Issue:Whetherornotpetitionerhas Issue:Whetherornotpetitionerhastherighttosuchinformation Issue:Whetherornotpetitionerhastheright therighttosuchinformation tosuchinformation Held: TheCourtheldintheaffirmative.TheCourtsaidthat: cornerstoneofthisrepublicansystemofgovernmentisdelegationofpower cornerstoneofthisrepublicansystemof ofgovernmentisdelegationofpowerbythepeopleto governmentisdelegationofpowerby governmentisdelegation ofpowerbythepeopletotheState.Inthis bythepeopleto thepeopletotheState.Inthis theState.Inthis “Thecornerstoneofthisrepublicansystem system,governmentalagenciesandinstitutionsoperatewithinthelimitsoftheauthorityconferredbythepeople. Deniedaccesstoinformatio Deniedaccesstoinformationontheinnerworkings Deniedaccesstoinformationon nontheinnerworkingsofthe theinnerworkingsof theinnerworkingsofthegovernment, ofthegovernment,the thegovernment,thecitizenry government,thecitizenryca thecitizenryca citizenryca ca nbecomepreytothewhims nbecomepreyto nbecomepreytothewhims thewhims andcapricesofthosetowhomthepowerhadbeendelegated.Thepostulateofpublicofficeasapublictrust, institutiona institutionalizedinthe lizedinthe Constitutio Constitution(in n(in Art.XI,Sec.1)to Art.XI,Sec.1)to protectthepeoplefromabuseofgovernment protectthepeoplefromabuseofgovernmentalpower, alpower, wouldcerta wouldcertainl inly y bemereempty wordsif wordsif access access tosuch inform informati ationofpublic onofpublic concer concernis nis denied, denied, except except under under limitationsprescribedbyimplementinglegislationadoptedpursuant limitationsprescribedby implementinglegislationadoptedpursuanttotheConst totheConstitution.Theright itution.Therighttoinformation toinformationis is anessentialpremiseofameaningfulrighttospeechandexpression. anessentialpremiseofa meaningfulrighttospeechandexpression. Butthisisnottosaythattherighttoinformationismerelyanadjunctofandthereforerestrictedinapplicationby theexerciseofthefreedomsofspeechandofthepress.Farfromit.Therighttoinformationgoeshand-in-hand theexerciseofthefreedomsofspeechandof thepress.Farfromit.Therighttoinformationgoeshand-in-handwith with theconstitutionalpoliciesoffullpublicdisclosureandhonestyinthepublicservice.Itismeanttoenhancethe wideningroleofthecitizenryingo wideningroleofthecitizenryingovernmentaldecision-makingasw vernmentaldecision-makingaswellincheckingabusein ellincheckingabuseingovernment.Likeall government.Likeallthe the constitutionalguarantees,therighttoinformationisnotabsolute.Thepeople'srighttoinformationislimitedto "mattersofpublicconcern",andisfurther"subjecttosuchlimitationsasmaybeprovidedbylaw."Similarly,the State'spolicyoffulldisclosureislimitedto "transacti "transactionsinvolving onsinvolving publicinterest", publicinterest", and is "subject "subject whenthe informatio information n requested requested from the government government intrudesintotheprivacyofa intrudesintotheprivacyofacitizen,apotential citizen,apotentialconflictbetweenthe conflictbetweentherightstoinform rightstoinformationandto ationandtoprivacymayarise. privacymayarise. Therighttoprivacybelongstotheindividualinhisprivatecapacity,andnottopublicandgovernmentalagencies liketheGSIS.Acorporationhasnorighttoprivacysincetheentirebasisoftherighttoprivacy liketheGSIS.Acorporationhasno righttoprivacysincetheentirebasisoftherighttoprivacyisinjurytothefeelings isinjurytothefeelings andsensibilitiesofthepartyandacorporationwouldhavenosuchgroundforrelief.NeithercantheGSISthrough itsGeneralManager itsGeneralManager,theresponde ,therespondent,invok nt,invoketherighttoprivac etherighttoprivacyofitsborrow yofitsborrowers.Therigh ers.Therightispurelyperso tispurelypersonalin nalin nature. Thegovernment, Thegovernment, whether carrying carrying outits sovereignattributes sovereignattributes orrunning somebusiness, dischargesthe dischargesthe same functionofservicetothepeople.Consequently,thattheGSIS,ingrantingtheloans,wasexercisingaproprietary functionwouldnotjustify functionwouldnotjustifytheexclusion functionwouldnotjustifytheexclusionofthetransactionsfrom theexclusionofthe ofthetransactionsf transactionsfromthecoverageandscope romthecoverageandscopeofthe thecoverageandscopeoftherighttoinformation. oftherightto righttoinformation. information. Theconsiderationinguarantingaccesstoinformationonmattersofpublicconcerndoesnothowever,accordto citizentherighttocompel citizentherighttocompelcustodia custodianofpublicrecor nofpublicrecordstoprepare dstopreparelists,abstr lists,abstracts, acts,summarie summariesandthelikeintheir sandthelikeintheir desiretoacquiresuchinformation. Legaspivs.CivilServiceCommission GRNo.L-72119 GRNo.L-72119 L-72119 May29,1987 May29,1987 Cortes,J.

FACTS: PetitionerValentinLegaspiisinvokinghisconstitutionalrighttoin PetitionerValentinLegaspiisinvokinghisconstit PetitionerValentinLegaspiisinvokinghisconstitutionalrightto utionalrighttoin informationonmattersofpublicconcernwhenhe informationonmatters formationonmattersofpublicconcernwhe formationonmattersofpublicconcernwhe ofpublicconcernwhenhe nhe wasdenieddisclosurebyrespondentCSC wasdenieddisclosure byrespondentCSCofinformatio ofinformationregardingcivilservice nregardingcivilserviceeligibilitiesSibonghanoyandAgasas eligibilitiesSibonghanoyandAgasas sanitariansintheHealthDepartmentofCebuCity. Hesoughtreliefbywayofmandamustocompelrespondentto furnishhim furnishhim therequestedinform furnishhimtherequestedinform therequestedinformation. TheOSGcontended,amongothers,thatrespondentdoesnothavet TheOSGcontended,amongothers,that TheOSGcontended,amongothers ,that respondentdoesnothavethe he ministerialdutytofurnishpetitionerwith ministerialdutytofurnishpetitionerwithsuchrecords, suchrecords,hence,cannotbe suchrecords,hence,cannotbemandatedtodoso. hence,cannotbe hence,cannotbemandatedtodoso. mandatedtodoso. ISSUE: Whetherornotrespondentmay Whetherornotrespondentmaybecompelledtodisclosere becompelledtodisclosere becompelledtodiscloserequestedinformationbypetitioner. questedinformationbypetitioner.

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz – Galandines – Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

HELD HE HELD: LD: : Yes. Yes Yes. Yes.. The The consti con constitutio const stitut itutional tutio ional rightto rightto informatio informationon mation non n on matters matte matter mattersof rs sof of public publ publiccon publicconcer ic concern nce cern rn n inthe inthe Billof Bil Bill lof lof Rights Rightsare htsare are selfself self-execut exe executing. cuting. ing. TherightandthedutyunderArt.IIISec.7havebecomeoperativeandenforceablebyvirtueofthe Therightand Therightandthedutyunde thedutyunderArt. rArt.IIISec.7have IIISec.7havebe becomeoperativeandenforceablebyvirtueofthe adoptionoftheNewCharter. adoptionoftheNewCharter. Therefore,therightmay Therefore,therightmaybeproperlyinvokedinamandamuspro beproperlyinvokedinamandamusproceedingsuchasthis beproperlyinvokedinamandamusproceedi ceedingsuchasthis ceedingsuchasthis one. Governmentagenciesarewithoutdiscretioninrefusingdisclosureof,oraccessto,informationofpublicconcern. Thisisnottolosesightofthereasonableregulationswhichmaybeimposedbysaidagenciesincustodyofpublic recordsonthemannerinw recordsonthemannerinwhichtherighttoinf hichtherighttoinformat hichtherighttoinformatio ionmaybeexercised ionmaybeexercisedbythepublic. nmaybeexercisedbythepublic. Itfollowsthat,inevery Itfollowsthat, Itfollowsthat,inevery inevery case,theavailabilityofaccesstoaparticularpublicrecordmustbecircumscribedbythenatureoftheinformation sought,i.e.,(a)being sought,i.e.,(a)beingofpublic ofpublicconcernor concernoronethat onethatinvolvespublicinterest, involvespublicinterest,and,(b) involvespublicinterest,and,(b)notbeingexemptedby and,(b) and,(b)notbeingexemptedbylawfrom notbeingexemptedbylawfrom lawfrom theoperationoftheconstitutional theoperationoftheconstitutionalguarantee.Thethreshold guarantee.Thethresholdquestionis,therefore, questionis,therefore,whetherorno whetherornottheinformatio ttheinformation n soughtisofpublicinterestorpublicconcern. Public Public officebeing officebeing a publictrus publictrust,[Con t,[Const. st. Art. Art. XI, Sec. Sec. 1]it isthelegitimat isthelegitimate e concer concern n ofcitizens ofcitizens toensure toensure that that governmentpositionsrequiringcivilserviceeligibilityare governmentpositions governmentpositionsrequiringcivilserviceeligibilityareoccupiedonlyby requiringcivilserviceeligibilityareoccupiedonlybype occupiedonlybype personswhoareeligible. rsonswhoareeligible. rsonswhoareeligible. Intheinstant,casewhilerefusingtoconfirmordenytheclaimsofeligibility,therespondenthasfailedtociteany provisionintheCivilServiceLawwhichwouldlimitthepetitioner'srighttoknowwhoare,andwhoarenot,civil serviceeligibles. Wetakejudicialnotice Wetakejudicialnoticeofthefact ofthefactthatthenames thatthenamesofthosew ofthosewhopassthe hopassthecivilserviceexaminations, civilserviceexaminations, asinbarexaminationsandlicensureexaminationsforvariousprofessions,arereleasedtothe public.Hence,there asinbarexaminationsandlicensureexaminationsforvariousprofessions,arereleasedtothe public.Hence,there isnothingsecretaboutone'scivilserviceeligibility,ifactuallypossessed.Petitioner'srequestis,therefore,neither unusualnorunreasonable.Andw unusualnorunreasonable.Andwhen,asin hen,asinthisca hen,asinthiscase,thegovernmentemployees thisca thiscase,thegovernmentemployeesconcernedclaim se,thegovernmentemployees se,thegovernmentemployeesconcernedclaim concernedclaimtobe concernedclaimtobe tobecivil tobecivil civil civilservice service eligibles, eligibles, thepublic, through through any citizen, citizen, hasa rightto verify theirprofessed theirprofessed eligibilitiesfrom eligibilitiesfrom theCivil Service Service Commission. Thecivilserviceeligibilityof Thecivilserviceeligibilityofasanitarian asanitarianbeingof beingofpublicconcern,a publicconcern,and ndintheabsenceofexpress intheabsence intheabsenceofexpress intheabsenceofexpresslimitationsunder ofexpresslimitationsunder limitationsunderthe limitationsunderthe the the lawuponaccesstotheregisterofcivilserviceeligiblesforsaidposition,theduty lawuponaccesstotheregisterofcivilserviceeligiblesforsaidposition,theduty lawuponaccesstotheregisterofci vilserviceeligiblesforsaidposition,theduty vilserviceeligiblesforsaidposition, theduty oftherespondentCommissionto oftherespondentCommissionto confirmordenythecivilserviceeligibilityofanypersonoccupyingthe confirmordenythecivilserviceeligibility ofanypersonoccupyingthepositionbecomesimperative. positionbecomesimperative. Tanovs.Socrates G.R.No.110249August21,1997 FACTS:

ThiscaseinvolvesthatoftheconstitutionalityOrdinanceNo.15-92oftheSangguniangPanglungsodofPuerto PrincesaCitybanningtheshipmentofalllivefishandlobsteroutsidePuertoPrincesaCityeffectivefor5years.To implementtheordinance,theC implementtheordinance,theCityMayor ityMayorof ityMayorofPuertoPrincesaCityiss of ofPuertoPrincesaCityissuedOfficeOr PuertoPrincesaCityissued PuertoPrincesaCityissuedOfficeOrder uedOfficeOrderNo. OfficeOrderNo.23orderinginspections derNo. No.23orderinginspectionson 23orderinginspectionson on cargoescontaininglivefishandlobster cargoescontaininglive fishandlobsterbeingshippedoutfro beingshippedoutfromairand mairandsea.Likewisean sea.Likewiseanordinance(OrdinanceNo. ordinance(OrdinanceNo.2, 2, seriesof1993)andresolution(ResolutionNo.3)wereenactedbytheSangguniangPanlalawiganoftheProvincial GovernmentofPalawanprohibitingthe GovernmentofPalawanprohibitingthecatching,gathering,possessing,buying, catching,gathering,possessing,buying,sellingand sellingandshipmentoflivemarine shipmentoflivemarine shipmentoflivemarine coraldwellingaquaticorganismsforaperiodof5years. Petitionerschallengedtheofficeorderandordinanceonthegroundthatitdeprivedthemofdueprocessoflaw, theirlivelihood,andunduly theirlivelihood,andundulyrestrictedthem restrictedthemfrom restrictedthemfromthepracticeof fromthepracticeoftheir fromthepracticeoftheirtrade.Theyaverredthattherewereviolations theirtrade.They trade.Theyaverredthattherewereviolations ofSec.2Art.XIIandSec.2and7ofArt.XIIIoftheConstitution. ofSec.2Art.XIIandSec.2and7 ofArt.XIIIoftheConstitution. Whetherornotthesaidordinancesando Whetherornotthesaidordinancesando ando fficeorderareinviolation fficeorderareinviolationoftherightsofthepetitioners einviolationof oftherightsofthepetitioners oftherightsofthepetitioners ISSUE: Whetherornotthesaidordinances TheCourtdismissedthepetitionstatingthatthechallengedordinancesdonotsufferanyinfirmity, bothunder HELD: TheCourtdismissedthepetitionstatingthatthechallengedordinancesdonotsufferanyinfirmity,bothunder theConstitutionandapplicablelaws, theConstitutionandapplicablelaws,includingtheLocal includingtheLocalGovernmentCode. GovernmentCode.Thereis Thereisalsono Thereisalsonoshowingthatany alsono alsonoshowingthatanyofthe showingthatanyofthe ofthe petitionersqualifiesasasubsistenceormarginalfisherman.



–

TherecanbenodoubtastothevalidityoftheordinancesforthereasonthattheLocalGovernmentCodevests municipalitieswiththepowertograntfisheryprivilegesinmunicipalwatersandimposerentals,feesorcharges therefor.TheSangguniansaredirecte therefor.TheSangguniansaredirectedtoenactordinancesthatpro dtoenactordinancesthatprotecttheenvironmen tecttheenvironmentandimposeappropr tandimposeappropriate iate penaltiesforactswhichendangertheenvironmentsuchasdynamitefishingandotherformsofd penaltiesforactswhichendangertheenvironmentsuchas dynamitefishingand dynamitefishingandotherfo otherformsof rmsofd d estructivefishing. estructive estructivefishing. fishing. ThesaidordinancesalsofindsupportunderR.A.7611,otherwiseknownastheStrategicEnvironmentPlan(SEP)for PalawanActwhichadoptsacomprehensiveframeworkforthesustainabledevelopmentofPalawancompatiblewith protectingandenhancingthenaturalresourcesandendangeredenvironmentoftheprovince. MANIL MANILA A PRINCE PRINCE HOTEL HOTEL vs. GOVER GOVERNME NMENT NT SERVIC SERVICE E INSURA INSURANCE NCE SYSTEM SYSTEM, , MANIL MANILA A HOTEL HOTEL CORPO CORPORAT RATION ION,, COMMITTEEONPRIVATIZATIONandOFFICEOFTHEGOVERNMENTCORPORATECOUNSEL

[G.R.No.122156.February3,1997] BELLOSILLO,J. Facts:

RespondentGovernmentServiceInsurance RespondentGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS),pursuanttotheprivatizationprogramofthePhilippine System(GSIS),pursuanttotheprivatizationprogramofthePhilippine GovernmentunderProclamationNo.50dated8December1986,decidedtosellthroughpublicbidding30%to51% GovernmentunderProclamationNo.50dated8December1986,decidedto sellthroughpublicbidding30%to51% oftheissuedandoutstandingsharesofrespondentManilaHotelCorporation. oftheissuedandoutstandingsharesofrespondentManilaHotel Corporation. Inaclosebiddinghe Inaclosebiddingheldon18Se ldon18September1995 ptember1995onlytwo(2) onlytwo(2)biddersp biddersparticipated: articipated: 1) 1) petitioner petitioner ManilaPrinceHotelCorporation,aFilipinocorporation,whichofferedtobuy51%oftheMHCor 15,300,000sharesatP41.58pershare,and 2) RenongBerhad,aMalaysianfirm,withITT-Sh ,aMalaysianfirm,withITT-Sheratonasitshoteloperator,which ,aMalaysianfirm,withITT-Sheratonasitshote loperator,whichbidforthesame bidforthesamenumber number ofsharesatP44.00pershare,orP2.42morethanthebidofpetitioner. Pending Pending the declaratio declaration n of Renong Renong Berhard Berhard as thewinning bidder/s bidder/strate trategic gic partner partner and theexecution theexecution of the necessary necessary contracts, contracts, petitione petitioner r ina letterto letterto responde respondentGSISdated28 ntGSISdated28 Septembe September1995 r1995 matchedthe matchedthe bidprice ofP44.00persharetenderedbyRenongBerhad.Inasubsequentletterdated10October1995petitionersenta managerscheckissuedbyPhiltrustBankforThirty-threeMillionPesos(P33,000,000.00)asBidSecuritytomatchthe bidoftheMalaysianGroup,Messrs.RenongBerhadxxx bidoftheMalaysian Group,Messrs.RenongBerhadxxxxwhichrespondentGSISrefusedtoaccept.On xwhichrespondentGSISrefusedtoaccept.On17October 17October 1995petitionercametothisCourtonprohibitionandmandamus.On18October1995theCourtissueda 1995petitionercametothisCourtonprohibitionandmandamus.On18 October1995theCourtissuedatemporary temporary restrainingorderenjoiningrespondentsfromperfectingandconsummatingthesaletotheMalaysianfirm. Petitioner’scontentionsand Petitioner’scontentionsandrespondent’s respondent’saversionsare respondent’saversionsarethefollowing: aversionsare aversionsarethefollowing: thefollowing: 1) InSec. InSec.10,secondpar.,Art.XII,ofthe1987ConstitutionandsubmitsthattheManilaHotelhasbeen 10, second second par.,Art. par.,Art. XII,of XII,of the 1987Cons 1987Constit tituti utionand onand submit submitsthatthe sthatthe Manila Manila Hotel Hotel has been been identifie identifiedwiththeFilipin dwiththeFilipinonationandhaspract onationandhaspracticallybeco icallybecomea mea historicalmonu historicalmonument mentwhichreflect whichreflectsthe sthe vibrancyofPhilippineheritageandculture.ItisaproudlegacyofanearliergenerationofFilipinoswho believedinthe believedinthe nobilityandsacredn nobilityandsacrednessofindepe essofindependen ndenceandits ceandits powerandcapacitytoreleasethefull powerandcapacitytoreleasethefull potentialoftheFilipinopeople.Toallintentsandpurposes,ithasbecomea potentialoftheFilipinopeople.Toall intentsandpurposes,ithasbecomeapartofthenational partofthenationalpatrimony. patrimony. RespondentssaidthatSec.10,secondpar.,Art.XII,ofthe1987Constitutionismerelyastatementof principleandpolicysin principleandpolicysinceitis principleandpolicysinceitisnot ceitisnotaself-executingp notaself-executingprovisionand aself-executingprovisionandrequiresimplementinglegislation(s). rovisionandrequires requiresimplementin implementinglegislation( glegislation(s). s). 2) Petitioneralsoargu Petitioner Petitioneralsoarguesthatsince51%ofthesharesoftheMHCcarrieswithittheownershipofthebusiness alsoarguesthat esthatsince51% since51%ofthe oftheshares sharesof oftheMH theMHC C carrieswithittheownershipofthebusiness ofthehotelwhichisownedbyrespondentGSIS,agovernment-ownedandcontrolledcorporation,the hotelbusines hotelbusinessof sof responde respondentGSISbeinga ntGSISbeinga partofthetourism industryisunques industryisunquestiona tionablya blya part ofthe nationaleconomy.Thus,anytransactioninvolving51%ofthesharesofstockoftheMHCi nationaleconomy.Thus,anytransactioninvolving51%ofthe sharesofstockof sharesofstockoftheMHC theMHCii sclearlycovered sclearlycove sclearlycovered red by the term term nation national al econo economy, my, to which which Sec. Sec. 10, secon second d par., par., Art. Art. XII, XII, 1987 1987 Consti Constitut tution ion, , applie applies. s. Respond Respondents ents contend contend that granting granting that the Manila Manila Hotel Hotel forms forms part of the national national patrimony patrimony, , the constitutionalprovisioninvoked constitutionalprovisioninvokedisstillinapplicable isstillinapplicablesincewhat isstillinapplicablesincewhatisbeingsoldiso sincewhat sincewhatisbeingsoldisonly51 isbeingsoldisonly51%oftheoutstanding nly51 %oftheoutstanding sharesofthecorporation,notthehotelbuildingnorthelanduponwhichthebuildingstands.Certainly, 51%oftheequityoftheMHCcannotbeconsideredpartofthenationalpatrimony.Moreover,ifthe dispos dispositio ition n of the shares shares of the MHC is really really contra contrary ry to the Consti Constitut tution ion, , petit petition ioner er should should have have questioneditrightfromthebeginningandnotafterithadlostinthebidding. questioneditrightfromthebeginningandnotafterit hadlostinthebidding.


Issues: WON WON the the selli selling ng of 51 51% % of the the issu issued ed and and outs outsta tandi nding ng shar shares es of resp respon onde dent nt Manil Manila a Hote Hotel l Corp Corpor orat atio ion n is unconstitutional? Held:Yes. First,Sec.10,secondpar.,Art.XIIofthe1987Constitutionisamandatory,positivecommandwhichiscompletein itselfandwhichneedsnofurtherguidelinesorimplementinglawsorrules itselfandwhichneedsnofurther guidelinesorimplementinglawsorrulesforitsenforcement.It foritsenforcement.Itispersejudicially ispersejudicially enforceable. enforceable.When When ourConstitution ourConstitution mandatesthat[i]n mandatesthat[i]n thegrantof rights,privileges,andconcessio rights,privileges,andconcessionscovering nscovering nationaleconomyandpatrimony, theStateshallgivepreferencetoqualified theStateshallgivepreferencetoqualifiedFilipinos,itmeansjustthat- Filipinos,itmeansjustthat-qualified qualified Filipinosshallbepreferred.AndwhenourConstitutiondeclarest .AndwhenourConstitutiondeclaresthatarighte hatarightexistsincertain xistsincertainspecifiedcircumstances specifiedcircumstances anactionmaybemaintainedtoenforcesuchrightnotwithstandingtheabsenceofanylegislationonthesubject; consequently,ifthereisnostatute consequently,ifthere consequently,ifthereisnostatuteespecially isnostatuteespecially especiallyenactedtoenforcesuchconstitutionalright, enactedtoenforcesuchconstitutionalright,suchrightenforces suchrightenforcesitself itself byitsowninherentpotencyandpuissance, byitsowninherentpotencyandpuissance,andfromwhich andfromwhichalllegislationsmust alllegislationsmusttaketheirbearings.S taketheirbearings.Second,51%of econd,51%of theMHCcannotbedisassociatedfromthehotelandthelandonwhichthehoteledificestands.Thetermqualified theMHCcannotbedisassociatedfromthehoteland thelandonwhichthehoteledificestands.Thetermqualified FilipinosasusedinourConstitutionalsoincludescorpor Filipinosasusedinour Constitutionalsoincludescorporationsatleast60%o ationsatleast60%ofwhichisownedbyF fwhichisownedbyFilipinos. ilipinos.

RespondentsaredirectedtoCEASEandDESISTfromselling51%ofthesharesoftheManilaHotelCorporationto RENONGBERHAD,and RENONGBERHAD,andtoACCEPT RENONGBERHAD,andtoACCEPTthematchingbidofpetitionerMANILAPRINCEHOTELC toACCEPTthem thematchingbidof atchingbidofpetitionerMANILA petitionerMANILAPRINCEHOTE PRINCEHOTELC LC ORPORATIONtopurchase ORPORATIONtopurchase thesubject51%ofthesharesoftheManilaHotelCorporationatP44.00pershareandthereaftertoexecutethe necessaryagreementsanddocuments necessaryagreements anddocumentstoeffect toeffectthesale, thesale,toissue toissuethenecessaryclearances thenecessaryclearancesandto thenecessaryclearancesandtodosuchother andtodosuchotheracts andtodosuchotheracts acts anddeedsasmaybenecessaryforthepurpose. REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,representedbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR), petitioner vs. PAGADIANCITYTIMBERCO.,INC.,respondent G.R.No.159308.September16,2008 Ponente:Nachura,J. DOCTRINE EnvironmentalLaw;AllFilipinocitizens EnvironmentalLaw;AllFilipinocitizensareentitled, areentitled,by areentitled,byright,toaba byright,toabalancedand byright,toabalancedandhealthfulecology,whichrightcarries lancedandhealthfulecology, healthfulecology,whichright whichrightcarries carries withitthecorrelativedutytorefrainfromimpairingtheenvironment,particularlyourdiminishingforestresources withitthecorrelativedutytorefrainfromimpairing theenvironment,particularlyourdiminishingforestresources — privaterightsmustyieldwhentheycom privaterightsmustyieldwhentheycomeinconflic privaterightsmustyieldwhentheycomeinconflic einconflictwiththispublicpolicy twiththispublicpolicyan twiththispublicpolicy andcommoninter andcommoninterest dcommoninterest est FACTS OnOctober OnOcto OnOctobe October ber r 14, 14, 199 1994, 1994, 4, petiti petitione oner,throu r,through gh the DENR,and DENR,and respon responden dent t Pagadi Pagadian an City City TimberCo., TimberCo., Inc. Inc. executed execut executed ed IndustrialForestManagementAgreement(IFMA)No.R-9-040wherebypetitioner,representedbythenRegional Executive Executive Director Director (RED) for Region Region IX, Leonito Leonito C. Umali, authorized authorized respondent, respondent, represented represented by its President President Filomena Filomena SanJuan, to develop, develop, utilize, utilize, and manage a specified specified forest forest areacovering1,999.14hectareslocated in Barangays Langapod,Cogonan,andDa Langapod,Cogonan,andDa Da tagan,MunicipalityofLabangan, tagan,MunicipalityofLabangan,ZamboangadelS ZamboangadelSur,for ur,fortheproduction theproductionof of BarangaysLangapod,Cogonan,andDa Barangays Langapod,Cogonan,and timberandotherforestproducts timberandotherforestproductssubjecttoa timberandotherforestproductssubjecttoaproduction-sharingscheme. subjecttoaproduction-sharingscheme.

RespondentlatersubmittedtherequiredComprehensiveDevelopmentandManagementPlan(CDMP)whichthe DENRapprovedonAugust17,1995. OnOctober8,1998,inresponsetothenumerouscomplaintsfiledbymembersoftheSubanentriberegarding respondents respondentsallegedfailuretoimplem allegedfailuretoimplementtheCDMP,disre enttheCDMP,disrespectoftheirright spectoftheirrightsasan sasan indigenouspeople,andthe indigenouspeople,andthe constantthreatsandharassmentbyarmedmenemployedbyrespo constantthreatsandharassm entbyarmedmenemployedbyrespondent,REDAntonioMendoza, ndent,REDAntonioMendoza,D DENRRegionIX, ENRRegionIX, issuedRegionalSpecialOrderNo.217creatingaregionalteamto issuedRegionalSpecialOrderNo. 217creatingaregionalteamtoevaluateandassessIFMAN evaluateandassessIFMANo.R-9-040. o.R-9-040. ISSUE

WONIFMANo.R9-040is WONIFMANo.R9-040isacontract acontractandnota andnotamereprivilegegrantedby mereprivilegegrantedbytheStateto theStatetorespondent.(NO,I respondent.(NO,IFMANo.R FMANo.R99040isaprivilegegrantedbytheState.)



–

RULING IFMANo.R-9-040isalicenseagreementunderPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.705(RevisedForestryCode),thelaw whichistheverybasisforitsexistence.UnderSection3,paragraph(dd)thereof,alicenseagreementisdefinedas a privilege grante grantedby dby the Statetoa Statetoa person person toutilizefor toutilizeforest est resour resources ces withinanyfore withinanyforestland stland withthe withthe rightof rightof possessionandoccupationthereoftotheexclusionofothers,exceptthegovernment,butwiththecorresponding obligationtodevelop,protectandrehabilitatethesameinaccordancewiththetermsandconditionssetforthin saidagreement. AnIFMAhasforitsprecursortheTimberLicenseAgreement(TLA),oneofthetenurialinstrumentsissuedbythe Statetoitsgranteesfortheefficientmanagementofthecountry’sdwindlingforestresources.Jurisprudencehas beenconsistentinholdingthatlicenseagreements beenconsistentinholdingthatlicenseagreementsarenotco arenotcontractswithinthe ntractswithinthepurviewof purviewofthedueprocessandthe thedueprocessandthe thedueprocessandthe non-impairm non-impairment ent of contra con contracts contr tracts acts cts clause cla clauses uses s enshrin ensh enshrined rined ed in the the Constitutio Const Consti Constitut itution.Ou tution ion. n.Our .Ourr pronouncemen pronou prono pro nouncem uncement ncement ent t in Alva Al Alvarez varez rez v. PICOP PICOP Resources,Inc.isenlightening Inunequivocalterms,wehaveconsistentlyheldthat suchlicensesconcerningtheharvestingof timberinthe timberinthecountry’sforestscannotbeconsideredcontractsthatwouldbindthe country’sforestscannotbeconsideredcontractsthatwouldbindtheGovernment Government regardlessofchangesinpo regardlessofchangesinpolicyandthed licyandthedemandsofp emandsofpublicinteres ublicinterestandwelfare tandwelfare .(citing Oposav. Factoran, Factoran Factoran, , Jr., G.R. G.R. No. 101 101083 083, , July July 30, 199 1993,224 3,224 SCRA SCRA 792 792, , 811 811) ) Such Such unswer unswerving ving verdic verdict t is synthesizedin Oposav.Factoran,Jr., (id.,atpp.811,812)whereweheld: (id.,atpp.811,812)whereweheld: Inthefirstplace,therespond Inthefirstplace,therespondentSecret entSecretarydidnot, arydidnot,forobvious forobviousreasons reasons,even ,even invokeinhismotionto invokeinhismotiontodismiss dismissthenon-impairment thenon-impairmentclause.If clause.Ifhe hehaddoneso,he hehaddoneso haddoneso,he ,he wouldhaveactedwithutmostinfidelitytotheGovernmentbyprovidingundue wouldhaveactedwithutmostinfidelitytotheGovernmentby providingundue andunwarrantedbenefitsand andunwarrantedbenefitsandadvantagesto advantagestothetimber thetimberlicenseholders licenseholdersbecause because he would would have foreve forever r bound bound the Govern Governmen ment t to strict strictly ly respec respect t the said said licensesaccordingtotheirtermsandconditionsregardlessofchangesinpolicy andthedemandsofpublicinterestandwelfare.Hewasawarethata andthedemandsofpublicinterestandwelfare. Hewasawarethatascorrectly scorrectly pointedoutbypetitioners,intoeverytimberlicensemustbereadSection20of theForestryReformCode(P.D.No.705)whichprovides: xxxProvided,thatwhen xx xxxProvided, xProvided,thatwhenthenationalinterest thatwhenthenationalinterest thatwhenthenationalinterestso sorequires,the requires,the Presidentmayamend,modify,replaceorrescindanycontract, conces concessio sion, n, permit permit, , license licenses s or any other other form form of privile privilege ge grantedhereinxxx. Needlesstosay,alllicens Needlesstosay,alllicensesmaythusberevoke esmaythusberevokedorrescind dorrescindedbyexecut edbyexecutive ive action.Itisnotacontract,propertyorapropertyrightprotectedbythedue processclauseoftheconstitution .In Tanvs.DirectorofForestry, Tanvs.DirectorofForestry,[125SCRA302, [125SCRA302, [125SCRA302, 325(1983)]thisCourtheld: x x x A timber timber licens license e isan instrum instrument ent bywhichthe State State regulatestheutilizationanddispositionofforestresourcesto theendthatpublicwelfareispromoted.Atimberlicenseisnot theendthatpublicwelfareispromoted. Atimberlicenseisnot acontractwithinthepurvi acontractwithinthepurviewofthedueproces ewofthedueprocessclause;itis sclause;itis only only a licens license e orprivilege orprivilege, , whichcan whichcan be validly validly withdr withdrawn awn wheneverdictatedbypublicinterestorpublicwelfareasin thiscase. Alicenseismerelyapermitorprivilegetodowhatotherwise woul would d be unla unlaw wful, ful, and and is not not a cont contra ract ct betw betwee een n the the author authority ity, , federa federal, l, state, state, or municip municipal, al, granti granting ng it and the pers person on to whom whom it is gran grante ted; d; neit neither her is it prop proper erty ty or a CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

prop proper erty ty righ right, t, nor nor does does it crea create te a vest vested ed right right; ; nor nor is it taxation(37C.J.168).Thus,thisCourtheldthatthegrantingof taxation(37C.J.168). Thus,thisCourtheldthatthegrantingof licensedoesnotcreateirrevocablerights,neitherisitproperty licensedoesnotcreateirrevocablerights,neitherisit property orpropertyrights.(Peoplevs.OngTin, orpropertyrights.(Peoplevs.OngTin,54O.G.7576).xxx Peoplevs.OngTin,54O.G.7576).xxx Wereiteratedthispronouncementin FelipeYsmael,Jr.&Co.,Inc.vs.Deputy ExecutiveSecretary [190SCRA673,684(1990): ExecutiveSecretary [190SCRA673,684(1990): xxxTimberlicenses,permitsandlicenseagreementsarethe prin princi cipa pal l inst instru rume ment nts s by whic which h the the Stat State e regu regula late tes s the the utilizationanddispositionofforestresourcestotheendthat publicwelfareispromoted.Anditcanhardlybegainsaidthat they they mere merely ly evide evidenc nce e a priv privile ilege ge gran grante ted d by the the Stat State e to qualifiedentities,anddonotvestinthelatterapermanentor qualifiedentities,anddonotvestin thelatterapermanentor irrevo irrevocab cable le right right to the partic particular ular conces concessio sion n area area andthe fore fo forest forrest est st prod pr product pro oduc ducts ucts tss ther th therein.They erein ein. .They They m may ma ay y be be validl val vali validl idly dly y amended, amended amended,, modified,replac modified,replacedorrescind edorrescindedbytheChiefExecut edbytheChiefExecutivewhen ivewhen nation nat national natio ional nal al interes inte interests rests ts so requir require.Th uire. e.Thus, e.Thus Thus, us,, they th they the ey y are are not not deemed deem deemed ed contractswithinthepurviewofthedueprocessoflawclause. [See [See Sect Sectio ions ns 3(ee 3(ee) ) and and 20 of Pres Pres. . Decr Decree ee No. No. 70 705, 5, as amended.Also, Tan v. Direc G.R G.R. No. No No. . LL-irecto torr of Fore Forest strry, G.R. 24548,October27,1983,125SCRA302]. Sincetimberlicensesarenotcontracts,thenon-impairmentclause,whichreads: Sincetimberlicensesarenotcontracts,the non-impairmentclause,whichreads: SEC.10.Nolawimpairing,theobligationofcontractsshallbe passed. cannotbeinvoked. TheCourtagreeswiththeOfficeoftheSo TheCourtagreeswitht TheCourtagreeswiththeOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralthat heOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralthattheallege licitorGeneralthattheallege theallegedpropertyrightsthatmayhavearisenfrom dpropertyrightsthatmayhavearisenfrom dpropertyrightsthatm ayhavearisenfrom itarenotabsolute. AllFilipinocitizensareentitled,byright,toabalancedandhealthfulecologyasdeclaredunderSection16,ArticleII AllFilipinocitizensareentitled,byright,toabalancedandhealthfulecologyas declaredunderSection16,ArticleII of the Constitutio Constitution.This itution. n.This n.This This right right carrie car carries carri ries es s with with it the correl correlati ative ve duty duty torefrain torefra to refrai refrain in n from from impair imp impairing airing ing the the environ envi environment, enviro ronmen nment, ment, t, particularlyourdiminishingforestresources.ToupholdandprotectthisrightisanexpresspolicyoftheState.The DENRis DENRis theinstrumentalit theinstrumentalityof yof theStatemandatedtoactualizethispolicy.Itisthe theStatemandatedtoactualizethispolicy.Itisthe primarygovernmen primarygovernmentagency tagency responsible responsiblefor for theconservation, theconservation,management, management,developme developmentandproperuseofthe ntandproperuseofthe country’senviro country’senvironment nmentand and naturalresources,includingthosein naturalresources,includingthoseinreservationand reservationandwatershedareas, watershedareas,andlandso andlandsofthe fthepublicdomain, publicdomain,aswell aswellasthe asthe licensingandregulationofallnaturalresourcesasmaybeprovidedforbylawinordertoensureequitablesharing ofthebenefitsderivedtherefromfor ofthebenefitsderivedtherefromforthewelfare thewelfareof of thepresentandfuturegenerationsofFilipinos. ofthepresentandfutur thepresentandfuturegenerationsof egenerationsofFilipinos. Filipinos. Thus,privaterightsmustyieldwhentheycomeinconflictwiththispublicpolicyandcommoninterest.Theymust givewaytothepoliceor givewaytothepoliceorregulatorypowero regulatorypoweroftheState, ftheState,inth inth iscasethroughtheDENR, iscasethroughtheDENR,toensurethat toensurethatthetermsand thetermsand conditionsofexistinglaws,rules conditionsofexistinglaws,rulesandregulations,andtheIFMAitselfares existinglaws,rulesandregulations,and andregulations,and andregulations,andtheIFMAitselfarestrictlyand theIFMAitselfarestrictlyandfaithfullycompliedwith. trictlyandfaithfullycompliedwith.

HON.HEHERSONT.ALVAREZv.PICOPRESOURCES,INC. G.R.No.162243,December3,2009 DOCTRINE/LAWAPPLICABLE: Section2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution.


FACTS:

PICOPfiledwiththeDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)anapplicationtohaveitsTimber LicenseAgreement(TLA)No. LicenseAgreement(TLA)No.43converted 43convertedintoan 43convertedintoanIntegratedForestManagement intoan intoanIntegratedForestManagementAgreement(IFMA). IntegratedForestManagementAgreement(I IntegratedForestManagementAgreement(IFMA).In Agreement(IFMA).Inthe FMA).Inthemiddle Inthemiddle themiddle middle dtoattendfurthermeetingswiththeDENR.Instead, DENR.Instead, oftheprocessingofPICOP’sapplication,however,PICOPrefuse oftheprocessingof PICOP’sapplication,however,PICOPrefuse dtoattendfurthermeetingswiththe on2September2002,PICO on2September2002,PICOPfiledbefor PfiledbeforetheRegional etheRegionalTrialCourt TrialCourt(RTC)ofQuez (RTC)ofQuezonCityaPetitio onCityaPetitionforMandam nforMandamus us againstthenDENRSecreta againstthenDENRSecretaryHeherso ryHehersonT.Alvarez.PICOP nT.Alvarez.PICOPseekstheissuanceofaprivilegedwrit seekstheissuanceofaprivilegedwritofmandamusto ofmandamusto compeltheDENRSecretarytosign,executeanddeliveran compeltheDENRSecretar ytosign,executeanddeliveranIFMAtoPICOP. IFMAtoPICOP. PICOPis,thus,insistingthatthegovernmentisobligatedbycontracttoissueanIFMAinitsfavorbecauseofthe 1969Document.(PresidentailWarranty).Aco 1969Document.(Presidentail 1969Document.(PresidentailWarranty).Acontract, Warranty).Acontract,be ntract,be beingthelawbetweentheparties,can beingthelawbetween ingthelawbetweentheparties,can ingthelawbetweentheparties,canindeed,withrespectto theparties,canindeed,withrespectto indeed,withrespectto theStatewhenitisapartytosuchcontract,qualifyas theStatewhenitis apartytosuchcontract,qualifyasalawspecificallyenjoiningtheperformanceofan alawspecificallyenjoiningtheperformanceofanact.PICOP’s act.PICOP’s claimthatthewarrantyisnotlimitedtofifty claimthatthewarrantyis notlimitedtofiftyyears,butthatextendst years,butthatextendstootherfiftyyears. ootherfiftyyears. RTCrendereddecisioninfavorofPICOP.DENRSecretaryfiledMotionforconsideration,butRTCdenied.DENR SecretarythenfiledaNoticeofAppealandCAaffirmeddecisionoftheRTC,withmodificationthatthepaymentof P10MasdamagestoPICOPbedeleted.PICOPfiledmotionforreconsiderationwhichwasdeniedbyCA.Fromthe petitionforreviewsubmittedbyPICOP,Courtrevers petitionforreviewsubmitted byPICOP,Courtreversedandsetasidethedecisionof edandsetasidethedecisionofCAwithregardthegrantingof CAwithregardthegrantingof PetitionforMandamusfiledbyPICOP. ISSUE:

WhetherornotSecofDENRisenjoinedby WhetherornotSecofDENRisenjoinedbylawtoissueandIFM lawtoissueandIFMAinfavorofP AinfavorofPICOP ICOP

RULING:

No.PICOP’sinterpretationof No.PICOP’sinterpretationofthe1969Docume the1969Document the1969Documentcannotbesustained. nt ntcannotbesustained.PICOP’sclaimthat cannotbesustained.PICOP’s cannotbesustained.PICOP’sclaimthatthetermofth PICOP’sclaimthat claimthatthetermofthe thetermofthewarranty ewarranty isnotlimitedtofiftyyears,butthatitextendstootherfiftyyears,perpetually,violatesSection2,ArticleXIIofthe Constitutionwhichprovides: Alllandsofthepublicdomain,waters,minerals,coal, Alllandsofthepublicdomain,waters,minerals,coal,petroleum,andother Alllandsofthepublicdomain, waters,minerals,coal,petroleum,and waters,minerals,coal,petroleum,andothermineral petroleum,andothermineral othermineral mineral oils,all oils,all forcesofpotentialenergy,fishe forcesofpotentialenergy,fisheries,fore ries,forestsortimber,wildlif stsortimber,wildlife,floraandfauna,and e,floraandfauna,and othernaturalreso othernaturalresourcesareown urcesareownedbytheState.With edbytheState.Withtheexception theexceptionofagricultu ofagriculturallands, rallands,all all othernaturalresourcesshallnotbealienated.Theexploration,development,andutilizationof naturalresourc naturalresourcesshallbeunderthefullcon esshallbeunderthefullcontrolandsupe trolandsupervisio rvisionoftheState.The noftheState.TheStatemay Statemay direc directl tly y under underta take ke such such acti activi viti ties es, , or it may may ente enter r into into co-p co-pro rodu duct ctio ion, n, join joint t ventu venture re, , or production-sharingagreementswithFilipinocitizens,orcorporationsorassociationsatleast sixtypercentumofwhosecapitalisownedbysuchcitizens.Suchagreementsmaybefora periodnotexceedingtwenty-fiveyears,renewablefornotmorethantwenty-fiveyears,and under under such such termsand termsand condit condition ions s asmay beprovidedby beprovidedby law. law. Incases ofwater rights rights for irriga irrigatio tion,water n,water supply supply fisher fisheries ies, , orindustria orindustrial l uses uses other other than than thedevelopmen thedevelopment t ofwater power,beneficialusemaybethemeasureandlimitofthegrant.

Section2.

Whatonecannotdodirectly,hecannotdoindirectly.Forestlandscannotbealienatedinfavorofprivateentities. Grantingtoprivateentities, Grantingtoprivateentities,via via acontract,a acontract,a permanent,irrevo permanent,irrevocable,andexclusiv cable,andexclusivepossessio epossessionof nof andrightover forestlandsistantamount forestlandsistantamounttogranting tograntingownershipthereof. ownershipthereof.PICOP,it PICOP,itshouldbenot shouldbenoted,claims ed,claimsnothingless nothinglessthanhaving thanhaving exclusive,continuousanduninterruptedpossessiono exclusive,continuousand uninterruptedpossessionofitsconcessio fitsconcessionareas,where nareas,whereallotherentrants allotherentrantsareillegal,a areillegal,and nd whereso-called"illegalsettlersandsquatters"areapprehended. IFMAsarepro IFMAsareproduction-sharingagreements IFMAsareproduction-sharingagreementsconcerningthedevelopmentandutilizationof duction-sharingagreementsconcerningthe concerningthedevelopmentand developmentandutilizationof utilizationof naturalresources.Assuch, naturalresources.As naturalresources.Assuch, such, theseagreements"maybeforaperiodnotexceedingtwenty-fiveyears,renewablefornotmorethantwenty-five years,andundersuch years,andundersuchtermsandconditionsasmay years,andundersuchtermsand termsandconditionsasmaybeprovidedby conditionsasmaybe conditionsasmaybeprovidedbylaw."Anysuperior beprovidedbyla providedbylaw."Anysuperior"contract" law."Anysuperior"contract" w."Anysuperior"contract"requiringthe "contract"requiringtheState requiringtheState requiringtheState State toissueTLAsandIFMAswhenevertheyexpireclearlycircumventsSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution,which providesfortheonlypermissibleschemeswhereinthefullcontrolandsupervisionoftheStatearenotderogated: co-production, co-produ ction,joint co-production,jointventure,orproduction-sharingagreementswithinthetimelimitoftwenty-fivey jointventu venture,or re,orproduc production-sh tion-sharingagree aringagreementswithin mentswithinthe thetimelimitoftwenty-five timelimitoftwenty-fivey years,renewa ears,renewable ears,renewable ble foranothertwenty-fiveyears.


Allprojectsrelatingtotheexploration,developmentandutilizationofnaturalresourcesareprojectsoftheState. WhiletheStatemayenterintoco-production,jointventure,orproduction-sharingagreementswithFilipinocitizens, WhiletheStatemay enterintoco-production,jointventure,orproduction-sharingagreementswithFilipinocitizens, orcorporationsorassociationsat orcorporationsorassociationsatleastsixtypercentumof leastsixtypercentumofwhosecapitalisowned whosecapitalisownedbythesecitizens,suchasPICOP bythesecitizens,suchasPICOP,, theprojectsneverthelessremainasStateprojectsandcanneverbepurelyprivateendeavors.PICOPisindeed neithera neithera nationalagencynoragovernmen nationalagencynoragovernment-ow t-ownedorcontrol nedorcontrolledcorpor ledcorporation ation.TheDENR,however .TheDENR,however,isa ,isa national national agencyandisthenationalagencyprohibitedbySection27fromiss agencyandisthenationalagencyprohibitedby Section27fromissuinganIFMAwithouttheprior uinganIFMAwithoutthepriorapprovalofthe approvalofthe Sanggunianconcerned.Aspreviouslydiscussed,PICOP’sPetitionforMandamuscan onlybegrantediftheDENR SecretaryisrequiredbylawtoissueanIFMA.We,however,seeheretheexactopposite:theDENRSecretarywas actuallyprohibitedbylawfromissuinganIFMA,asthere actuallyprohibitedbylawfrom issuinganIFMA,astherehadbeennopriorapprovalby hadbeennopriorapprovalbyalltheotherSanggunians alltheotherSanggunians concerned. ThomasCheesmanvs.IACandEstelitaPadilla G.R.No.74833January21,1991 Facts:

Thomas Thomas Cheesm Cheesmanmarri anmarriedhis edhis wife(C wife(Cris riselda elda) ) who isa Filipin Filipino o Citizen Citizen onDecember4, onDecember4, 197 1970.His 0.His wife wife acquiredalandthrougha“DeedofSaleandTransferofPossessoryRights”executedbycertainArmandoAltares datedJune4,1974.Theland datedJune4,1974.Thelandwasexclusive datedJune4,1974.Thelandwas wasexclusive exclusivelymanagedbyhiswifewithhis exclusivelymanagedbyhis lymanagedbyhiswifewithhis lymanagedbyhiswifewithhisknowledgeandwithout knowledgeandwithoutanyprotestfr anyprotestfrom om him.Taxdeclarationsforthepropertywereissuedinthenameofhiswifeonly.OnFebruary15,1981,heandCriselda separated.OnJulyofthesam separated.OnJulyofthesameyearalso,Cris eyearalso,Criseldasold eldasoldthesaidlandtoEstelit thesaidlandtoEstelitaPadillawith aPadillawithouttheknow outtheknowledgeof ledgeof ThomasCheesman.Thomasbroughtsuittoannulthesale.Hecontendsthatthepropertywasacquiredduringthe existenceoftheirmarriage,andthatsaidpropertybelongstotheconjugalpartnership.TheTrialCourtrul existenceoftheirmarriage,andthat saidpropertybelongsto saidpropertybelongstotheconjugal theconjugalpartnership.The partnership.TheTrialCourt TrialCourtrul ruledinfavor edinfavor edinfavor ofCriselda,andthatArticle160oftheCivilCodecouldnotbeappliedsinceheisanAmericancitizenandsuch contentionisnotinharmonywiththefundamentallawofthelandasregardstotheprohibitiontoaliensfrom acquiringorholdingresidentiallandexceptbyhereditary acquiringorholdingresidentiallandexceptbyhereditarysuccession.Itw succession.Itwa asalsoaffirmedbytheCA. salsoaffirmedby salsoaffirmedbytheCA. Issues:

WhetherornotThomasCheesman’scitizenshipisabartohisactiontorecoverthelotandhousefor conjugalpartnership? Held:

Yes,hiscitizenshipisa Yes,hiscitizenshipisabartothesaid Yes,hiscitizenshipisabar bartothesaidaction.The tothesaidaction. tothesaidaction.Thefundamental action.Thefundamentallaw Thefundamentallawprohibits fundamentallawprohibitsthe lawprohibitsthesaletoaliensof prohibitsthesale thesaletoaliensofresidential saletoaliensofresidential residential land.Section14,ArticleXIVofthe1973Constitution land.Section14,ArticleXIVofth e1973Constitution ordainsthat,"Savein ordainsthat,"Saveincasesofhereditarysuccession, "Saveincasesof casesofhereditarysuccession,noprivate casesofhereditarysuccession,noprivate noprivate landshallbetransferredor landshallbetransferredorconveyedexcept conveyedexcepttoindividuals, toindividuals,corporations,o corporations,orassociations rassociationsqualifiedto qualifiedtoacquireor acquireorhold hold landsofthepublicdomain."PetitionerThomasCheesmanwaschargedwithknowledgeofthisprohibition.Thus, assumingthatitwashisintentionthatthelotinquestionbepurchasedbyhimandhiswife,heacquirednoright whateveroverthepropertybyvirtueofthatpurchase;andinattemptingtoacquirearightorinterestinland, vicariouslyand vicariouslyandclandestinely,heknowinglyviolated clandestinely,he knowingly violatedtheConstitution;thesaleastohimwasnullandvoid.Inany theConstitution;thesaleastohimwasnullandvoid.Inany event,hehadandhasnocapacityorpersonalitytoquestionthesubsequentsaleofthesamepropertybyhiswife onthetheorythatinsodoingheismerelyexercisingtheprerogativeof onthetheorythatinso doingheismerelyexercisingtheprerogativeof doingheismerelyexercisingtheprerogative ofahusbandinrespectofconjugalproperty. ahusbandinrespectofconjugal ahusbandinrespectofco njugalproperty. Tosustainsuchatheorywouldpermitindirectcontroversio Tosustain Tosustainsucha suchatheorywouldpermitindirectcontroversionofthe theorywouldpermitindirectcontroversion theorywouldpermitindirectcontroversionoftheconstitutionalprohibition.Ifthepro nofthe oftheconstitutionalprohibition.Ifthepropertywere constitutionalprohibition.Ifthepropertywere pertywere tobedeclaredconjugal,thiswouldaccordtothealienhusbandanotinsubstantialinterestandrightoverland,as hewouldthenhaveadecisivevoteastoitstransferordispositi hewouldthenhaveadecisivevoteastoitstransfe hewouldthenhaveadecisivevoteastoitstransferordisposition.Thisisarightthat rordisposition.Thisisarightthat on.Thisisarightthat theConstitu theCon theConstitu theConstitution stitution tion tion doesnot doesnot permithimtohave.


Sanchezvs.CA G.R.L-40177February12,1976

Facts:

Respondentruralbankexecutedcertainaffidavitsofadverseclaimtocertainregisteredsugarlandsbelongingto petitionerasco-ownerorredemptioner.Saidlandswere petitionerasco-owner orredemptioner.Saidlandswerethesubjectofmortgagelo thesubjectofmortgageloans,obtainedfromrespo ans,obtainedfromrespondent ndent bank,whichhadbeenfullypaidanddischargedeitherbypaymentorredemptionafterextra-judicialforeclosure. Claimi Claiming ng that that it still still had certai certain n unsecur unsecured ed money money claims claims agains against t theregistere theregistered d owners owners, , the bank bank refuse refused d to surrenderthecertificatesoftitlewithoutanadverseclaimfirstannotatedonthecertificates.Whentheregisterof deedsrefusedtoregisterthebank'sadverseclaim,thelatteraskedtheCFIasaregistrationcourttodirectthe registerofdeedstoannotatetheadverseclaim.Thecourtgrantedthepetitionandtheordertoannotatethe adverseclaimwasimmediatelyannotatedevenbeforeitbecamefinalandexecutory.Petitionerfiledapetitionfor adverseclaimwasimmediatelyannotated adverseclaimwasimmediatelyannotatedevenbeforeitbecame evenbeforeitbecamefinalandexecutory.Petitionerfiledapetitionfor finalandexecutory.Petitionerfiledapetitionfor certiorari,buttheCourtofAppealsdismissedthesameholdingthatappeal,notcertiorari,wasthe"onlyremedy," andthattheerrorcommittedbythetrialcourt,ifatall, andthattheerrorcommittedbythetrial court,ifatall,isnotagroundforcertiorari,becausenot isnotagroundforcertiorari,becausenoteveryerroneous everyerroneous conclusionoflaworfactisabuseofdiscretion. Issues:

Whetherameremoney Whetherameremoneyclaimmaybeproperlyregistered Whetherameremoneyclaimmay claimmaybeproperlyregisteredasan beproperlyregisteredas beproperlyregisteredasanadverseclaim asanadverseclaim anadverseclaimonaTorrensCertificate adverseclaimona onaTorrensCertificateofTitle onaTorrensCertificateofTitlewithin ofTitlewithin within thepurviewoftheLandRegistrationAct? Held: Ameremoneyclaimmaynotberegister Ameremoneyclaimmaynotberegisteredasanadverseclaim edasanadverseclaimonaTorrenscerti onaTorrenscertificate ficateoftitleandajudgewho oftitleandajudgewho orderstheannotationonthecertificateoftitle orderstheannotationo nthecertificateoftitleofsuchmoneyclaimas nthecertificateoftitleofsuchmoneyclaimasanadverseclaimactswithoutanyauthority ofsuchmoneyclaimasanadverseclaimactswithoutanyauthority ofsuchmoneyclaimasanadverseclaimactswithoutanyauthority inlawandcommitsagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdictionthatcallsfortheissuanceofthe correctivewrit correctivewritofcertiorar ofcertiorari.Section i.Section110ofthe 110ofthe LandRegistratio LandRegistration(Act496)provide n(Act496)providesthatapersonorentitywho sthatapersonorentitywho wishestoregisteran wishestoregisteranadverseclaim adverseclaiminregisteredland inregisteredlandmustclaim inregisteredlandmustclaima"parto mustclaima"partorinterest mustclaima"partorinterestintheregisteredlandadverseto rinterestinther intheregisteredlandadverse egisteredlandadverseto to theregisteredowner."Thus,purelymoney theregisteredowner." Thus,purelymoneyclaimsarisingfro claimsarisingfromunsecuredpersonal munsecuredpersonalloansgrantedbyt loansgrantedbythecreditoron hecreditoron promissorynotesexecuted promissorynotesexecutedinhisfavo promissorynotesexecutedinhisfavorbytheborrowersandco-signedby inhisfavorby rbytheborrowers theborrowersandco-signed andco-signedby by theregisteredownerasco-makerarenot theregisteredowneras theregisteredownerasco-makerare co-makerarenot not registrableasadverseclaimsagainsttheco-maker'sregisteredlands.Theclaimassertedmustaffectthetitleorbe adversetothetitleoftheregisteredownerinordertobedulyannotatedasanadverseclaimtothelandagainstthe registeredowner.Respondentcourt's registeredowner.Respondentcourt'sdecisionwas decisionwassetaside decisionwassetasideandinlieuthereof setaside setasideandinlieuthereof andinlieuthereofjudgmentisrendereddeclaringnull judgmentisrendereddeclaringnull judgmentisrendered declaringnull andvoidthelowercourt's andvoidthelowercourt'sOrderfor Orderforannotationof annotationofrespondentbank'saffidavits respondentbank'saffidavitsofadverseclaims ofadverseclaimsonthec onthecertificates oftitleinquestion.

CORPUSVSGROSPE GRNO135297June8,2000 PANGANIBAN,J. FACTS:

Petiti Petitione oner r Gavino Gavino Corpuz Corpuz was a farmer farmer-be -benef neficia iciary ry under under the Operati Operation on Land Land Transf Transfer er (OLT) (OLT) Progra Program m of the DepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR).PursuanttoPresidentialDecree(PD)No.27,hewasissuedaCertificateof LandTransfer(CLT)overtwoparcelsofagriculturalland.ThelotswereformerlyownedbyacertainFlorentino ChiocoandregisteredunderTitleNo.126638. Topayforhiswifeshospitalization,petitionermor Topayfo Topayforhis rhiswifeshospitalization,petitionermortgagedthesubjectland wifeshospitalization,petitionermortgagedthes wifeshospitalization,petitio nermortgagedthesubjectlandonin tgagedthesubjectlandoninfavor ubjectlandoninfavorof oninfavorofVirginiadeL favorofVirginiadeLeon.Whenthe ofVirginiadeLeon.When VirginiadeLeon.Whenthe eon.Whenthe contractperiodexpired,heagain contractperiodexpired,heagainmortgagedit mortgagedittoRespondent toRespondentHilariaGrospe, HilariaGrospe,wifeof wifeofG G eronimoGrospe,foraperiod eronimoGrospe,for eronimoGrospe,foraperiod aperiod offour years to guarantee guarantee a loanof P32,500. P32,500. Theparties executed executed a contractdenominated contractdenominated as "KasunduanSa "KasunduanSa PagpapahiramNgLupangSakahan,"whichallowedtherespondentstouseorcultivatethelandduringtheduration ofthemortgage.



–

BeforetheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARAB)inCabanatuanCity(RegionIII),petitioner institutedagainsttherespondentsanactionforrecoveryofpossessionduetothefactthatthelatterhadentered thedisputedlandbyforceandintimidationonanddestroyedthepalaythathehadplantedontheland. Aspertherespondents,petitionerallowedtheformertotakeoverthepossessionandcultivationoftheproperty untilthelatterpaidhisloan.Insteadofpayinghisloan,petitionerallegedlyexecuteda"WaiverofRights"overthe landholdinginfavorofrespondentsin landholdinginfavorofrespondentsinconsiderationofP54,394.Petitionerdeniedthis. ofrespondentsinconsiderationof considerationof considerationofP54,394.Petitionerdeniedthis. P54,394.Petitionerdeniedthis. ISSUE:

1.WONthewaiveroflandreformrightsinfa 1.WONthewaiverof landreformrightsinfavoroftheSamahang voroftheSamahangNayonisvalid.NO Nayonisvalid.NO 2.WONtherewasvoluntarysurrender 2.WONtherewasvoluntarysurrenderonthepartofthepetitioner. wasvoluntarysurrenderonthe onthe onthepartofthepetitioner.YES partofthepetitioner.YES YES RULING:

1.NO.TheCourthasalready 1.NO.TheCourthasalreadyruledthatthesale ruledthatthesaleortransfer ortransferofrightso ofrightsoveraproperty verapropertycoveredbya coveredbyaCertificateof coveredbyaCertificateofLand CertificateofLand CertificateofLand Transferisvoidexceptwhenthealienationismadeinfavorofthegovernmentorthroughhereditarysuccession. Thisrulingisintendedtopreventareversiontotheoldfeudalsysteminwhichthelandownersreacquiredvasttracts ofland,thusnegatingthegovernment’sprogramoffreeingthetenant ofland,thusnegatingthegovernment’s usnegatingthegovernment’sprogramof usnegatingthegovernment’sprogramoffreeingthetenant programoffreeingthe freeingthetenantfromthebondage tenantfromthebondageofthe fromthebondageofthesoil. ofthesoil. 2.YES.ThenullityoftheWaiverdoesnotsavethecaseforhimbecausethereisa 2.YES.ThenullityoftheWa iverdoesnotsavethecaseforhimbecausethereis iverdoesnotsavethe caseforhimbecausethereisa a clearshowingthathevoluntarily surr surren ender dered ed his landh landhol oldin ding g to the the Sama Samaha hang ng Nayo Nayon n whic which h may may quali qualify fy as a surr surrend ender er or tran transf sfer er, , to the the government,ofhisrightsundertheagrarianlaws.AsperPD27,titletolandacquiredpursuanttothelandreform programshallnotbetransferableexceptthroughhereditarysuccessionortothegovernment,inaccordancewith theprovisionsofexistinglawsandregulations.Section8 theprovisionsofexistinglawsandregulations.Section8ofRA3844alsoprovidesthat"[t]heagriculturalleasehold theprovisionsofexistinglawsandregulations.Section8ofRA ofRA3844alsoprovidesthat"[t]heagriculturalleasehold 3844alsoprovidesthat"[t]heagriculturalleasehold relationxxxshallbeextinguished relationxxxshallbeextinguishedby:xxx by:xxx(2)[v]oluntary (2)[v]oluntarysurrenderof surrenderofthelandholdingby thelandholdingbytheagriculturallessee, theagriculturallessee,xxx." xxx." Inthiscase,petitioner’sintentiontosurrenderthelandholdingwasclearandunequivocal.Hesignedhisconcurrence totheSamahang totheSamahangNayonResolutionssurrender totheSamahangNayon NayonResolutionssurrender Resolutionssurrenderinghispossessionofthelandholding.I inghispossessiono inghispossessionofthe fthelandholding.Itwasthe landholding.Itwasthegovernment,through twasthegovernment,through government,through theDAR,whichawardedthelandholdingtotheprivaterespondentswhoweredeclaredasqualifiedbeneficiaries undertheagrarianlaws.Voluntarysurrender,asamodeofextinguishmentoftenancyrelations,doesnotrequire courtapprovalaslongasitisconvincinglyandsufficientlyprovedbycompetentevidence. PetitionersvoluntarysurrendertotheSamahangNayonqualifiesasasurrenderortransfertothegovernment becausesuchactionformspartofthemechanismforthedispositionandthereallocationoffarmholdingsoftenantfarmerswhorefusetobecomebeneficiariesofPD27.UnderMemorandumCircularNo.8-80ofthethenMinistry ofAgrarianReform,theSamahanshall,uponnoticefromtheagrarianreformteamleader,recommendothertenantfarmerswhoshallbesubstitutedtoallrightsandobligationsoftheabandoningorsurrenderingtenant-farmer. Besides,thesecooperativesare Besides,thesecooperativesareestablishedto establishedtoprovidea establishedtoprovideastrongsocialand providea provideastrongsocialandeconomicorganization strongsocialandeconomic strongsocialandeconomicorganizationtoensurethat economicorganization organizationtoensurethatthe toensurethatthe the tenant-farmerswillenjoyonalastingbasisthebenefitso tenant-farmerswillenjoyon alastingbasisthebenefitsofagrarianreform. fagrarianreform. PEOPLEVMACEREN GRNo.L-32166 October18,1977

FACTS -JoseBuenaventura,GodofredoReyes, edoReyes,Benjamin edoReyes,BenjaminReyes,Nazario Benjamin BenjaminReyes,NazarioAquinoand Reyes,NazarioAquino Reyes,NazarioAquinoandCarlitodelRo AquinoandCarlito andCarlitodelRosariowere CarlitodelRosariowere sariowere March7,1969 -JoseBuenaventura,Godofr chargedbya chargedbya Constabular Constabularyinvestigat yinvestigatorinthemunicipalcourt orinthemunicipalcourtofSta.Cruz,Lagunawithhaving ofSta.Cruz,LagunawithhavingviolatedFisher violatedFisheries ies AdministrativeOrderNo.84-1. AdministrativeOrder No.84-1.Itwas Itwasallegedinthe allegedinthecomplaintthat complaintthatthefive complaintthatthefiveaccusedinthemo thefive thefiveaccusedinthemorningof accusedinthemorningofMarch1,1969 rningofMarch1, March1,196 1969 resorted resortedtoelectrofishinginthewatersofBarrioSanPabloNorte,Sta.Cru toelectrofishing inthewatersofBarrioSanPabloNorte,Sta.Cru z.Thelowercourtheldthatelectrofishing z.Thelowercourtheldthatelectrofishi z.Thelowercourtheld thatelectrofishi ng cannotbepenalizebecauseelectriccurrentis cannotbepenalizebecause cannotbepenalizebecauseelectriccurrentisnota electriccurrentisnotanobnoxiousorpoisonous notanobnoxiousorpoisonoussubstancea nobnoxiousorpoisonous nobnoxiousorpoisonoussubstancea substancea substanceascontemplatedinsection scontemplatedinsection IIofthe Fisher Fisheries ies Law and thatit thatit isnota substa substance nce atallbut a form form ofenergy ofenergy conduct conductedor edor transm transmitt ittedby edby substances.Thelowercourtfurtherheldthat,sincethelawdoesnotclearlyprohibitelectrofishing,theexecutive andjudicialdepartmentscannotconsideritunlawful. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

ISSUE

Whetherornottheadministrativeorder Whetherornottheadministrativeorderpenalizingelectrofishingisvalid theadministrativeorderpenalizingelectrofishingi penalizingelectrofishingisvalid penalizingelectrofishingisvalid HELD

No,theSecretaryofAgriculture No,theSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesandtheCommissio No,theSecretaryofAgricultureand andNaturalResourcesandtheCommissionerofFisheries NaturalResourcesandtheCommissioner NaturalResourcesand theCommissionerofFisheriesexceeded nerofFisheriesexceededtheirauthority ofFisheriesexceededtheirauthority exceededtheirauthority theirauthority inissuingFisheriesAdministrativeOrdersNos.84and84-1andthatthoseordersarenotwarrantedunderthe FisheriesCommission,RepublicActNo.3512. ThereasonisthattheFisheriesLawdoesnotexpresslyprohibitelectrofishing.Aselectrofishingisnot ThereasonisthattheFisheriesLaw doesnotexpresslyprohibitelectrofishing.Aselectrofishingisnotbannedunder bannedunder thatlaw,theSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesandtheCommissionerofFisheriesarepowerlessto penalizeit.Inotherwords,AdministrativeOrdersNos.84and84-1,inpenalizingelectrofishing,aredevoidofany legalbasis.Hadthelawmakingbodyintendedtopunishelectrofishing,apenalprovisiontothateffectcouldhave beeneasilyembodiedintheoldFisheriesLaw. Thelawmakingbodycannotdelegatetoanexecutiveofficialthepowertodeclarewhatactsshouldconstitutean offense.Whileanadministrativeagencyhastherighttomakeranksandregulationstocarryintoeffecta lawalready offense.Whileanadministrativeagencyhastherighttomakeranksandregulationstocarryintoeffectalawalready enacted,thatpowershouldnotbeconfusedwiththepowertoenactacriminalstatute.Anadministrativeagency canhaveonlythea canhaveonly canhaveonlythea thea dministrativeorpolicing dministrativeorpolicingpowersexpresslyo powersexpresslyorbynecessary rbynecessaryimplicationconferredupon implicationconferreduponit. it. REPUBLICVS.MARASIGAN GRNo.85515,June6,1991 Facts:

Privaterespondent,claimingtobeoneoftheheirsofEpifaniaAlcano,registeredownerofaparceloflandlocated in Canubing, Canubing, Calapan, Calapan, Oriental Oriental Mindoro,containingan Mindoro,containingan areaof 33,29 33,294 4 squaremeters,and covered covered by Transfer Transfer Certif Certifica icateof teof TitleNo. TitleNo. T-6606 T-66062 2 inthe Reg Regist istryof ryof Deedsof Deedsof Calapa Calapan,Orient n,OrientalMindo alMindoro, ro, fileda fileda petitio petition n for for the reconstitutionof"theoriginalandduplicatecopy( sic)"ofthesaidTransferCertificateofTitleonthebasisofthe sic)"ofthesaidTransferCertificateofTitleonthebasisofthe owner'sduplicatecopy.Sheallegedthereinthat owner'sduplicatecopy. Sheallegedthereinthatsheisin Sheallegedthereinthatsheisinpossession"ofthe sheisin sheisinpossession"ofthetitlesubjectmatter possession"ofthetitlesubject possession"ofthetitlesubjectmatterof" titlesubjectmatterof"thepetitio matterof"thepetitionbut of"thepetitionbut thepetitionbut nbut she,however,didnotallegethereaso she,however,didnotallegethereasonwhysheaskedforthereconstitutio she,however,didnotallegethereasonwhy nwhysheaskedforthereconstitution. sheaskedforthereconstitution. n. ThetrialcourtsetthepetitionforhearingandrequireditspublicationintheOfficialGazette,whichwasdone. Requirednotices, excepttotheadjoiningownersandthe excepttotheadjoiningownersandtheactualoccupantsoftheland, actualoccupantsoftheland, weregiven. Thereafter,thetrialcourtgrantedtheinstantpetition.TheRegisterofDeedsofthisprovinceisherebydirectedto reconstitutetheoriginalandtheowner's reconstitutetheoriginalandtheowner'sduplicatecopiesof duplicatecopiesofTransferCertificateo TransferCertificateofTitleNo. fTitleNo.T-66062 T-66062inthenameof theregisteredowners(sic theregisteredowners( sic).Petitionerherein,throught sic).Petitionerherein,throught ).Petitionerherein,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicito heOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,appealedfromsaid heOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,appealedfromsaidOrder rGeneral,appealedfromsaidOrder rGeneral,appealedfromsaidOrder totheCourtofAppealswhichwaslaterondenied. totheCourtofAppealswhich waslaterondenied. Issue:

Whetherornotnoticestoadjoiningownersandtheactualoccupantsofthelandaremandatoryand jurisdictionalinjudicialreconstitutionofcertificatesoftitle. jurisdictionalinjudicialre constitutionofcertificatesoftitle. Held:

Yes.Section13ofR.A.No.26hasnotbeenaltered,modifiedoramended.Sincetherequirementthere Yes.Section13ofR.A.No.26hasnotbeenalt ered,modifiedoramended.Sincetherequirementthereinofservice inofservice ofnoticeoftheinitialhearingtotheadjoiningownersandtheactualoccupantsofthelandwasnotcompliedwith inthiscase,thecourtbelowdidnot,therefore,acquirejurisdictionoverthepetitionforthereconstitutionof TransferCertificateofTitleNo.66062.Accordingly,therespondentCourtofAppealsgravelyerredinaffirmingthe Orderof Orderof the trialcourt trialcourt granti granting ng the petitio petition n and inholding inholding that that said said Sectio Section n 13has been "at least least implied impliedly ly amended"bySection23inrelationtoSection110o amended"bySection23inrelatio ntoSection110ofP.D.No.15 fP.D.No.1529whichtookeffecto 29whichtookeffecton11June1978. n11June1978. In DirectorofLandsvs.Courtof .,TheCourtruledthattherequirementsofSection12andSection13 Section12andSection13 DirectorofLandsvs.CourtofAppeals,etal Appeals,etal.,TheCourtruledthattherequirementsof Appeals,etal.,TheCourtruledthattherequirementsof ofR.A.No.26aremandatoryandjurisdictional ofR.A. ofR.A.No.26a No.26aremandatoryandjurisdictionalandnon-compliancetherewith remandatoryandjurisdictionalandnon-compliance remandatoryandjurisdictionalandnon-compliancetherewithwouldrenderall andnon-compliancetherewithwouldrenderallpro therewithwouldrenderallproceedingsutterly wouldrenderallproceedingsutterly proceedingsutterly ceedingsutterly nullandvoid.



–

TAHANANDEVELOPMENTCORP.vs.COURTOFAPPEALS (TAHANAN

DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

vs.

THECOURTOFAPPEALS,HON.MANUELE.VALENZUELA, THEDIRECTOR THEDIRECTOR OFLANDS, NICOLASA.PASCUAL NICOLASA.PASCUAL,CRISANT ,CRISANTOF. OF. PASCUAL, PASCUAL,ANSELMOF.PASCUA ANSELMOF.PASCUAL,MAMER L,MAMERTOF. TOF. PASCUAL,PASCUALAA.MEJIA,DAMIANAA.MEJIA,CIRILOS.PASCUAL,andCATALINAS.PASCUAL PASCUAL,PASCUALAA.MEJIA,DAMIANAA.M EJIA,CIRILOS.PASCUAL,andCATALINAS.PASCUAL ) G.R.No.L-55771November15,1982 FACTS: ThecaseinvolvesaPetition forReconstitutionoftitle,originaland forReconstitutionoftitle,originalandowner’sduplicatecop owner’sduplicatecopy’overlots y’overlots2 2and and 4indicatedinPlanII-4374docketedas504-PfiledwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceofRizalbythePascuals,claiming astheintestateheirsofthedece astheintestateheirsofthedeceasedManuel asedManuelaAquial,Thepeti aAquial,Thepetitionalleg tionallegedthatthecopies edthatthecopiesofthesaidtitlewere ofthesaidtitlewere salvagedaftertheWorld salvagedaftertheWorldWar.Thepetitionwas salvagedaftertheWorldWar. War.Thepetitionwasgivenduecourse Thepetitionwasgivendue Thepetitionwasgivenduecourseand givenduecourseanditw courseanditwassetfor anditwas itwassetforhearing.Accordingly,publication assetforhearing.Accordingly,publication hearing.Accordingly,publication ofthepetitionintheOfficialGazettewasmadeandnoticesofhearingweresenttotheadjoiningownersexcept Tahananwhoisnotonlyanadjoiningownerbutalsoanownerandanactualoccupantasthe Tahananwhoisnotonlyan adjoiningownerbutalsoanownerandanactualoccupantas adjoiningownerbutalsoano wnerandanactualoccupantasthe the9hectaresportionof 9hectaresportionof Tahanan’slandoverlappedthelandofthePascualsregisteredinthenameoftheirpredecessorManuelaAquia Tahanan’slandoverlappedthelandofthePascualsregisteredinthe nameoftheirpredecessorManuelaAquial.A nameoftheirpredecessorManuelaAquia l.A decisionwasrenderedgrantingthesaidpetition.TahananfiledaMotionforReconsiderationbutwasdenied,hence, decisionwasrenderedgrantingthesaidpetition.Tahananfileda MotionforReconsiderationbutwasdenied,hence, itfiledanappealtotheCourtofAppeals. ISSUE: Whetherornotthetrial Whether Whether ornotthe trialcourt trialcour courtt properlyacquired proper properly lyacquired lyacquired acquired andwasinvestedwit andwasinvested invested with withjurisdictiontohearanddecide h jurisdictio jurisdiction n tohearanddecide ReconstitutionCaseNo.504-Pinthelightof ReconstitutionCaseNo. 504-Pinthelightofthestrictandmandatorypro thestrictandmandatoryprovisionsofRepublicActNo visionsofRepublicActNo.26 .26 RULINGS: RepublicActNo.26specificallyprovidesthespecialrequirementsandmodeofprocedurethatmustbe followedbeforethecourtcan followedbeforethecourtcanproperlyact,assumeandacquirejurisdictiono followedbeforethecourtcanproperlyact, properlyact,assumeandacquirejurisdictionorauthorityo assumeandacquirejurisdictionorauthority assumeandacquirejurisdiction orauthorityoverthepetition rauthorityoverthepetition overthepetitionandgrant verthepetitionandgrant andgrant thereconstitutionprayedfor.Theserequirementsandprocedurearemandatory.ThePetitionforReconstitution mustallegecertainspecificjurisdictionalfacts;thenoticeofhearingmustbepublishedintheOfficialGazetteand postedinparticularplacesandthesa postedinparticularplacesandthesamesentor mesentornotifiedto notifiedtospecifiedpersons.Sections specifiedpersons.Sections12and13 specifiedpersons.Sections12and13oftheActprovide 12and13 12and13oftheActprovide oftheActprovide specificallythemandatoryrequirementsandprocedure specificallythemandatory requirementsandproceduretobefo tobefollo llo wed. wed. Uponacursoryreadingofboththepetitionforreconstitutionandthenoticeofhearing,it Uponacursoryreadingofboth thepetitionforreconstitutionandthenoticeofhearing, thepetitionforreconstitutio nandthenoticeofhearing,it it isatonceapparentthat Tahananhasnotbeennamed,citedorindicatedthereinastheowner,occupantorpossessorofpropertyadjacent toLot2,titletowhichissoughttobereconstituted.Neitherdothepetitionandthenoticestateormentionthat Tahananistheoccupantorpo Tahananistheoccupantorpossessorof ssessorofaportion aportionofsaidLo aportionofsaidLot2.Theresult ofsaidLo ofsaidLot2.Theresultofthisom t2.Theresultofthis t2.Theresultofthisomissionor ofthisomissionorf omissionorfailureisthat issionorfailureisthat failureisthatTahanan ailureisthatTahanan Tahanan wasnevernotifiedofthepetition wasnevernotifiedofthepetitionfor wasnevernotifiedofthepetitionfor for reconstitutionandthehearingsorproceedingstherein. reconstitutionandthehearingsorproceedings reconstitutionandthe hearingsorproceedingstherein. therein. ItisalltooevidentthatthePascualsinrefilingtheirPetitionforReconstitutioninOctober,1977docketedasCase No.504-P,hadnointentiontonotifynorgivecausefornotificationandknowledgetoalladjacentorboundary owners,particularlyTahanan.Hence,theCour owners,particularlyT owners,particularlyTahanan.Hence,theCourtdid ahanan.Hence,theCourtdidnotactuallyacquiredjurisdictionovert tdidnotactuallyacquiredjurisdictionoverthecase. notactuallyacquiredjurisdictionoverthecase. hecase. HeirsofMalabananvRepublic GRNo.179987 April29,2009 Applicantsunder14(1)ofPD1529inrelationtosec48(b)ofCA141acqu ec48(b)ofCA141acquireownershipof,andreg ireownershipof,andregistrable istrable Doctrine:Applicantsunder14(1)ofPD1529inrelationtos titleto,suchlandsbasedonthelengthandqualityoftheirpossession.Itissufficientthatthelandbedeclared alienableanddisposableatthetimeofthefilingfortheapplicationforjudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitleand thelandneednotbea thelandneednotbealienableandd lienableanddisposableduring isposableduringtheentireperiod theentireperiodofpossession ofpossession.. FACTS: MarioMalabananfiledanapplicationforlandregistrationofa71,324sqmparcelofla MarioMalabananfiledanapplicationforland registrationofa71,324sqmparceloflandinSilang,Cavite.Heclaimed ndinSilang,Cavite.Heclaimed thathehadpurchasedsaidpropertyfromEduardoVelazco,andthatheandhispredecessors-in-interesthadbeen in open, open, notori notorious ous, , and contin continuou uous s advers adverse e and peacef peaceful ul posses possessio sion n of the land land for more more than than thirty thirty years. years.


MalabanansubmittedacertificationfromDENRCENROstatingthatthelandisalienableanddisposablein1982.RTC MalabanansubmittedacertificationfromDENRCENROstatingthattheland isalienableanddisposablein1982.RTC grantedMalabanan’srequestforregistration. grantedMalabanan’srequestfor registration. However,theRepublicappealedtoCAarguingthatMalabanandidnot However,theRepublicappealedtoCAar guingthatMalabanandidnotadheretotherequirementoftimerequired adheretotherequirementoftimerequired bythelawandthehefailedtoprovethatthelandisanalienableanddisposableland. CAruledinfavoroftheRepubliconthegrou CAruledinfavoroftheRepubliconthegroundthattheposse ndthatthepossession ssionoflandbeforeitwasdecla oflandbeforeitwasdeclaredaliena redalienableand bleand disposablecannotbeincludedinthecomputationofpossessiono disposablecannotbeincludedinthecomputatio disposablecannotbeincludedinthecomputationofpossessionoftheland, nofpossessionoftheland, ftheland,thusMalabanandidnotadheretothe thusMalabanandidnotadheretothe periodrequirementofthelaw. ISSUE:WONthepetitionerscanregistertheland HELD: NO.Thepetitionersfailedtopresentsufficientevidencetoestablishthattheyandtheirpredecessors-in-interesthad NO.Thepetitionersfailedtopresentsufficientevidenceto establishthattheyandtheirpredecessors-in-interesthad been been in posses possessio sion n ofthe land since since June June 12, 194 1945. 5. Withou Without t satisf satisfyin ying g therequisitecharac therequisitecharacter ter andperiod andperiod of possession– possession –possessionandoccupationthatisopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotorioussinceJune12,1945,or possessionandoccupationthatisopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotorioussinceJune12,1945,or – earlier – the the land land cann cannot ot be cons consid ider ered ed ipso conver converted ted ted to privat private e proper property ty even even upon upon the the subsequent subseq subsequent uent ipso jure jure converted declarationofitasalienableanddisposable.PrescriptionneverbegantorunagainsttheState,suchthattheland hasremainedineligibleforregistrationunderSection14(1)ofthe PropertyRegistrationDecree .Likewise,theland contin continuesto uesto be ineligi ineligible ble for land land regist registrat ration ion under under Sectio Section n 14(2)of 14(2)of the Prope Property rty Registrati Registration on Decree Decree unless Congressenacts CongressenactsalaworthePresidentissu alaworthePresidentissuesaproclama esaproclamationdecla tiondeclaringthelandasnolonger ringthelandasnolongerintendedforpubli intendedforpublicc serviceorforthedevelopmentofthenationalwealth. serviceorforthedevelopmentofthe nationalwealth. RepublicvCAandNaguit GRNo.144057 GRNo.144057 144057 January17,2005 January17, January17,2005 Facts: OnJanuary5,1993,Naguit,a OnJanuary5,1993,Naguit,a Filipinocitizen,oflegalageandmarriedt Filipinocitizen,oflegalageandmarriedtoManolitoS.Naguit, oManolitoS.Naguit,filedwiththeMCTCof filedwiththeMCTCof IbajayNabas,Aklan,apetitionforregistrationoftitleofaparceloflandsituatedinBrgy.Union,Nabas,Aklan.The applicationseeksjudicialconfirmationofrespondent’simperfecttitleovertheaforesaidland.On applicationseeksjudicialconfirmationofrespondent’simperfecttitleover theaforesaidland.OnFebruary20,1995, February20,1995, thecourtheldinitialhearingontheapplication.Theevidenceonrecordrevealsthatthesubjectparcelof thecourtheldinitialhearingonthe application.Theevidenceonrecordrevealsthatthesubjectparceloflandwas application.Theevidenceonrecordreveals thatthesubjectparceloflandwas landwas originallydeclaredfortaxationpurposes originallydeclaredfor taxationpurposesinthenameo inthenameofRa fRamonUrbano(Urbano)in1945underTaxDeclarationNo. fRamonUrbano monUrbano(Urbano)in (Urbano)in1945 1945underTaxDeclarationNo. 3888until1991.OnJuly9,1992,UrbanoexecutedaDeedofQuitclaiminfavoroftheheirsofHonoratoMaming (Maming),whereinherenouncedallhisrights (Maming),whereinhe renouncedallhisrightstothes tothesubject ubjectpropertyandconfirmedthesalemadebyhisfatherto propertyandconfirmedthesalemadeby propertyandconfirmed thesalemadebyhisfatherto Mamingsometimein1955or1956.Subsequently,theheirsof Mamingsometimein1955o r1956.Subsequently,theheirsofMamingexecutedadeedofabso Mamingexecutedadeedofabsolutesaleinfavorof lutesaleinfavorof respondentNaguitwhothereuponstartedoccupying respondentNaguitwho thereuponstartedoccupyingthesame.She thesame.SheconstitutedManuelBlanco, constitutedManuelBlanco,Jr.asher Jr.asherattorney attorney-in-factandadministrator.Theadministratorintroducedimprovements,plantedtrees,suchasmahogany,coconut and gemelina gemelina trees trees in additio addition n to existi existing ng coconu coconut t trees trees which which were were then then 50 to 60 years years old, old, and paid paid the correspondingtaxesdueonthesubjectland.Atpresent,thereareparcelsof correspondingtaxesdueonthesubjectland.At present,thereareparcelsoflandsurroundingthesubjectlandwhich landsurroundingthesubjectlandwhich havebeenissuedtitlesbyvirtueofjudicialdecrees.Naguitandher havebeenissuedtitlesbyvirtue ofjudicialdecrees.Naguitandherpredecessorsininteresthaveoccupiedtheland predecessorsininteresthaveoccupiedtheland openlyandintheconceptofownerwithoutanyobjectionfromanyprivatepersonoreventhegovernmentuntil shefiledherapplicationforregistration.MCTCrenderedadecision shefiledherapplicationforr egistration.MCTCrenderedadecisioninfavorofNaguit. infavorofNaguit.

The Republi Republic c of the Philipp Philippines ines (Republ (Republic) ic), , thru thru the Office Office of the Solici Solicitor tor Genera General l (OSG), (OSG), filed filed a motion motion for reconsideration.TheOSGstressedthatthelandappliedfor reconsideration.TheOSGst reconsideration.TheOSGstressedthatthelandappliedforwasdeclaredalienableand ressedthatthelandappliedforwasdeclaredalienableand wasdeclaredalienableanddisposableonlyonOctober disposableonlyonOctober 15 15, , 19 1980 80, , per per the the cert certif ifica icati tion on from from Regi Region onal al Execu Executi tive ve Dire Direct ctor or Raou Raoul l T. Geol Geolle legue gue of the the Depa Depart rtme ment nt of Environment EnvironmentandNaturalResour andNaturalResources,Regio ces,RegionVI.However,thecourt nVI.However,thecourtdeniedthemotionforrecons deniedthemotionforreconsiderati iderationinan oninan orderdatedFebruary18,1998.TheRTCdismissedthepetitionfiledbytheRepublic.TheRepublicthenagainfiled anappealwhichwasconsequentlydismissedbytheCourtofAppeals.TheOSGassailsthedecisionoftheCourtof Appealscontendingthattheappellatecourtgravelyerredinholdingth Appealscontendingthattheappellatecourtgravelyerredinholding th th atthereisnoneedforthegovernment’sprior releaseofthesubjectlotfromthepublicdomai releaseofthesubjectlotfromthepublicdomainbeforeitcanbeconsideredaliena nbeforeitcanbeconsideredalienableordisposa bleordisposablewithinthe blewithinthe meaningofP.D.No.1529,andthatNaguithadbeenin meaningofP.D.No.1529,andthatNaguithadbeeninpossessionofLot possessionofLotNo.10049intheco No.10049intheconceptofownerfo nceptofownerforthe rthe


DirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCourtinarguingthat tinarguingthat requiredperiod.TheOSGinvokesSC’sholdingin DirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCour thepropertywhichisinopen, thepropertywhichisinopen,continuousandexclusivepossessionmustfirst thepropertywhichisinopen,continuousand continuousandexclusivepossessionmustfirstbealienable. exclusivepossessionmustfirstbealienable. bealienable. SincethesubjectlandwasdeclaredalienableonlyonOctober15,1980,Naguitcouldnothavemaintaineda bona fide claimofownership claimofownershipsinceJune12,1945, sinceJune12,1945,asrequiredbySectio asrequiredbySection14ofthePropert n14ofthePropertyRegistr yRegistrationDecr ationDecree,since ee,since priorto1980,thelandwasnotalienableordisposable,theOSGargues. Issue:WhetherornotitisnecessaryunderSection14(1)ofthePropertyRegistrationDecreethatthesubjectland befirstclassifiedasalienableanddisposablebeforetheapplicant’spossessionundera befirstclassifiedas alienableanddisposablebeforetheapplicant’spossessionundera bonafide claimofownership couldevenstart. Held: No.Petitionersuggestsaninterpretationthatthealienableanddisposablecharacterofthelandshouldhavealready beenestablishedsinceJune12,1945orearlier.However,themorereasonableinterpretationofSection14(1)isthat it merely merely requir requires es the propert property y sought sought to be registe registered red as alread already y alienab alienable le and dispos disposable able at the time time the applicationforregistrationoftitleisfiled.IftheState,atthetimetheapplicationismade,hasnotyetdeemedit propertoreleasethepro propertoreleasethepropertyfor pertyforalienationor alienationordisposition,the disposition,thepresumptionis presumptionisthatthe thatthegovernmentis governmentisstillreserving stillreserving therighttoutilizetheproperty; therighttoutilizethe property; hence,theneedtopreserveitsownershipintheStateirrespectiveofthelengthof adversepossessionevenifingoodfaith.However,ifthepropertyhasalreadybeenclassifiedasalienableand disposable,asitisinthiscase,thenthereisalreadyanintentiononthepartoftheStatetoabdicateitsexclusive prerogativeovertheproperty.SCfindsnoreasontodisturbtheconclusionofboth prerogativeovertheproperty.SCfindsno reasontodisturbtheconclusionofboththeRTCandtheCourt theRTCandtheCourtofAppeals ofAppeals thatNaguithadtherighttoapplyforregistrationo thatNaguithadtherightto applyforregistrationowingtothecontinuouspos wingtothecontinuouspossessionbyherandherpredecessors sessionbyherandherpredecessors-in-interestofthelandsince1945.Thebasisofsuch in-interestofthelandsince1945 .Thebasisofsuchconclusionisprimarilyfactual, .Thebasisofsuchconclusionisprimarilyfactual,andtheCourtgenerallyrespects conclusionisprimarilyfactual,andtheCourtgenerallyrespects conclusionisprimarilyfactual,andtheCourtgenerallyrespects thefactualfindingsmadeby thefactualfindingsmadeby lowercourts.Notably, lowercourts.Notably,possessio possessionsince1945was nsince1945was establishedthroug establishedthroughproofofthe hproofofthe existenceof50to60yearoldtreesatthetimeNaguitpurchasedthepropertyaswellastaxdeclarationsexecuted byUrbanoin1945. REPUBLICVBIBONIA G.R.No.157466 G.R.No.157466 157466 June21,2007 June21,2007 Doctrine: Section14(1)ofP.D.1529merelyrequiresthepropertysoughttoberegisteredasalreadyalienableanddisposable Section14(1)ofP.D.1529merelyrequiresthe propertysought propertysoughttobe toberegistered registeredasalrea asalreadyaliena dyalienableand bleanddispos disposableat ableat at thetimetheapplicationfor thetimetheapplicationforregistrationoft registrationoftitleisfiled. itleisfiled. Facts:

RespondentsCherylB.Bibonia RespondentsCherylB.BiboniaandRicardoL.Fernandez,s B.BiboniaandRicardo andRicardo andRicardoL.Fernandez,substitutedbyJo L.Fernandez,substitutedby L.Fernandez,substitutedbyJoselitoG. ubstitutedbyJoselitoG. JoselitoG.Manahanfile selitoG.Manahan Manahanfile Manahanfiledanapplicationfor danapplicationfor danapplicationfor registrationofparcellandinRT registrationofparcellandinRTCDa registrationofparcellandinRTCDa CDaet,CamarinesNo et,CamarinesNorte. rte. -coversLot1andalleged thatshebough thatsheboughtthelandfro tthelandfromMarit mMaritaKingasshow aKingasshownby nby aDeedof Cheryl Cheryl B. B.Bibonia Bibonia-coversLot1andalleged AbsoluteSaledatedSeptember29,1992.MaritaKingreceivedthelandbyvirtueofdonationintervivosfromher fatherMarianoMorales.MarianoMorales,ontheotherhand,purchasedthelotfromSisenandoBarcowho,inturn, boughtitfromRestitutoParaononSeptember10,1955. RicardoL.Fernandez -substitutedbyJoselit -substitutedbyJoselitoG.Manahan;coversLot2andallegedtha oG.Manahan;coversLot2andallegedthatheboughtthelandfrom theboughtthelandfrom RemediosCribeonSeptember29,1992.Itwasdonatedtothelatterbyherfather, RemediosCribeonSeptember29 RemediosCribeonSeptember29,1992.Itwas ,1992.Itwasdonatedtothelatterbyherfather,MarianoMorales,on donatedtothelatterbyherfather,MarianoMorales,onDecember MarianoMorales,onDecember 18,1987,whopurchasedthelotfromBas 18,1987,whopurchased thelotfromBasiliaBarcoandtheheirsof iliaBarcoandtheheirsofLiberatoSalomeon LiberatoSalomeonJuly31,1968. July31,1968.

Inthecourseof Inthe Inthecourseofth courseofth th eproceedings,thetrialco eproceedings,thetrialcourtordered urtorderedthesubstitution thesubstitutionofFernandez ofFernandezby byrespondentManahan,the respondentManahan,the respondentManahan, the formerhavingtransferredhisrightsandinterestoverLo formerhavingtransferredhis rightsandinterestoverLot2infavoro t2infavorofthelatterbyvirtueof fthelatterbyvirtueofaDeedofAssignment. aDeedofAssignment. Theregistrationwasgrantedto Theregistrationwasgrantedtobothrespondents.On bothrespondents.Onappeal,CAaffirmed appeal,CAaffirmedtheRTCdecision. theRTCdecision.Hence,thisPetition Hence,thisPetitionfor for ReviewonCertioraribytheRepubliccontending ReviewonCertioraribytheRepubliccontendingthatthat ReviewonCertiorariby theRepubliccontendingthatthat theRepubliccontending thatthattheCourtofAppeals thatthattheCourt theCourtofAppealserredwhenit theCourtofAppealserredwhenitdepartedfromsettled erredwhenitdepartedfrom departedfromsettled jurisprudencebyrulingthatrespondentshaveoccupiedthelotsforthirty(30)years;andthattheycouldnothave (30)years;andthattheycouldnothave CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

maintaineda maintaineda bonafide claimofownershipbecause claimofownershipbecauseat at thetimeofthefilingoftheirapplica thetimeofthefilingoftheirapplicationonSeptem tiononSeptember1, ber1, 1994,thelotshadbeenalienableforonlyeight(8)years,perCertificationfromtheCommunityandEnvironment NaturalResourcesOffice(CENRO)ofthe NaturalResourcesOffice (CENRO)oftheDepartmentofEnvironment DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR andNaturalResources(DENR)) ISSUES: 1. Whetherrespond Whetherrespondentswere Whetherrespondentswereabletoprovethatthelotssubjectoftheirapplicationwerethendisposable entswereabletoprov abletoprovethatthelot ethatthelotssubject ssubjectoftheirappl oftheirapplicatio icationwerethendis nwerethendisposab posable le andalienablelandofthepublicdomain; 2.

Whetherthey Whet Whether herthey her they they were were were wer e able ableto ableto to show show show sho w that that thatt they tha they they the y have have have been been been in in open, open, open, ope n, exclus excl exclus exc lusive usiv ive, ive, e,, cont contin contin con tinuou inuo uous uous uss andnotoriou and and noto andnotor notori riou ious ouss possessionofthelotsin possessionofthelotsintheconceptof possessionofthelotsintheconceptofowners. theconceptofowners.

RULINGS: 1. YES.Section14ofPres YES.Section14ofPresidentia YES.Section14ofPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.1529,otherwiseknownasthePropertyRegistrationDecree identialDecree(P.D lDecree(P.D.)No.1529 .)No.1529,otherwi ,otherwiseknownasthePro seknownasthePropertyRegi pertyRegistrat strationDecree ionDecree providesforwhomayapplyforaregistrationofland.Applicantsforregistrationoflandmustprove:(a)thatit forms forms part part of the alienabl alienable e lands lands of the public public domain domain; ; and (b) that that they they have have been in open, open, exclusi exclusive, ve, continuousandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofthesameundera bonafide claimofownershipeither sincetimeimmemorialorsinceJune12,1945. Intheinstantcase,thelotwasdeclaredalienableanddisposablebyapositivegovernmentact.Theevidence onrecordshowsthataCertificationwasissuedbytheCENRO,DENRtotheeffectthatthelotsare within CamarinesNorteProjectNo.4-E, alienableanddisposable area,certifiedassuchonJanuary17,1986. Inthe caseof RepublicVCA caseof RepublicVCA itwasheldthatSection14(1)is itwasheldthatSection14(1)isthatitmerelyrequiresthepropertysoughttoberegistered thatitmerelyrequiresthepropertysoughttoberegistered asalreadyalienableanddisposable atthetimetheapplicationforregistrationoftitleisfiled. IftheState,at the time time the applica applicatio tion n ismade, has not yet deemed deemed itproper itproper toreleasethe toreleasethe proper propertyfor tyfor alienat alienation ion or disposition,thepresumptionis disposition,thepresumptionisthatthe disposition,thepresumptionisthatthegovernmentisstil thatthegovernmentis governmentisstil stil lreservingtheright lreservingtherighttoutilizetheproperty; therightto toutilizetheproperty;hence,the toutilizetheproperty;hence,the hence,the needtopreserveitsownership needtopreserveitsownershipin in theStateirrespectiv theStateirrespectiveofthelengthofadverseposses eofthelengthofadversepossessionevenifingood sionevenifingood faith. However,ifthepropertyhasalreadybeenclassifiedasalienableanddisposable,asitisinthiscase, thenthereisalreadyanintentiononthepartoftheStatetoabdicateitsexclusiveprerogativeoverthe Hence, in this this case case respon respondent dents s filed filed their their applica applicatio tion n in 199 1994,the 4,the lots lots were were alread already y declar declared ed property. Hence, alienableanddisposablebytheDENR49yearsago,orin1945. 2.

NO. NO. NO. Both Both Both Bot h the the the trial tria trial tri al l cour court court cou rt t and and and the the Cour Court Court Cou rt t of of Appeals Appea Appeals App eals ls found foun found fou nd d that that thatt respon tha resp respon res pondent onden dents dents tss were were were wer e able able able to to prove, prov prove, pro ve, e, throug thro throug thr ough ugh h testim testimoni onial al and docume documenta ntary ry evidenc evidence, e, that that they they and their their predece predecesso ssorsrs-inin-int interes erest t have have been in open, open, exclusive,continuousandnotoriouspossess exclusive,continuousand notoriouspossessionofthe ionofthelotsfor ionofthelotsfortheperiodrequiredbylaw. lotsfor lotsfortheperiodrequiredbylaw. theperiodrequiredbylaw. However,thetrialcourtoverlookedthefactthattherequiredthirty-yearperiodofoccupationbyanapplicant forregistrationhasalreadybeen forregistrationhasalreadybeenamendedbyP.D.No amendedbyP.D.No.1073thattookeffec .1073thattookeffectonJanuary25, tonJanuary25,1977. 1977.Thus,instead 1977.Thus,instead ofthethirty-yearrequirement, ofthethirty-yearrequirement,applicants,by applicants,bythemselvesor themselvesorthroughtheir throughtheirpredecessors-in-interest,must predecessors-in-interest,mustprove prove thattheyhavebeeninopen,exclusive,continuousandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofalienableand disposablelandsofthe disposablelandsofthepublicdomain, publicdomain,undera undera bonafide claimofacquisitionorownership, sinceJune12,1945, orearlier orearlier.. Unfortunately,evidenceonrecordshowsthattheirpredecessors-in-interesthavebeeninopen,exclusiveand continuouspossessionofthedisputedproperty onlysince1955.Althoughrespondentspossessionandthatof onlysince1955.Althoughrespondentspossessionandthatof theirpredecessors-in-interestwasmore theirpredecessors-in-interest wasmorethan39yea than39yearswhen rswhentheyfiledtheir theyfiledtheirapplicationfor applicationforregistrationin registrationin19 1994, 94, thatperiodofpossessionwillnotsufficeforpurposesofregistrationoftitle. thatperiodofpossessionwillnotsuffice forpurposesofregistrationoftitle.Whatisrequiredisopen,exclusive, Whatisrequiredisopen,exclusive, continu continuous ous and notori notorious ous posses possessio sion n by respon respondent dents s and their their predece predecesso ssorsrs-inin-int intere erest, st, under under a bona fideclaimofownership, fideclaimofownership, since since June12,1945 June12, June12,1945 1945 orearlier.



–

Republicvs.ZurbaranRealtyandDevelopmentCorporation G.R.No.164408;March24,2014 Facts: ZurbaranRealtyandDevelopmentCorporationfiledwithRTCanapplicationfororiginalregistrationofland.Director ofLands oppose opposed d itarguing itarguing that that applica applicantand ntand its predece predecesso ssor r ininteresthad ininteresthad not been been inopen,continuo inopen,continuous, us, exclusive,notoriouspossessionandoccupationoflandsinceJune12,1945.RTCandCAruledinfavorofZurbaran. OnappealtoSC,theRepublicappealedarguingthatZurbaranfailedtoestablishthetimewhenthelandbecame alienableanddisposable,whichiscrucialindeterminingwhetherZurbaranacquiredthelandbyprescription. alienableanddisposable,whichiscrucialindeterminingwhetherZurbaranacquiredthelandbyprescription. ISSUE: Whatarethesubstantiveelementsinfilinganapplicationfororiginalregistrationofland? RULING: Therequirementsdependonwhatbasisthe Therequirementsdependon whatbasistheapplicationwasfiled. applicationwasfiled.Thef applicationwasfiled.Thef Thef Thef ollowingarethebasesforapplication: ollowingarethebasesforapplication: ollowingarethebasesforapplication: 1.Onthebasisofpossession,whereinyouneed 1.Onthe 1.Onthebasisofp basisofpossession,whereinyouneedtoshow ossession,whereinyouneedto ossession,whereinyouneedtoshowthefo toshowthefollowing: showthefollowing: thefollowing: llowing:

a)Thelandisalienableanddisposablepropertyofthepublicdomain; b)Theapplicantanditspredecessors b)Theapplicantanditspredecessorsininteresthavebeen ininteresthavebeeninopen,continuous, inopen,continuous,exclusiveand exclusiveandnotoriouspossession notoriouspossession andoccupationofthelandunderabonafideclaimofownership;and c)Theapplicantanditspredecessors-in-interesthavepossessedandoccupiedthelandsinceJune12,1945,or earlier.Note:LandneednotbedeclaredalienableanddisposableasofJune12,1945orearlier.Itissufficientthat propertyisalienableanddisposableatthe propertyisalienableand propertyisalienableanddisposableatthetimeofapplication disposableatthetimeof timeofapplication 2.Onthebasisofprescription, 2.Onthebasisofprescription, whereinyouneedtoprovethefollowing: 2.Onthebasisofprescription, whereinyouneedtoprovethe whereinyouneedtoprovethefollowing: following: a)Landisalienableanddisposable,andpatrimonialproperty; b)Continuouspossessionof b)Continuouspossessionoflandforat landforatleast10years least10yearsingoodfaith ingoodfaithandwithjust andwithjusttitleOR30 titleOR30yearsregardlessof yearsregardlessofgood good faithorbadfaith. c)LandisconvertedordeclaredaspatrimonialpropertyoftheStateatthebeginningof10-yearor30-yearperiod ofpossession.Onlypatr ofpossession.Onlypatrimonialproperty imonialpropertyof imonialpropertyoftheStatemay oftheStatemaybea of theStatemaybe theStatemaybea bea a cquiredbyprescription. cquiredbyprescription.Propertyof Propertyofpublicdominion, publicdominion, ifnotlongerintendedforpublicuseorservice,shallfo ifnotlongerintendedfor publicuseorservice,shallformpartofpatrim rmpartofpatrimonialpropertyofState. onialpropertyofState. Here,theremustbe Here,theremustbeanexpress anexpressdeclaration anexpressdeclarationbytheStatethat declaration declarationbytheStatethat bytheStatethatthepublicdominion bytheStatethatthepublicdominionpropertyis thepublicdominionpropertyis thepublicdominionpropertyisnolonger nolongerintendedfor intendedfor publicuse, publicuse, service service or the develo developme pment nt of the nation national al wealth wealth or that that the proper property ty has been conver converted ted into into patrimonial.Withoutsuchexpressdeclaration,theproperty,evenifclassifiedasalienableordisposable,remains propertyofthepublicdominion,suchdeclarationshallbeintheformofalawdulyenactedbyCongressora PresidentialProclamationincaseswheret PresidentialProclamation PresidentialProclamationincaseswherethePresidentisdulyauthorizedbylaw. incaseswherethePresidentis hePresidentisduly dulyauthorizedbylaw. Inthecaseatbar,theapplicationdidnotstatewhentheirpossessionandoccupationcommenced(noallegation thattheyhavebeenin thattheyhavebeeninpossessionsince possessionsinceJune12, June12,1945) June12,1945)andtheduration.So 1945) 1945)andtheduration.Sotheapplication andtheduration.So andtheduration.Sotheapplication theapplicationisbasedo theapplicationisbasedo isbasedonprescription. isbasedonprescription. nprescription. nprescription. Here,thereisnoevidenceshowingthatthelandinquestionwasw Here,thereisnoevidenceshowingt hatthelandinquestionwaswithinanareaexpresslydeclaredbylaweither ithinanareaexpresslydeclaredbylaweitherto to bethepatrimonialpropertyoftheState,ortobenolongerintendedforpublicserviceorthedevelopmentofthe nationalwealth. REPUBLICvTSAI GRNo.168184 GRNo.168184 168184 June22,2009 June22,2009

Facts: Respondentfiledanapplicatio Respondentfiledanapplicationforthe nforthe confirmati confirmationandregistrati onandregistrationofthe onofthe subjectpropertyunderPresid subjectpropertyunderPresidential ential DecreeNo.1529.Respondent DecreeNo.1529.Respondentallegedthatsheistheo DecreeNo.1529.Respondentallegedthat allegedthatsheistheo sheistheownerofthe sheistheownerofthesubjectproperty wnerofthesubjectpro wnerofthesubjectpropertyand subjectpropertyandthe pertyandtheimprovementsthereon. andthe theimprovementsthereon. improvementsthereon. Respondent Respondent declared declared that she and her predecessor predecessors-ins-in-interes interest t have been in open,continuous, exclusive exclusive and notoriouspossessionandoccupation notoriouspossessionandoccupationofthesubject ofthesubjectpropertyfor propertyformorethan propertyformorethan30years. morethan30years. morethan 30years.



–

TheRepublicopposedrespo TheRepublicopposedrespondentsapplication ndentsapplicationonthe onthefollowinggrounds: onthefollowinggrounds:(1)that followinggrounds: followinggrounds:(1)thatrespondentand (1)thatrespondentandherpredecessorsrespondentandher herpredecessorsin-interestfailed in-interestfailedto to presentsufficient presentsufficientevidencetoshowthatthey evidencetoshowthatthey havebeenin open,continuous open,continuous,exclusiveand ,exclusiveand notoriouspossessionandoccupationofthesubjectpropertysince12June1945orearlierasrequiredbySection 48(b)ofCommonwealthActNo.141(CA141),asamendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.1073(PD1073);(2)thatthe taxdeclarationsandtaxreceiptpaymentsattachedtotheapplicationdonotconstitutecompetentandsufficient evidenc evidence e ofa bona fide acquis acquisiti itionof onof the land land applied applied for orof respon responden dentsopen, tsopen, contin continuou uous,exclu s,exclusiv sive e and notoriouspossessionandoccupationofthesubjectpropertyintheconceptofanownersince12June1945or earlier;and(3)thatthesubjectpropertyformspartofthepublicdomainandisnotsubjecttoprivateappropriation. Trialcourtgrantedrespondentsapplication Trialcourtgrantedrespondentsapplicationforregistratio forregistration.TheR n.TheRepublicappealedto epublicappealedtotheCA theCAbut butthelatteraffirmed thelatteraffirmed thelatteraffirmed thetrialcourtsdecision. thetrialcourtsdecision.TheRepublicfiledamotionforreco TheRepublicfiledamotionforreconsider nsideration. ation.TheCourtofAppealsdeniedRepub TheCourtofAppealsdeniedRepublics lics motion. Issue: Whetheror Whetheror not thetrial courtcan courtcan grantthe grantthe applica applicatio tion n for regist registrat ration ion despit despite e the lack lack of proofof proofof respondentsopen,continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionofthesubjectpropertysince12June1945or earlier. Ruling:NO. Section48(b)oftheCA141hasbeenamendedseveraltimes.TheCourtofAppealsfailedto Section48(b)oftheCA141ha sbeenamendedseveraltimes.TheCourtofAppealsfailedtoconsidertheamendment considertheamendment introducedbyPD1073.InRepublicv.Doldol introducedbyPD1073.In ,theCourtprovidedasummaryoftheseamendments: ,theCourtprovidedasummaryoftheseamendments: Republicv.Doldol,theCourtprovidedasummaryof TheoriginalSection48(b) TheoriginalSection48(b)ofC.A. TheoriginalSection48(b)ofC.A.No.141providedforpossessionandoccupationoflandsofthepublicdomain ofC.A.No.141provided No.141providedforpossessio forpossessionando nandoccupationof ccupationoflandsof landsofthepublicdo thepublicdomain main since July26,1894.ThiswassupersededbyR.A.No.1942,whichprovidedforasimplethirty-yearprescriptiveperiodof occupa occupatio tion n by an applicant applica applicant nt for for judicial judicia judicial l confirmatio confir confirmat mation mation ion n of imperfect imperfect title.The title.The The same, sam same, e, howeve how however, howev ever, er, r, has has already alread already already y been amendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.1073,approvedonJanuary25, amendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.1073, approvedonJanuary25,1977.Asamended,Section48(b) 1977.Asamended,Section48(b)nowreads: nowreads: (b)Thosewhobythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessorsininteresthavebeeninopen,continuous,exclusive, andnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofagriculturallandsofthepublicdomain,undera bonafideclaimof bona bonafide fideclaimof acquisitionofownership,sinceJune12,1945,orearlier,immediatelyprecedingthefilingoftheapplicationfor confirmationoftitle,exceptwhenpreventedbywaror forcemajeure.These .Theseshallbeconclusivelypresumedto presumedtohave have forcemajeure.Theseshallbeconclusively performedalltheconditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrant performedalltheconditions performedalltheconditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrantandshall essentialtoaGovernmentgrantandshall andshallbeentitledtoacertificateoftitleunderthe beentitledtoacertificateoftitleunderthe beentitledtoacertificateof titleunderthe provisionsofthischapter. Asthe law now stands stands, , a mere mere showin showing g ofpossessi ofpossessionand onand occupat occupation ion for 30yearsor more more isnot suffic sufficient ient.. Therefore,sincetheeffectivityofPD1073on25January19 Therefore,sincetheeffectivityofPD1073 on25January1977,itmustnowbeshownthatpossessionandoccupation 77,itmustnowbeshownthatpossessionandoccupation ofthepieceoflandbytheapplicant,byhimselfor ofthepieceoflandbytheapplicant,byhimselforthroughhispredecessors-in-interest,started throughhispredecessors-in-interest,startedon12June1945o on12June1945orr earlier.Thisprovisionisintotalconformitywith earlier.Thisprovisionisinto talconformitywithSection14(1)of Section14(1)ofPD1529. PD1529. Inthiscase,respondentfailedtocomplywiththeperiodofpossessionandoccupationofthesubjectproperty,as requiredbybothPD1529andCA141. WeagreewiththeRepublicthatrespondent’sevidencewasnotenoughto provethatherpossession provethatherpossessionofthe provethatherpossessionofthesubjectpropertystartedsince12June1945or ofthesubjectproperty subjectpropertystartedsince startedsince12June 12June1945orearlierbecauserespondentsearliest 1945orearlierbecauserespondentsearliest earlierbecauserespondentsearliest evidencecanbetracedbacktoataxdeclarationissuedinthename evidencecanbetracedbacktoa taxdeclarationissuedinthenameofherpredecessors-in-interesto ofherpredecessors-in-interestonlyintheyear nlyintheyear 1948.Inviewofthelackofsufficientshowingthatrespondentandherpredecessors-in-interestpossessedthe subjectpropertyundera bonafide claimofownershipsince12June1945orearlier,respondents’applicationfor confirmationandregistrationofthesubjectpropertyunder confirmationandregistration ofthesubjectpropertyunderPD1529andCA141 PD1529andCA141shouldbedenied. shouldbedenied. petitioner, REPU REPUBL BLIC IC OF THE THE PHIL PHILIP IPPI PINE NES, S, (repre (represe sent nted ed by Opol Opol Nati Nation onal al Seco Second ndar ary y Tech Techni nica cal l Schoo School) l),, petitioner, vs. NICANORDOLDOL, respondent. respondent. GRNo. GRNo.132963 132963 132 963 September10, Septem September ber 10,1998 1998

Facts In1959,NicanorDoldol In1959,NicanorDoldoloccupieda In1959,NicanorDoldoloccupiedaportionoflandin occupiedaportionof portionoflandinBarrioPontacan,Opo landinBarrioPontacan,Opol,Misamis BarrioPontacan,Opol, BarrioPontacan,Opol,MisamisOriental. l,MisamisOriental.Hes MisamisOriental.Hesubsequentlyfiled Oriental.Hesubsequentlyfiled Hesubsequentlyfiled ubsequentlyfiled anapplicationforsaltworkpurposes anapplicationforsaltworkpurposesin1963,however, in1963,however,suchapplicationwas suchapplicationwasdeniedin1968by suchapplicationwasdeniedin1968bytheBureauofForest deniedin1968by deniedin1968bytheBureauofForest theBureauofForest


Development.TheProvincialBoardofMisamisOrientalpassed Development.TheProvincialBoardof MisamisOrientalpassedaresolutionin aresolutionin1965reservingLot 1965reservingLot4932Cad4932Cad-237asa 237asa schoolsite;thearea, schoolsite;thearea,unfortunately,included unfortunately,includedDoldol’s Doldol’sland. land. In1970,OpolHighSchooltransferredtothesite.PresidentCorazonAquinoissuedP In1970,OpolHighSchooltransferredtothesite. PresidentCorazonAquinoissuedProclamationNo.180, roclamationNo.180,reserving reserving theareaincludingDoldol’sportionforOpolHighScho olin1987.TheschoolthenmadedemandsforDoldoltovacate theland.TheRTCruledthatDoldolmustvacatetheland,buttheCA theland.TheRTCruledthatDoldolmust vacatetheland,buttheCAreversedthedecision,contendingthatDoldol reversedthedecision,contendingthatDoldol isinpossessionofthelandfor32years. Issue

WhetherOpolHighSchoolorNicano WhetherOpolHighScho WhetherOpolHighSchoolorNicanor olorNicanorDoldolhasthebetterrightto rDoldolhasthebetterrighttothelandin Doldolhasthebetterrighttothelandindispute? thelandindispute? Held

OpolHighSchool(nowOpolN OpolHighSchool(nowOpolNational OpolHighSchool(nowOpolNational ational SecondaryTechnicalSchool)hasthebetterrighttothelandindispute. SecondaryTechnicalSchool)hasthe SecondaryTechnicalSchoo l)hasthebetterrightto betterrighttotheland thelandindispute. TheCAanchoreditsrulingonSection48ofCo TheCAanchoreditsrulingo nSection48ofCommonwealthActNo. mmonwealthActNo.141,whichprovides: 141,whichprovides: Section48.ThefollowingdescribedcitizensofthePhilippines,occupyinglandsofthepublicdomain orclaiminginteresttherein, orclaiminginteresttherein,butwhose butwhosetitleshave titleshavenot titleshavenotbeenperfectedorcompleted, not notbeenperfectedorcompleted,mayapply beenperfectedorcompleted,mayapplytothe mayapplyto tothe Court Court of First First Instan Instance ce (now (now Reg Region ional al Trial Trial Court) Court) ofthe provinc province e where where the land land is locate located d for confir confirmat mation ion of their their claims claims and the issuanc issuance e of a certif certificat ication ion oftitle theref thereforunder orunder the Land Land RegistrationAct,towit: xxxxxxxxx (b)Thosewhobythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessor (b)Thosewhoby themselvesorthroughtheirpredecessors-in-interesthavebeeninopen,continuous, s-in-interesthavebeeninopen,continuous, exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofagriculturallandsofthepublicdomain,under abonafideclaimofacquisitionorownershipfor abonafideclaimofacquisitionorownershipforatleastthirtyyears atleastthirtyyearsimmediatelyprecedingthefiling immediatelyprecedingthefiling oftheapplicationforconfirmationoftitle,exceptwhenpreventedbywarsorforcemajeure.Those shallbeconclusivelypresumedtohaveperformedalltheconditionsessentialto shallbeconclusivelypresumedtohaveperfo rmedalltheconditionsessentialtoaGovernmentgrant aGovernmentgrant andshallbeentitledtoacertificateoftitleunder andshallbeentitledtoacertificateoftitleundertheprovisionso andshallbeentitledtoa certificateoftitleundertheprovisionsofthischapter. theprovisionsof fthischapter. However,saidprovisionwasamendedbyRA1942,whichnowstates: (b)Thosewhobythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessor (b)Thosewhoby themselvesorthroughtheirpredecessors-in-interesthavebeeninopen,continuous, s-in-interesthavebeeninopen,continuous, exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofagriculturallandsofthepublicdomain,under abonafideclaimofacquisitionorownership,sinceJune12,1945,orearlier,immediatelypreceding the filing filing of the applic applicati ation on for confir confirmat mation ion of title, title, except except when when preven prevented ted by wars wars or orforce orfo force rce majeure.Thoseshallbeconclus majeure.Thoseshallbeconclusivelypresum ivelypresumedtohaveperform edtohaveperformedalltheconditions edalltheconditionsessentialtoa essentialtoa Governmentgrantandshallbeentitledto Governmentgrantand shallbeentitledtoacertificate shallbeentitledtoacertificateoftitleundertheprovisions acertificate acertificateoftitleundertheprovisionsofthis oftitleundertheprovisionsofthischapter. ofthischapter. AsinRepublicv.CA,itwasheldthatino AsinRepublicv.CA,itwasheldthatinordertoreso AsinRepublicv.CA,it washeldthatinorderto washeldthatinordertoresolvetheabovementioned rdertoresolvetheabovementionediss resolvetheabovementionedissue, lvetheabovementionedissue, issue, ue,tworequirementsmustbemet, tworequirementsmustbemet, sothatthepossessorofthelandmayacquirearighttoagovernmentgrantwithouttheneedofacertificateof sothatthepossessorofthelandmayacquirea righttoagovernment righttoagovernmentgrantwithout grantwithouttheneedof theneedofac acertificateoftitle: ertificateoftitle: title: 1. thatt thatthe thatthelandisalienablepublicland;and, helan landi dis salie alienabl nablep epubli ublicl cland; and;an and, d, 2. thathisop thathisopen,co thathisopen,continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofthesamemusteitherbe en,continuo ntinuous,ex us,exclusive clusiveandn andnotori otoriousp ousposses ossession sionandoc andoccupati cupationof onofthes thesamem amemustei usteitherb therbe e sincetimeimmemorialorfor sincetimeimmemorial orfortheperiodprescribedin theperiodprescribedinthePublic thePublicLandAct LandAct Doldolmetthefirstrequirement,butbecauseheonlystartedoccupyingthelandin1959,hedidnotacquirea judicialconfirmationofimperfecttitle,thushecannotsegregate judicialconfirmationofimperfecttitle ,thushecannotsegregatethelandindisputefrom thelandindisputefromthepublicdomain. thepublicdomain. DENR etalVS.YAPetal etalVS. etalVS.YAPetal G.R.No. G.R.No.167707 1677 167707 07 October8, Octo Octobe ber r8,2008 2008

:OnNovember10,1978,thenPresidentMarcosissued 78,thenPresidentMarcosissuedProc.No.1801declaringBo Proc.No.1801declaringBoracayIsland, racayIsland, amongother amongother FACTS:OnNovember10,19 islands,cavesandpeninsulasinthePhilippines,astouristzonesandmarinereservesundertheadministrationof thePhilippineTourismAuthority(PTA). thePhilippineTourismAut hority(PTA). hority(PTA). PresidentMarco Presid PresidentMarcoslaterapprovedtheissuanceofPTACircular3-82dated entMarcoslaterappro slaterapprovedtheis vedtheissuanceofPTACircular3-82dated September3,1982,toimplementProclamationNo.1801. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

ClaimingthatProclamationNo.1801andPTACircularNo3-82precludedthem ClaimingthatProclamationNo.1801 ationNo.1801andPTACircular andPTACircular andPTACircularNo3-82precludedthemfromfilinga No3-82precludedthemfromf No3-82precludedthemfromfilinga fromfilinga ilinga napplicationforjudicial napplicationforjudicial confirmationofimperfecttitle confirmationofimperfecttitleorsurvey orsurveyoflandfor oflandfortitlingpurposes, titlingpurposes,respondents-claimants respondents respondents-claim -claimants ants Mayor. Mayor. Yap,Jr. Yap Yap,Jr., ,Jr., , and others filedapetitionfordeclaratoryrelie filedapetitionfordeclaratoryreliefwiththeRTCinKalibo,Aklan. fwiththeRTCinKalibo,Aklan. Intheirpetition,respondents-claimants Intheirpetition,respondents-claimantsallegedthatP allegedthatProc.No. roc.No.1801andP 1801andPTACircular TACircularNo.3-82 TACircularNo.3-82raiseddoubtson No.3-82 No.3-82raiseddoubtsontheir raiseddoubtsontheir their righttosecuretitlesovertheiroccupiedlands. Theydeclaredthattheythemselves,orthroughtheirpredecessorsrighttosecuretitlesovertheiroccupiedlands. Theydeclaredthattheythemselves,orthroughtheirpredecessorsin-interest,hadbeeninopen, in-interest,hadbeeninopen,continuous,exclusive, continuous,exclusive,andnotorious andnotoriouspossessionand possessionandoccupationin occupationinBoracaysince BoracaysinceJune June 12,1945,orearliersincetimeimmemo 12,1945,orearlie rsincetimeimmemorial. 12,1945,orearliersincetimeimmemorial. rial. Theydeclaredtheirlandsfortaxpurposesandpaidrealtytaxesonthem. Theydeclaredthei Theydecl aredtheirlandsfortaxpurposesand rlandsfortaxpurposesandpaidrealtytaxes paidrealtytaxesonthem. onthem. Respondents Respondents-claim -claimantsposit antspositedthatProclama edthatProclamationNo.1801anditsimplementing tionNo.1801anditsimplementingCirculardidnotplace Circulardidnotplace Boracay Boracay beyond the commerceof commerce commerceof rceofman. man. Since Since the Island Island was classi classifie fied fiedas d das asa a touris tourist t zone, zone, itwas susceptible uscept usceptible ible ible of ofprivate ofpriva private privatte e ownership. UnderSection48(b)of UnderSection48(b)ofthePublicLandAct,theyhad thePublicLandAct,theyhadtherighttoh therighttohavethelotsregisteredintheirnames therighttohavethelotsregisteredintheirnames throughjudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitles. TheRepublic,throughtheOSG,opposedthepetitionfor TheRepublic,throughtheOSG, TheRepublic,throughtheOSG,opposedthepetitionfordeclaratoryrelief. opposedthepetitionfordeclaratoryrelief. declaratoryrelief. TheOSGcounteredthatBoracayIsland TheOSGcounteredthatBoracayIsland wasanunclassifiedlandofthepublicdomain. wasanunclassified landofthepublicdomain. Itformedpartofthemass wasanunclassifiedlandofthepublicdomain. Itformedpartofthemassoflandsclassified Itformedpartofthemassoflandsclassifiedas“publicforest,”which oflandsclassifiedas“publicfores as“publicforest,”which wasnotavailablefordispositionpursuanttoSection3(a)oftheRevisedForestryCode,asamended.TheOSG maintainedthatrespondents- claimants’relianceonPDNo.1801andPTACircularNo.3 -82w -82 was asm misplace isp isplaced. laced. d. Their Their righttojudicialconfirmation righttojudicialconfirmationoftitle oftitlewasgoverned wasgovernedbyPublicLand byPublicLandActand ActandRevisedForestry RevisedForestryCode,as Code,asamended. amended. Since Since BoracayIslandhadnotbeenclassifiedasalienableanddisposable,whateverpos BoracayIslandhadnot beenclassifiedasalienableanddisposable,whateverpossessiontheyhadcannotripeninto sessiontheyhadcannotripeninto ownership. OnJuly14,1999,theRTCrenderedadecisioninfavorofrespondents- claimants,declaringthat, claimants,declaringthat,“PD1810and “PD1810andPTA PTA CircularNo.3-82RevisedForestryCode,asamended. TheOSGmovedforreconsiderationbutitsmotionwasdenied.TheRepublicthenappealedtotheCA.OnIn2004, theappellatecourtaffirmed intoto theRTCdecision.Again, theRTCdecision.Again,theOSGsoughtreco theOSGsoughtreconsider nsiderationbutitwassim ationbutitwassimilarly ilarly denied.Hence,thepresentpetitionunderRule45. OnMay22,2006,duringthe pendencythe pendencythe petitionin petitionin thetrialcourt,PresidentGloria thetrialcourt,PresidentGloriaMacapagal-A Macapagal-Arroy rroyoissued oissued Proclamati Proclamation on No. 1064 classifying classifying Boracay Boracay Island partly reserved reserved forest forest land (protectio (protection n purposes) purposes) and partly agriculturalland(alienableanddisposable). OnAugust10,2006,petitioners-claimantsSacay,andotherlandownersinBoracayfiledwiththisCourtanoriginal petitionforprohibition,mandamus,andnullificationofProclamationNo.1064.TheyallegethattheProclamation infringedontheir“priorvestedrights”overportionsofBoracay. Theyhavebeenincontinuedpossessionoftheir infringedontheir“priorvestedrights”overportionsofBoracay. Theyhavebeenincontinuedpossessionoftheir respectivelotsinBoracaysincetimeimmemorial. ISSUE:themainissueiswhetherprivateclaimantshavearighttosecuretitlesovertheiroccupiedportionsin Boracay. HELD:petitionsDENIED.TheCAdecisionisreversed.

Exceptforlandsalreadycoveredbyexistingtitles,Boracaywasanunclassifiedlandofthepublicdomainpriorto ProclamationNo.1064. ProclamationNo.1064. Suchunclassifiedlandsare Suchunclassifiedlandsareconsideredpu dsareconsideredpublicforestunderPDNo.705 consideredpublicforestunderPDNo.705. consideredpublicforestunderP blicforestunderPDNo.705 DNo.705 . PDNo.705issuedbyPresidentMarcoscategorizedallunclassifie PDNo.705issuedbyPresident Marcoscategorizedallunclassifiedlandsof dlands of thepublicdomainaspublicforest. the publicdom publicdomain ain aspublicfor aspublicforest. Section3(a)ofPDNo.705definesapubli Section3(a)ofPDNo.7 05definesapublicforestas“amassoflan cforestas“amassofland d softhepublicdomainwhich hasnotbeenthe subjectofthepresentsystemofclassificatio nforthedeterminationofwhichlandsareneededforforestpurpose andwhicharenot.” andwhic andwhicharenot.” harenot.” Applying ApplyingPDNo.705,allunclassifiedlands,includingtho ApplyingPD PD No.705,a No.705,allunclassifiedlands,includingthoseinBoracayIs seinBoracayIsland,are ipsofacto consideredpublicforests. PDNo.705,however,respectstitlesalreadyexistingpriortoit PDNo.705,however,respectstitlesalreadyexistingpriortoitseffectivity. seffectivity. The1935Constitutio The1935Constitutionclassifie nclassifiedlandsofthepublicdomainintoagricu dlandsofthepublicdomainintoagricultural ltural,forestortimbe ,forestortimber,suchclassif r,suchclassificatio ication n modifiedbythe1973Constitution.The1987Constitutionrevertedtothe1935Constitutionclassificationwithone addition:nationalparks.Ofthese,onlyagriculturallandsmaybealienated.PriortoProclamationNo.1064ofMay CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

22,2006,BoracayIslandhadnever 22,2006, 22,2006,Boracay BoracayIslandhadneverbeenexpressly Islandhadneverbeen Islandhadneverbeenexpresslyand beenexpresslyandadministratively expresslyandadministrativelyclassified andadministrativelyclassifiedunder administrativelyclassifiedunderanyofthesegra classifiedunderany underanyofthesegranddivisions. anyofthesegranddivisions. nddivisions. Boracaywasanunclassifiedlandofthepublicdomain. Inkeepin In keep keepin ing gwith gwiththe the presumptionof presum presumption ptionof ptionof State Apositive A positiveact actdeclaring declaringland landas asalienable alienable and disposableis disposable isrequired required. required. Inkeepingwith ownership,theCourthastime ownership,theCourthastimeandagainemphasizedthat andagainemphasizedthattheremustbe theremustbeapositiveact apositiveactofthegovernment, ofthegovernment,suchas suchasa a presidentialproclamationoranexecutiveorder;anadministrativeaction;investigationreportsofBureauofLands investigators;andalegislativeactorastatute.Theapplicantmayalsosecureacertificationfromthegovernment thatthelandclaimedtohavebeen thatthelandclaimedtohavebeen possessedfortherequir possessedfortherequirednumberofyearsisalienable ednumberofyearsisalienableanddisposable. anddisposable.The The burdenofproofinovercomingsuchpresumptionison burdenofproofinovercomingsuchpresumptionisonthe burdenofproofinovercomingsuchpresumptionisonthe the personapplyingforregistration(orclaimingownership), personapplyingforregistration(orclaimingownership), whomustprovethatthe whomustprovethatthelandsubjectoftheapplicationisalienableor provethatthelandsubjectof landsubjectof landsubjectoftheapplicationisalienableordisposable. theapplicationisalienableordisposable. disposable. Inthecaseatbar,nosuchproclamation,executive Inthecase Inthecaseatbar, atbar,nosuchproclamation,executiveorder,administrativeactio nosuchproclamation,executiveorder, nosuchproclamation,executiveorder,administrativeaction,report order,administrativeaction,report,st administrativeaction,report,statute,o n,report,statute,orcertificat ,statute,orcertificationwas atute,orcertificationwas rcertificationwas ionwas presentedtotheCourt.. Therecordsarebereftofevidenceshow presentedtotheCourt Therecordsarebereftofevidenceshowing dsarebereftofevidenceshowingthat ingthat,priorto2006,theporti ingthat,priorto2006,theportion that,,priorto2006,theportionsofBoraca priorto2006,theportionsofBoracay onsofBoracay sofBoracay y occupiedbyprivateclaimantsweresubject occupiedbyprivateclaimants weresubjectofagovernment ofagovernmentproclamationthat proclamationthatthelandisalienableand thelandisalienableanddisposable. disposable. Mattersoflandclassificationorreclassificationcannot Mattersoflandclassif icationorreclassificationcannotbeassumed.Theycallfor beassumed.Theycallforproof. proof. Proc.No.1801cannotbedeemedthepositiveactneededtoclassifyBoracayIslandasalienableanddisposableland. Proc.No.1801cannotbedeemedthepositiveactneededtoclassifyBoracayIsland asalienableanddisposableland. IfPresidentMarcos IfPresidentMarcosintendedtoclassif intendedtoclassifytheislandasalienableanddisposa ytheislandasalienableanddisposableorforest bleorforest,orboth,hewouldhave ,orboth,hewouldhave identified identi identified fied fied thespecific the thespeci specific speciffic ic limits limits ofeach, of each,as asPres PresidentArroyo President iden identArroyo t Arroyo Arroyo didin did in Procla Pro Proclamatio Procl clamat amation mation ion n No. No. 106 1064. 1064. 4. This This was not done done in ProclamationNo.1801. INRE:APPLICATIONFOR INRE:APPLICATIONFORLANDREGISTRATIONOFTITLE INRE:APPLICATIONFORLANDR LANDREGISTRATIONOFTITLE EGISTRATIONOFTITLE FIELDMANAGRICULTURALTRADINGCORPvREPUBLIC GRNo. GRNo.147359 1473 147359 59 March28, Marc March h28,2008 2008 Facts:

PetitionerFieldmanAgriculturalTradingCorp.(FATCO),throughKamBiakY.Chan,Jr.,appealsbycertiorariunder Rule45oftheRulesofCourt,theOctober23,2000DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA-G.R.CVNo.52366, andtheMarch7,2001Resolutiondenyingitsreconsideration. OnOctober19,1993,FATCOfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofLaUnionan OnOctober19,1993,FATCOfiledwiththeRegionalTrial Court(RTC)ofLaUnionanapplicationforconfirmationof applicationforconfirmationof titletoparcelsofland,describedasLotsNo.1505,No.1234andNo.47030 titletoparcelsofland,describedasLotsNo.1505, No.1234andNo. No.1234andNo.47030 47030 , 3 withanaggregateareaof8,463 withanaggregateareaof8,463square square meters,situatedinBarrioPoblacion,Bacnotan,La meters,situatedinBarrio Poblacion,Bacnotan,LaUnion.Theapplicationwasdo Union.TheapplicationwasdocketedasLRAREC.No cketedasLRAREC.No.N-63835. .N-63835. FATCOalleged,amongother FATCOalleged,amongothers,thatitistheownerofthesubjectparcels s,thatitistheownerofthesubjectparcelsoflandwhichit oflandwhichit openly,exclusivel openly,exclusivelyand yand notoriouslypossessedandoccupiedformorethanthirty(30)yearsundera bonafide bonafideclaimofownership,tackingits claimofownership,tackingits possessionwiththatofitspredecessors-in-interest. Issue:

Whetherornotpetitioner Whetherornotpetitionerfailedtoproveitsopen,conti failedtoproveitsopen,continuous, nuous,adverseandnotori adverseandnotoriousposses ouspossessionofthesubject sionofthesubject propertiesintheconceptofanownerform propertiesintheconceptof anownerformorethanthirty(30) orethanthirty(30)year year Held:

Inthiscase,FATCOdidnotpresentsufficientproofthatitspredecessors-in-interesthadbeeninopen,continuous andadversepossess andadve rsepossessionofthesubje andadversepossessionofthesubjectlotssinceJune12,19 ionofthesubje ctlotssinceJune12,19 ctlotssince June12,19 45.Atbest,FATCOcanonlyprovepossessionofLotsNo. 45.Atbest,FATCOcanonlyprov 45.Atbest,FATC Ocanonlyprovepossessi epossessionofLotsNo. onofLotsNo. 1505andNo.47030since1948,andofLotNo.1234since1970.Butasthelawnowstands,amereshowingof possessionforthirty(30)yearsormoreisnotsufficient.Itmustbeshowntoothatpossessionandoccupationhad startedonJune12,1945orearlier.



–

ANGELDELROSARIO, petitioner,vs. REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent. GRNo. GRNo.148338 1483 148338 38 June6, June June 6,2002 2002 Facts: Thecaseisapetitionforreviewont Thecaseisapetitionforreviewonthereversalofth hereversalofthedecisionofth edecisionoftheRTCbytheCAde eRTCbytheCAdenyingtheapp nyingtheapplicationofthe licationofthe petitionerfortheregistrationofaparcelofland(forestland)locatedinMaragondon,Cavite.InOctober13,1997, petitionerfiledanapplicationforregistrationofaparcelofland,statingthereinthatheisresidentofPoblacion, Ternate,Cavite;thatheandhispredecessors-in-interesthadbeenintheopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotorious Ternate,Cavite;thatheandhispredecessors-in-interesthadbeenin theopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotorious possessionandoccupationofthelandinquestion,whichwasalienableanddisposableland,underabonafideclaim ofownershipsincethe1920sore ofownershipsincethe1920sorevenearlier;andth venearlier;andthatsuchlandwasbe atsuchlandwasbeingoccupiedand ingoccupiedandcultivatedbyhimand cultivatedbyhimandhis his family.Healsoindicatedtheowners/occupantsoftheadjoiningpropertiesandsubmittedthef family.Healsoindicated theowners/occupantsoftheadjoiningpropertiesandsubmittedthef theowners/occupa ntsoftheadjoiningpropertiesandsubmittedthef ollowingdocuments: ollowing ollowingdocuments: documents: (a)anadvancesurveyplanofthelandappliedforwithtechnicaldescriptions,SurveyPlan,Ap-04-0011601,(b) Techn Technica ical l Descri Descripti ption on of Lot No. 1891; 1891; (c) Certif Certifica icatio tion n in lieu lieu of Geode Geodetic tic Engine Engineer' er's s certif certifica icatio tion n issue issued d for registrationpurposes,at registrat ionpurposes,attestingtothegenuin registrationpurposes,attestingtothegenuinenessofthesurveyplan;(d)Certification,datedAugust14,1997, testingtothegenuin enessofthesurveypla enessofthesurveyplan;(d)Certifi n;(d)Certification,da cation,datedAugust14,199 tedAugust14,1997, 7, that that thesubjectlandisalienableanddisposable;(e)Certification,datedOctober7,1997, thesubjectlandisalienableand disposable;(e)Certification,datedOctober7,1997,thatthepropertyisnotcovered thatthepropertyisnotcovered byanypubliclandapplicationorpatent;(f)TaxDeclarationNo.7414,Seriesof1998,coveringtheparcelofland; and(g)OfficialReceiptNo.1038951S,datedSeptember9,1997,showingpetitioner'spaymentoftherealtytaxes onthesaidlotupto1997.

Petitioneralsosubmittedtothebranchclerkofcourttheoriginalcopyoftracingcloth Petitioneralsosubmittedtothebranchclerkof courttheoriginalcopyoftracingclothplanofthelandand planofthelandandthelatter thelatter Authority all the documents documents supporting supporting the petitioner petitioner’s ’s application. application. No transmitt transmitted ed to the Land Registrat Registrat ion Authority oppositorappearedduringthehearingexceptfortheprovincialprosecutorinbehalfoftheBureauofLands.All partiesexcepttotheBureauofLandsweredeclaredindefaultby partiesexcepttotheBureauof Landsweredeclaredindefaultbythecourtandthe thecourtandthetrialensued.Petitionerpresented trialensued.Petitionerpresented witnessesinthepersonofRaymuldoTeliawhotestifiedheknowsthepetitionertobetheownerofthesaidland sincehewasyoung.Petitionerfurtherclaimsthatheandhisfamilyplantedmangoandbambootreesandraised animal animals s onit and they they solely solely gathe gather r the fruits fruits and forest forest produ products cts ofsaidland. The lowercourt lowercourt grante granted d the applicationofthepetitionerthustherespondentappealedtotheCAcontendingthatthepetitionerfailedtosubmit theoriginaltracingclothplanofthe theoriginaltracingclothplanofthelotandtoestablish lotandtoestablishthatheandhisp thatheandhispredecessorsredecessors-in-interesthasb in-interesthasbeeninopen eeninopen,, notorious,continuous,uninterruptedpossessionofthelandindisputewithintheperiodrequiredbylaw.TheCA reversedthelowercourtdecis reversedthelowercourtdecisionholdingthatt ionholdingthatthepetitioner hepetitionerfailedtosubmitthe failedtosubmittheoriginalcopyofth originalcopyofthetracingcloth etracingcloth planofthelandapp planofthelandappliedforreg liedforregistration. istration. Issue: Whetherornotthefailuretosubmittheoriginalcopyofthetracingclothplanisrequiredinthelandregistration proceeding. proceeding. Held: Thecourtheldthatthesub Thecourtheldthatthesubmissionoftheorig missionoftheoriginalcopyofthetra inalcopyofthetracingclothplanisamand cingclothplanisamandatoryrequireme atoryrequirementinthe ntinthe applicationoforiginalregistrationofland.Failuretosubmitthesameisfatal.Thepu applicationoforiginalregistrat ionofland.Failuretosubmitthesameisfatal.Thepurposeofwhichistoestablish rposeofwhichistoestablish thetrueidentityofthelandandensurethatitdoesnotoverlapadjoininglandsthat thetrueidentityofthelandand ensurethatitdoes notoverlapadjoi ninglandsthat arealreadyregistered. arealready arealreadyregistered. registered.

1.

Thecont Thecontentionofthepetitionerthathesubmittedittothebranchclerk Thecontentio ention nof ofthe thepeti petitione tionert rthat hathe he submittedittothebranchclerkofcourtwhotransmittedthesame ofcourtwhotransmittedthesameto to to theLandRegistrationAuthorityhasnomeritsincethecourtheldthatheisdutyboundtoretrieveitandsubmit theLandRegistrationAuthorityhasnomeritsincethecourtheldthatheisdutybound toretrieveitandsubmit itbeforethecourt.ItisnotthefunctionoftheLRCtochecktheoriginalsurveyplanasithadnoauthorityto approveoriginalsurveyplans.If, approveoriginalsurveyplans.If, forany reason, reason, theoriginal tracing tracing cloth planwas forwarded forwarded there,the there,the applicantmayeasilyretrievethesametherefromandsubmitthesamein applicantmayeasilyretrievethesametheref romandsubmitth romandsubmitthesame esameinevidence. inevidence. evidence.

2.

Thec Thecourtcannotadmithisprayertoreopentheproceedingforhimtosubmittheoriginal Thecour ourt tcan cannot nota admi dmit this hisp pray rayer er toreopentheproceedingforhimtosubmittheoriginaltracingclothplanor tracingclothplanor sepiapaperasnewlydiscoveredevidenceforitdoesnotmeetthefollowingrequisitesforre-openinga sepiapaperasnewlydiscoveredevidenceforit doesnotmeetthefollowingrequisitesforre-openingacaseto caseto presentanewevidence:1)the presentanewevidence:1)theevidencewasdisco evidencewasdiscoveredafterth veredafterthetrial;2)sucheviden etrial;2)suchevidencecouldnothav cecouldnothavebeen ebeen discovere discoveredorproduce dorproducedontrialwithinareasona dontrialwithinareasonabletime; bletime;3) 3) itis materialandnotmerel materialandnotmerelycorrobo ycorroborativ rativein ein


weightthatwhenadmittedwillchangethejudgment.Theoriginaltr weightthatwhenadmittedwillchangethe judgment.Theoriginaltracing acingplancannotbeconsideredasnewly plancannotbeconsideredasnewly plancannotbeconsideredasnewly discoveredevidencesinceitwasalreadyavailableatthetimeofapplicationforregistration. 3. 3. Petitionerfailedtoe Peti Petiti tion oner erf fai aile ledtoestablishto stablishtohavemet havemetthelegal thelegalrequirements requirementsonthe onthemannerand mannerandlengthof lengthofpossession possessionasto asto vesthimtitleofownershipoftheland.Heclaimstohaveplantedbambootreesandmangotreesbutsuchisheld bythecourtas“mere bythecourtas“merecasualcultivation”ofthe casualcultivation”ofthelandthatdoes landthatdoesnotconstituteposse notconstitutepossessionunderclaimof ssionunderclaimofownership. ownership. Hence,inviewofthelackofsufficientevidenceofthe30-yearopen,notorious,andconclusivepossessioninthe conceptofan conceptof conceptofanowner, anowner,asrequired owner,asrequiredby asrequiredbyC.A.No.141,48(b),asamended,petitionersapplicationfororiginalregistration byC.A.No.141,48(b),asamended,petitionersapplicationfororiginalregistration ofLotNo.1891cannotbegranted IGLESI IGLESIA A NI CRISTO CRISTO vs. THE HONORA HONORABLE BLE JUDGE, JUDGE, BRANCH BRANCH I COURTOF COURTOF FIRST FIRST INSTAN INSTANCEOF CEOF NUEVAECIJA NUEVAECIJA and DEVELOPMENTBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents. G.R.No.L-35273July25,1983 GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.: Facts: DevelopmentBankofthePhilippinesfiledanactionagainsttheIglesianiKristo.Thecomplaintstatesamongother thingsthatDevelop thingsthatDevelopmentBankofthePhil mentBankofthePhilippines ippinesacquiredacertai acquiredacertainparceloflandloca nparceloflandlocatedatSagana tedatSagana,Laur,Nueva ,Laur,Nueva Ecija,withanareaof19hectares,moreorless;thatitacquiredthesamethruasheriff'ssaleheldonApril2,1952 onaccountofaforeclosureofmortgagesecuringanagriculturalloanofP4,500.00grantedtooneEmilioLibunao; thatonJuly18,1953aftertheexpirationof thatonJuly18,1953aftertheexpirationofoneyearfrom oneyearfromandafterthedateof andafterthedateoftheregistrationofthecert theregistrationofthecertificateof ificateof sale,and sale,and afterthemortgagor,Emilio afterthemortgagor,EmilioLibunaofailedtoexercisehisrighttoredemption Libunaofailedtoexercisehisrighttoredemption,theplaintiffcausedthe ,theplaintiffcausedthe consolidationinitsfavortheexclusiveandabsoluteownershipthereof,andwasissuedT.C.T.No.NT-14302inits name;thatsaidparceloflandwasoriginallyownedbyMr.EmilioLibunao,whoobtainedaHomesteadPatenton June19,1937,whichwasregisteredasO.C.T.No June19,1937,whichwas registeredasO.C.T.No.5482onJanuary19, .5482onJanuary19,1938;thatonAugust2, 1938;thatonAugust2,1966plaintiffsoldto 1966plaintiffsoldto itsformerownerEmilioLibunaothesaidproperty itsformerownerEmilioLibunaothesaidpropertyforthesumo forthesumofP10,953.23underaDeed fP10,953.23underaDeedofConditionalSale;that ofConditionalSale;that plaintifflearned plaintifflearnedthatthedefendantIglesia thatthedefendantIglesiani ni Kristothruitsfollow Kristothruitsfollowersandwithitsfullknowledge ersandwithitsfullknowledgeandconsentis andconsentis occupyingthesaidparceloflandsince occupyingthesaidparcel oflandsinceOctober3,1966, October3,1966,and andclaimingthesametobeapo claimingthesameto claimingthesametobeapo claimingthesametobeaportionoft beaportionoft rtionofthatcertainparcel rtionofthatcertainparcel hatcertainparcel hatcertainparcel oflandknownasLotB-2,Psd-47351,coveredbyT.C.T.No.NT-53573inthena oflandknownasLotB-2,Psd47351,coveredbyT.C.T.No.NT-53573inthe 47351,coveredbyT.C.T. No.NT-53573inthena na meofdefendantIglesianiKristowas meofdefendantIglesianiKristowas originallyregisteredonJune1,1964asO.C.T.No.0918underDecreeNo.N-11506,Rec.No.55081,CaseNo.3244 oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofNuevaEcija,issuedonMay25,1954;thatdespiterepeateddemandsbyplaintiff, defendantIglesianiKristoandallpersonsclaimingitfalledandrefusedandstillfailandrefusetovacatethesaid parceloflandtothedamageandprejudiceoftheplaintiff. parceloflandtothedamageandprejudiceoftheplaintiff.

TherespondentCourtdeclaredthetitleofthedefendantIglesianiKristo,T.C.T.No.NT-53573tobenullandvoid, andorderstheRegisterofDeedstocanceltheaforementionedtitle.TherespondentCourtlikewiseordersthe defendantIglesianiKristo defendantIglesianiKristotodeliverthepossessi todeliverthepossessionofthesaidproperty onofthesaidpropertytothe tothe plaintiffortoitsdulyauthorize plaintiffortoitsdulyauthorized d representative,andtopaythecosts. Issue: WHICH WHICH OF THE TWO TITLES TITLES IS SUPERI SUPERIOR, OR, AN EARLIE EARLIER R TITLE TITLE SECURE SECURED D ADMINI ADMINISTR STRATI ATIVEL VELY Y OR A LATTER LATTER TITLE TITLE SECUREDTHRUJUDICIALPROCEEDINGS? Held: TheruleinVitalisnotapplicabletothiscase. TheruleinVitalisnotapplicabletothis case. Atorrenstitleissueduponafreepatentmaynotbecancelledafter Atorrenstitl Atorrenstitleissuedup eissueduponafr onafreepatentmaynotbecancelledafter thelapseoftenyearsfromthedateof thelapseoftenyears fromthedateofitsregistrationbecausethesta itsregistrationbecausethestatuteoflimitationsbars tuteoflimitationsbarssuchcancellation.But suchcancellation.But iftheregisteredowner,behe iftheregisteredowner,behethe iftheregisteredowner,behethe thepatenteeorhis patenteeorhissuccessor-in-interestto patenteeorhissuccessor-in-interesttowhomthefreepatentwastransferred successor-in-interesttowhom whomthefreepatentwastransferredor whomthefreepatentwastransferredor or conveyed,knewtha conveyed,knewthattheparcel ttheparceloflanddescr oflanddescribedinthepate ibedinthepatentandintheTor ntandintheTorrenstit renstitlebelonged lebelongedtoanothe toanotherwho rwho togetherwithhispredecessors-in-interesthasbeeninpossessionthereof,andifthepatenteeandhis togetherwithhispredecessors-in-interesthasbeeninpossessionther eof,andifthepatenteeandhissuccessor-ineof,andifthepatenteeandhissuccessor-ininterestwereneverinpossessionthereof,thenthestatute interestwereneverinpossession thereof,thenthestatutebarringanactiontocancela barringanactiontocancelaTorrenstitleissuedupona Torrenstitleissuedupona freepatentdoesnotapply,andthetrueownermaybringanactiontohavetheownershiportitletotheland judiciallysettled,andiftheallegationsoftheplaintiffthatheisthetr judiciallysettled,andiftheallegations oftheplaintiffthatheisthetrueowneroftheparceloflandgr ueowneroftheparceloflandgrantedasfree antedasfree CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

patentanddescribedintheTorrenstitleandthatthedefendantandhispredecessor-in-interestwereneverin possessionoftheparcelof possessionoftheparceloflandandknewthat landandknewthattheplaintiffand theplaintiffandhispredecessor-in-interest hispredecessor-in-interesthavebeeninposs havebeeninpossession ession thereofbeestablished,thenthecourtintheexerciseofitsequityjurisdiction,withoutorderingthecancellationof thereofbeestablished,thenthecourtintheexerciseofitsequityjurisdiction,withoutorderingthecancellationof theTorrenstitleissueduponthepatent,maydirectthedefendant, theTorrenstitleissuedupon thepatent,maydirectthedefendant,theregisteredowner,tor theregisteredowner,toreconveytheparcelof econveytheparcelof landtotheplaintiffwhohasbeenfoundtobethe landtotheplaintiffwho hasbeenfoundtobethetrueownerthereof.( trueownerthereof.(PhilippineRe trueownerthereof.(PhilippineReports,Vol.90, PhilippineRe PhilippineReports,Vol.90,pp- ports,Vol.90,pp-858-859) pp-858-859) Intheinstantcase,thesituationisreversed.EmilioLibunao Intheinstantcase,the situationisreversed.EmilioLibunaowasgivenahomesteadpatentin wasgivenahomesteadpatentin1937andtheTorrens 1937andtheTorrens Titlein1938.VictoriaMaravillaregisteredhersupposedtitleto Titlein1938.VictoriaMaravillaregisteredhersupposedtitletotheproperty Titlein1938.VictoriaMara villaregisteredhersupposedtitletothe villaregisteredhersupposed titletothepropertyonlyin1954orseventeenyears thepropertyonlyin propertyonlyin1954orseventeenyearslater. onlyin1954orseventeenyearslater. later. Itistherefore,the Itistherefore,thetitleofMaravilla, Itistherefore,thetitleof titleofMaravilla,thepetitioner's Maravilla,thepetitioner'spredecessorMaravilla,the thepetitioner'spredecessor-in-interest, petitioner'spredecessor-in-interest, predecessor-in-interest,whichshould in-interest,whichshouldbedeclared whichshouldbedeclaredanullity. whichshouldbedeclaredanullity.She anullity.She She filedanapplicationforlandregistrationoverpropertywhichhadalreadybeenawardedbytheStatetoEmilio Libunao17yearsearlierandatitletowhichhadalreadybeenregistered,16yearsbeforetheregistrationofhertitle. Libunao17yearsearlierandatitletowhichhad alreadybeenregistered,16yearsbeforetheregistrationofhertitle. Maravillacouldnotlegallyclaimthatsheownedthelotasherprivatepropertypriorto Maravillacouldnotlegallyclaimthatsheownedthelotasherprivat Maravillacouldnotlegallyclaimthat sheownedthelotasherprivatepropertypriorto sheownedthelotasherprivatepropertypriortoitsregistrationinher epropertypriortoitsregistrationinhername itsregistrationinhername itsregistrationinhername name in1954andevenpriorto1938whentitlewasregistered in1954andevenpriorto 1938whentitlewasregisteredinthenameofLibunaopursuant inthenameofLibunaopursuanttoahomesteadpatent. toahomesteadpatent. Thecontentioninthecommentsof ThecontentioninthecommentsoftheIglesiani theIglesianiCristo(its Cristo(itslawyerdidnot lawyerdidnotfileanybrief) fileanybrief)thatthetwo thatthetwolotsareprivate lotsareprivate lands,followi lands,followingtherulelaiddowninSusivs.Raz ngtherulelaiddowninSusivs.RazonandDirect onandDirectorofLands, orofLands,48Phil.424,isnotcorre 48Phil.424,isnotcorrect.Whatwas ct.Whatwas consideredprivatelandintheSusicasewasaparceloflandpossessedbyaFilipinocitizensincetimeimmemorial, asinCariñovs.InsularGovernment.

Consideringthecircumstancesofthiscase,wefollowthegeneralrulethatwheretwocertificatesoftitleare issuedtodifferentperso issuedtodifferentpersonscoveringth nscoveringthesamelandinw esamelandinwholeorinpart holeorinpart,theearlierdat ,theearlierdatemustprevail emustprevailasbetween asbetween theoriginalparties,andincaseofsuccessiveregistrationwheremorethanonecertificateisissuedovertheland, theoriginalparties,andincaseofsuccessiveregistrationwhere morethanonecertificateisissuedovertheland, thepersonholdingunderthepriorcertificateisentitledtothe thepersonholdingunder thepersonholdingunderthepriorcertificateisentitledtothelandasagainst thepriorcertificateisentitledtothelandasagainstthepersonwhoreliesonthe landasagainstthepersonwhoreliesonthesecond thepersonwhoreliesonthesecond second certificate. certificate. Weapplytheruling Weapplytherulingin in Pajomay Pajomayo,etalv. o,etalv. Manipon Maniponet et al.(39SCRA676)thatwher al.(39SCRA676)thatwherethesameparc ethesameparceloflandis eloflandis coveredbytwotitles,necessarilywhenoneofthetwo coveredbytwotitles,necessarilywhenone coveredbytwotitles,necessarilywhenoneofthetwotitlesisheld ofthetwotitlesisheldto titlesisheldtobesuperior tobesuperiorovertheother,thelattershould besuperiorovertheother,thelatter overtheother,thelattershould should bedeclarednullandvoidandshouldbecancelled.Petitionerclaimsthatitisaninnocentpurchaserforvalueand as such such is enti entitl tled ed to the the prot protec ecti tion ons s prov provid ided ed by law law part partic icul ular arly ly the the guar guaran ante tee e of inde indefe feas asib ibil ilit ity y and and incontrovertibilityofaTorrensTitleaftertheexpirationofoneyearwithinwhichto incontrovertibilityofaTorrensTitleafterthe expirationofoneyearwithinwhichtofileapetitionforreview. fileapetitionforreview.The The respondentBankistheinnocentpurchaserforvalueinthiscaseandismoreentitledtotheprotectionclaimedby respondentBankistheinnocentpurchaserforvalueinthis caseandismoreentitledtotheprotectionclaimedby thepetitioner.Theruleonsuccessiveregistrationcontrols.TheLandRegistrationCourthadnojurisdictionto decreeanewtheregistrationofalandalrea decreeanewtheregist rationofalandalreadydecreedandtitled dydecreedandtitled.Ithadnopowertobestowvalidity .Ithadnopowertobestowvalidityuponthe uponthe seconddecree. AznarBrothersRealtyCompanyv.Aying G.R.No.144773,May16,2005 J.Austria-Martinez FACTS: 1.ThedisputedpropertyisLotNo.4399withanareaof34,325squaremeterslocatedatDapdap,Lapu-LapuCity. CrisantaMaloloy-onpetitionedfortheissuanceof CrisantaMaloloy-onpetitionedf ortheissuanceofacadastraldecreeinherfavor acadastraldecreeinherfavoroversaidparcelof oversaidparcelofland.Afterher land.Afterher deathin1930,theCadastralCourtissuedaDecisiondirectingtheissuanceofadecreeinthenameofCrisanta Maloloy-onseightchildren,namely:Juan,Celedonio,Emiliano,Francisco, Maloloy-onseightchildren,namely:Juan, Maloloy-onseightchildren,namely:Juan,Celedonio,Emiliano,Francisco,Simeon,Bern Celedonio,Emiliano,Francisco,Simeon,Bern Simeon,Bern abe,RobertaandFausta,all abe,RobertaandFausta,all surnamedAying.Thecertificateoftitle surnamedAying.The surnamedAying.Thecertificateoftitlewas, certificateoftitlewas,however,lostduringthewar. was,however,lostduringthewar. however,lostduringthewar. 2.Subsequently,alltheheirsoftheAyingsiblingsexecutedanExtra-JudicialPartitionofRealEstatewithDeedof AbsoluteSaledatedMarch3,1964,conveyingthesubjectpa AbsoluteSaledatedMarch3,19 64,conveyingthesubjectparceloflandtohereinpetitionerAznarBrothersRealty rceloflandtohereinpetitionerAznarBrothersRealty Company.SaiddeedwasregisteredwiththeRegisterofDeedsofLapu-LapuCityonMarch6,1964underActNo. 3344(thelawgoverningregistrationforunregisteredland),andsincethen,petitionerhadbeenreligiouslypaying realpropertytaxesonsaidproperty.



–

3.In1988,hereinpetitionerfiledaPetitionforReconstitutionoftheOriginalTitleastheoriginaltitleoverthesubject 3.In1988,hereinpetitionerfileda PetitionforReconstitutionoftheOriginalTitleastheoriginaltitleoverthesubject propertyhadbeenlostduringthewar.OnApril12,1988,thecourtgrantedsaidpetition,therebydirectingthe RegisterofDeedsofLapu-Lapu RegisterofDeedsofLapu-LapuCity RegisterofDeedsofLapu-LapuCity City toissueareconstitutedtitlein toissueareconstitutedtitleinthenameof thenameoftheabovementionedAyingsiblings. theabovementionedAyingsiblings. Thus,OriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.RO-2856wasissued. 4.In1991,petitioner,claimingtobetherightfulownerofthe 4.In1991, petitioner,claimingtobetherightfulownerofthesubjectproperty,sentoutnoticestovacate,addressed subjectproperty,sentoutnoticestovacate,addressed topersonsoccupyingtheproperty.Unheeded,petitionerthenfiledacomplaintforejectmentagainsttheoccupants beforetheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MTC),Lapu-LapuCity. 5.OnFebruary1,1994,theMTCorderedtheoccupantstovacatetheproperty.Thecaseeventuallyreachedthis Court, Court, docketed docketed as G.R.No. 12810 128102, 2, entitled entitled Aznar Brothers Realty Realty Company Com Company pany pany vs. Court Court of Appeals, Appeals, Appeals, Luis Aying, Aying, Aying, March h 7, 2000 2000, , a Deci Decisi sion on was was Demetr Demetrio io Sida, Sida, Felom Felomino ino Augus Augusto, to, Federi Federico co Abing Abing, , and Romeo Romeo Augus Augusto. to. On Marc promulgatedinfavorofhereinpetitioner, promulgatedinfavor ofhereinpetitioner,declaringitas ofhereinpetitioner,declaringitastherightfulpossessorof declaringitas declaringitastherightfulpossessoroftheparcelof therightfulpossessoroftheparceloflandinquestion. theparceloflandinquestion. 6.Meanwhile,hereinrespondents,alongwith 6.Meanwhile,hereinrespo ndents,alongwithotherpersonsclaiming otherpersonsclaimingtobe otherpersonsclaimingtobede tobedescendantsoftheeightAyingsiblings, tobede scendantsoftheeightAyingsiblings, scendantsoftheeightAyingsiblings, allinallnumberingaround220pers allinallnumberingaround220persons,hadfiled ons,hadfiledacomplaintfor acomplaintforcancellati cancellationoftheExtra onoftheExtra-Judic -JudicialParti ialPartitionwith tionwith AbsoluteSale,recoveryofownership,injunctionanddamageswiththeRTCofLapu-LapuCity.Thecomplaintwas dismissedtwicewithoutprejudice.Saidcomplaint dismissedtwicewithout prejudice.Saidcomplaintwasre-filedon wasre-filedonAugust19,1993, August19,1993,docketedasCivilCas docketedasCivilCaseNo.2 eNo.2930930L. Issue:Whetherorn Issue:Whetherornotrespondents’ Issue:Whetherornotrespondents’causeof otrespondents’causeofactionisimprescriptible causeofactionisimprescriptible actionisimprescriptible Held: Thefactsonrecord Thefactsonrecordshowthat Thefactsonrecordshowthatpetitioneracquiredtheentireparcelof showthatpetitioneracquiredthe petitioneracquiredtheentireparcelof entireparcelof landwiththemistakenbeliefthatalltheheirs landwiththemistakenbelief landwiththemistakenbeliefthatall thatalltheheirs haveexecutedthesubjectdocument.Thus,the haveexecutedthesubject document.Thus,thetrialcourtis trialcourtiscorrectthat trialcourtiscorrectthattheprovisionoflaw correctthat correctthattheprovisionoflawapplicabletothiscase theprovisionoflawapplicabletothiscase applicabletothiscase isArticle1456oftheCivil isArticle1456oftheCivilCodewhichstates: Codewhichstates: ART.1456.Ifpropertyis Codewhichstates:ART.1456.Ifpropertyis ART.1456.Ifpropertyisacquiredthr acquiredthroughmistakeorfraud,theperson acquiredthroughmistakeor oughmistakeorfr fr aud,theperson obtainingitis,byforceoflaw,cons obtainingitis,byforceoflaw,consideredatrusteeo ideredatrusteeofanimpliedtrustfo fanimpliedtrustforthebenefitofth rthebenefitofthepersonfromw epersonfromwhomthe homthe propertycomes. Therulethata Therulethatatrusteecannotacquirebyprescription Therulethatatrusteecannot trusteecannotacquirebyprescriptionownershipover acquirebyprescriptionownershipover acquirebyprescription ownershipoverpropertyentrusted propertyentrustedtohim tohimuntilandunle tohimuntiland untilandunle untilandunlesshe sshe repudiatesthetrust,appliestoexpresstrustsandresultingimpliedtrusts.However,inconstructiveimpliedtrusts, prescriptionmaysuperveneevenifthetr prescriptionmaysupervene evenifthetrusteedoesnot usteedoesnotrepudiatetherelationship.Necessar repudiatetherelationship.Necessarily,repudiationof ily,repudiationofsaid said trustisnotacondition trustisnotaconditionprecedenttothe precedenttotherunningof precedenttotherunningoftheprescriptiveperiod. runningof runningoftheprescriptiveperiod. theprescriptiveperiod. Anactionforreconveyancebasedonanimpliedorconstructivetrustmustperforceprescribeintenyearsandnot otherwise.Alonglineo otherwise.Alonglineofdecisions otherwise.AlonglineofdecisionsofthisCourt,andofvery fdecisionsofthis ofthisCourt,and Court,andofveryrecentvintageat ofveryrecentvintageatthat,illustrates recentvintageatthat, recentvintageatthat,illustratesthis that,illustratesthisrule. illustratesthisrule.Undoubtedly, thisrule.Undoubtedly, rule.Undoubtedly, Undoubtedly, itisnowwell-settled itisnowwell-settledthatanactionforrec thatanactionforreconveya onveyancebasedonanimplied ncebasedonanimpliedorconstruc orconstructivetrus tivetrustprescri tprescribesinten besinten yearsfromtheissuanceof yearsfromtheissuanceofth yearsfromtheissuanceofth th eTorrenstitleovertheproperty. eTorrenstitleovertheproperty. Inthiscase,sincetheExtra-Judicial Inthiscase,sincetheExtra-JudicialPartitionof PartitionofR R ealEstatewithDeedofAbsolute ealEstatewithDeedofAbsoluteSalewasregistered SalewasregisteredunderActNo. underActNo. 3344andnotunderActNo.496,saiddoc 3344andnotunderActNo.496,saiddocumentisdeeme umentisdeemednotregister dnotregistered.Accor ed.Accordingly, dingly,theten-yearpres theten-yearprescripti criptive ve periodcannotbereckonedfrom periodcannotbereckonedfromMarch6,1964,thedateofregistrat March6,1964,thedateofregistrationofthesubjectdocum ionofthesubjectdocumentunderActNo. entunderActNo. 3344.TheprescriptiveperiodonlybegantorunfromthetimerespondentshadactualnoticeoftheExtra-Judicial PartitionofRealEstatewithDeedofAbsoluteSale. Withregardtopetitio Withregardtopetitioner’s ner’sargument argumentthattheprovisio thattheprovisionofArticle1104oftheCivilCode nofArticle1104oftheCivilCode,statingthat ,statingthatapartiti apartiti on madewithpreteritionofanyof madewithpreterition madewithpreteritionofanyofthe ofanyofthecompulsoryheirsshallnotbe thecompulsoryheirsshallnotberescinded,shouldbeapplied, compulsoryheirsshallnotberescinded,s compulsoryheirsshall notberescinded,shouldbeapplied,suffice rescinded,shouldbeapplied,sufficeit houldbeapplied,sufficeit sufficeit ittosaythat tosaythat tosaythat theExtra-JudicialPartitionofRealEstatewithDeedofAbsoluteSaleisnotbeingrescinded.Infact,itsvalidityhad beenupheldbutonlyas beenupheldbutonlyastothepartieswhopart beenupheldbutonlyasto tothepartieswhoparticipatedinthe thepartieswhoparticipated thepartieswhoparticipatedintheexecution icipatedintheexecutionof intheexecutionofthe executionofthesame. ofthesame.Asdiscussedabove,what thesame.As same.Asdiscussedabove,whatwas Asdiscussedabove,whatwas was conveyedtopetitionerwasownershipoverthesharesoftheheirswhoexecutedthesubjectdocument. conveyedtopetitionerwasownershipoverthesharesoftheheirswhoexecutedthesubjectdocum ent. ent. Thus,the Thus, Thus,the the law,particularly,Article1456oftheCivilCode,imposedtheobligationuponpetitionertoactasatrusteeforthe benefitofrespondentheirsofEmilianoandSimeonAyingwho,havingbroughttheiractionwithintheprescriptive period,arenowentitledtot period,arenowentitledtothereconveyanceof hereconveyanceoftheir theirshareinthelandindispute. shareinthelandindispute. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

ALABANGDEVTCORPVSVALENZUELA G.R.No.L-54094 August30,l982 FACTS Thiscaseoriginatedfromapetitionforreconstitution Thiscaseoriginatedfrom apetitionforreconstitutionoftitlebytherespondent oftitlebytherespondents,Pascual.Therespond s,Pascual.Therespondentsallege entsallege thattheyaretheownersofthelandwhichisnow “AlabangHillsVillageSubdivision.” AlabangDevelopmentCorporation(ADC)filedinthecourtbelowabelatedinterventionandmotionfornewtrial which were deniedby deniedby responde respondent nt judge. judge. Thetrial court court grantedthe grantedthe petitionof petitionof therespondents therespondents ordering ordering the issuanceofTCTsinfavorofthem.Thisledtothefilingofthis issuanceofTCTsinfavorof them.ThisledtothefilingofthispetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionbyADC.Thelands petitionforcertiorariandprohibitionbyADC.Thelands werealsothesubjectofapreviouscaseheardbytheCourt, werealsothesubjectofa previouscaseheardbytheCourt, DirectorofLandsvBernal. ISSUE Whetherthecourthasjurisdiction HELD No.Uponexaminationof No.Uponexaminationofthesubje No.Uponexaminationofthesubjectpetitionfor thesubjectpetitionf ctpetitionfor orreconstitution, reconstitution,theCourt reconstitution,theCourt reconstitution,theCourtnotesthat theCourtnotesthat notesthatsomeesse notesthatsomeesse someessentialdata someessentialdatarequired ntialdata ntialdatarequired required insection12andsection13ofRepublicAct26havebeenomitted:thenatureanddescriptionofthebuildingsor improvements,whichdonotbe improvements,whichdonotbelongtotheow longtotheowneroftheland neroftheland,andthename ,andthenamesandaddresse sandaddressesoftheowner softheownersofsuch sofsuch buildingsorimprovements,andthenamesandaddressesoftheoccupantsorpersonsinpossessionoftheproperty, buildingsorimprovements,andthenamesandaddressesofthe occupantsorpersonsinpossessionoftheproperty, oftheownersoft oftheownersoftheadjoining oftheownersoftheadjoiningpropertiesandof headjoiningproperties propertiesandofallpersonswhomay andofallpersonswhomay allpersonswhomayhaveanyinterestinth allpersonswhomayhaveanyinterestintheproperty. haveanyinterestinthe haveanyinterestintheproperty.Ne eproperty.Neitherdo property.Neitherdo Neitherdo itherdo thesedataappearintheNoticeo thesedataappearintheNoticeofHearing thesedataappearintheNoticeofHearing fHearing suchthatnoadjoiningowner,o suchthatnoadjoiningowner,occupantorposs ccupantorpossessorwaseverse essorwaseverserveda rveda copy thereofby thereofby registere registered d mail or otherwise otherwise. . On these these glaringly glaringly conspicuou conspicuous s omissions omissions, , theCourt repeats repeats its pronouncementinthe Bernal case,towit," Inviewofthesemultipleomissionswhichconstitutenon-compliancewith theabovecitedsectionsoftheAct,WerulethatsaiddefectshavenotinvestedtheCourtwiththeauthorityor jurisdictionto jurisdiction to proceedwith proceed withthe thecase casebecause becausethe themanner manneror ormode modeof of obtainingjurisdictionas obtaining jurisdictionas prescribedby prescribedbythe the statutewhichismandato statutewhichismandatoryhasno ryhasnotbeenstrictly tbeenstrictlyfollowed,ther followed,therebyrendering ebyrenderingallproceeding allproceedingsutterlynull sutterlynullandvoid andvoid."

Atthispointthecasewasalreadydismissed,butthenthecourtcontinuesthediscussion.Afterpassinguponthe jurisdictio juris jurisdiction diction n issue, iss issue, issue ue,, the Court Court cannot canno cannot not t just just just let let go go unmentio unme unmention ntioned ned ed its observatio obse observati rvation on n that that the the lotsinvol lotsinvolved ved in in this this reconstitutioncasearep reconstitutioncasearepartofthe artofthesurveyplan( surveyplan(PlanII-4373 surveyplan(PlanII-4373)allegedlycoveringalsoLo PlanII-4373 PlanII-4373)allegedlycoveringalsoLots1and3 )allegedlycoveringalsoLots )allegedlycoveringalsoLots1and3w ts1and3whicharein 1and3whichareinvo whichareinvolved hichareinvolved volved lved inthe Bernal case.Thisremarkableco case.Thisremarkablecoincidencewarrants incidencewarrantsareproduction areproductionhereoftheC hereoftheCourt'sfindings ourt'sfindingsastothenonastothenonveracityandfalsityofthesurveyplanII-4374submittedinsupportofreconstitutioninthe Bernal case.Thecourt pointedoutthatthelandinvolvedinthatcaseistheexactsameland.Theevidencepresented,thesubdivisionplans werethesame,andtherespondents.AstheCourtacceptedandapprovedinthe werethesame,andtherespondents.Asthe Courtacceptedandapprovedinthe Bernal casetheabovefinalreport ontherelocation-verificationsurveyoftheregionalofficeroftheBureauofLandsandadmitteditasevidenceofthe falsityofthesurveyplaninquestion,thereisnoreasonforthis falsityofthesurveyplan inquestion,thereisnoreasonforthisCourtnottouseitlikewiseas Courtnottouseitlikewiseasbasisforreaching.The basisforreaching.The conclusionisthatLots2and4supposedlycoveredbythesameSurveyPlanIIconclusionisthatLots2and4supposedlycoveredbythe sameSurveyPlanII-4374are 4374are purelyimaginary and donot actuallyexistontheground. Thehereinrespon Thehereinrespondent dentsattribut sattributelachestothe elachestothe petition petitionersfornotappealin ersfornotappealingfromtheorderof gfromtheorderof thelowercourt thelowercourt denyingtheirmotiontointerveneandmotionfornewtrialhenceallowingthesaid denyingtheirmotiontointerveneandmotionfor newtrialhenceallo newtrialhenceallowingthe wingthesaidorder/decisionto saidorder/decisiontobecome order/decisiontobecomefinal. becomefinal. final. Thereisnolachesnorfinalityofanydecisiontospeakofsincethedecisionunderquestionishereinpronounced nullandvoidforhavingbeenrenderedwithoutjurisdiction .Prescindingtherefrom,asadmittedbythemselvesin theircomment,thejudgmentofreconstitutionis"ineffective"againsttheownersoflandscoveredtherebywho werenotjoinedasp werenotjoinedaspartiesinthe werenotjoinedaspartiesintheproceeding.AstheCo artiesintheproceeding proceeding.AstheC .AstheCo o urtruledinthe urtruled urtruledinthe inthe Bernal caseonthematterofintervention"a validjudgmentcannotevenberenderedwherethereiswantofindispensableparties"suchaspetitionerswhohold validjudgmentcannotevenberenderedwherethereiswantof indispensableparties"suchaspetitionerswhohold subsisting subsisting Torrens Torrens Titles Titles to the properti properties es in question question and "this "this aspect aspect of thecase commandsthe commandsthe joinder joinder of indispensablepartiesto indispensablepartiestoallowthemto indispensablepartiestoallowthemtoupholdtheirinterestsbasedupontheTorrenstitlestheyhold allowthemtoupholdth upholdtheirinterests eirinterestsbasedup basedupontheTo ontheTorrenstitlest rrenstitlestheyholdoverridesany heyholdoverridesany overridesany questionoflateinterventio questionoflate intervention."Petition questionoflateintervention."Petitionershavepreciselyavailedoftheproper,speedyandadequateremedyof n."Petitionershaveprecis ershavepreciselyavai elyavailedoftheproper,speedy ledoftheproper,speedyandadequateremedyof andadequateremedyof the the presentspecialcivilactionofcertiorariandprohibitiontoannulandset presentspecialcivilactionofcertiorariand prohibitiontoannulandsetasideforwantofjurisdictionthedecisio asideforwantofjurisdictionthedecision n andallproceedingsofrespondentjudge. Ifthereisanylachesatall Ifthereisanylachesatalltospeakabout,itistherespondentswhoshould tospeakabout,itistherespondentswhoshould beheldculpablethereof.Fortheyappeartohavesleptontheirsupposedrightstothepropertyclaimedbythem.It CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

isofrecordthatthepetitionforreconstitutionwaspreparedandfiledin September1977,morethanthirtyyears aftertheallegedlossor aftertheallegedlossordestruction destruction oftheallegedcertificate oftheallegedcertificateoftitleinth oftitleinthelastWorld elastWorldWarII. WarII. TheCourtstressesoncemorethatlandsalreadycoveredbydulyissuedexistingTorrenstitles(whichbecome incontrovertibleupontheex incontrovertibleupontheexpirationofone pirationofoneyearfromtheirissu yearfromtheirissuanceunderse anceundersection38oftheland ction38ofthelandRegistrationAct) RegistrationAct) cannotbethesubjectofpetitionsfor reconstitution ofallegedlylostordestroyedtitlesfiledby thirdpartieswithout first securingbyfinaljudgmentthe cancellation ofsuchexistingtitles.(AndastheCourtreiteratedin ofsuchexistingtitles.(AndastheCourtreiteratedintherecentcase therecentcase 13 of Silvestrevs.CourtofAppeals , "incasesofannulmentand/orreconveyanceoftitle,apartyseekingitshould establishnotmerelybyaprepond establishnotmerelybyapreponderanceofevide eranceofevidencebutbyclearan ncebutbyclearandconvincingevid dconvincingevidencethatthelan encethatthelandsoughtto dsoughtto bereconveyedishis.")Thecourtssimplyhave nojurisdiction overpetitionsbysuch overpetitionsbysuchthirdpartiesforreconstitutio overpetitionsbysuchthird thirdpartiesforreconstitution partiesforreconstitution n alreadycoveredbydulyissuedsubsistingtitles issuedsubsistingtitles inthenames ofallegedlylostordestroyedtitleso ofallegedlylostordestroyedtitlesoverlandsthatare verlandsthatare alreadycoveredbyduly oftheirdulyregisteredowners.ït¢@lFº Theveryconceptof stabilityandindefeasibilityoftitles coveredunderthe TorrensSystemofregistrationru TorrensSystemofregistrationrulesoutasanathe lesoutasanathematheissuanceo matheissuanceoftwocertificatesoftitle ftwocertificatesoftitleoverthesamelan overthesamelandto dto twodifferentholdersthereof.A fortiori,suchproceedingsfor"reconstitution"withoutactualnoticetotheduly ,suchproceedingsfor"reconstitution"withoutactualnoticetotheduly registeredownersandholdersofTorrensTitlestothelandarenullandvoid.Applicants,landofficialsandjudges whodisregardthes whodisregardthesebasicandfundamentalprincipleswillbe ebasicandfundam entalprincipleswill entalprinc ipleswillbe be helddulyaccountabletherefo helddulyacco helddulyaccountabletherefor. untabletherefor. r. SpousesPedroandNenaTanv.Republic SpousesPedroandNenaTanv. Republic GRNo. GRNo.177797 177797 177797 December4, Decemb December er4,2008 2008 PerJ.Chico-Nazario

Facts: Thesubjectpropertywasdeclaredalienableanddisposableon31December1925.PriortothespousesTan,the subjectpropertywasinthepossessionofLucioandJuanitoNeriandtheir subjectpropertywasinthepossessionofLucio andJuanitoNeriandtheirrespectivespouses.LucioandJuanitoNeri respectivespouses.LucioandJuanitoNeri haddeclaredthesubjectpropertyfortaxationpurposesintheirnamesunderTaxDeclarationsNo.8035(1 haddeclaredthesubjectpropertyfortaxationpurposesintheirnamesunderTax DeclarationsNo.8035(1952),No. 952),No. 1524andNo.1523(1955). ThespousesTanacquiredthesubjectpropertyfromLucioandJuanitoNeriandtheirspousesbyvirtueofaduly notarizedDeedofSaleofUnregisteredRealEstatePropertydated26June1970.However,acertainPatermateo Casiño(Casiño)claimedaportionofthesubjectproperty,promptingthespousesTantofileaComplaintforQuieting ofTitleagainst.On29August1989,theRTCrenderedaDecisioninCivilCaseNo.88-204favoringthespousesTan anddeclaringtheirtitletothesubjectpropertythus"quieted". Refusingtogiveup, Refusingtogiveup,Casiñofiled Casiñofiledan an ApplicationforFreePatent anApplicationfor ApplicationforFreePatentonthesubjectpropertybeforetheBureauofLands. FreePatentonthe onthesubjectprop subjectpropertybefore ertybeforetheBur theBureauofLand eauofLands. s. On 8 December December 1999,Casiño'sapplicatio 1999,Casiño'sapplication n was orderedcancelled orderedcancelled by Officer Officer Ruth G. Sabijon Sabijon of DENR-CENR DENR-CENRO, O, CagayandeOroCity,upontherequestofhereinpetitionerPedroTan,thedeclaredowner CagayandeOroCity, upontherequestofhereinpetitionerPedroTan,thedeclaredownerofthesubjectproperty. ofthesubjectproperty. In2000,thespousesTanfiledtheirApplicationforRegistrationofTitle25tothesubjectproperty.Th In2000,thespousesTanfiledtheirApplicationforRegistration ofTitle25tothesubjectproperty.Theapplication eapplication ofthespousesTaninvokedtheprovisionsofActNo.49626and/orSection48ofCommonwealthActNo.141,as amended.Incompliancewiththerequest28oftheLandRegistrationAuthority(LRA)dated29August2000,the spousesTanfiledon5October2000anAmendedApplicationforRegistrationof spousesTanfiledon5 October2000anAmendedApplicationforRegistrationofTitletothesubjectproperty. Titletothesubjectproperty. On28February2006,theCourtofAppealsrenderedaDecisiongran On28February2006,theCourtofAppe alsrenderedaDecisiongrantingtheappealoftheRepu tingtheappealoftheRepublic,andreversing blic,andreversing andsettingaside andsettingasidethe9 the9 May2001DecisionoftheRTConthe May2001DecisionoftheRTContheground groundthatthespous thatthespousesTanfailed esTanfailedtocomplywith tocomplywith Section48(b)ofCommonwealthActNo. Section48( Section48(b)of b)ofCommonwealthActNo.141,otherwise CommonwealthActNo.141,o CommonwealthActNo.141,otherwiseknow 141,otherwiseknownasth therwiseknownastheP knownasthePublicLa nasthePublicLa ePublicLa ublicLa ndAct,asamendedby ndAct,asamendedbyPresidential Presidential DecreeNo.1073,whichrequirespossessionofthesubjectpropertytostartonor DecreeNo.1073,whichrequirespossessionof thesubjectpropertytostartonorpriorto12June1945. priorto12June1945. Issue:WhethertheSpousesTanhadbeeninopen,continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionoftheland.( Issue:WhethertheSpousesTanhadbeenin open,continuous,excl usiveandnotoriousposs usiveandnotoriouspossessionoftheland.( essionoftheland.( NO) NO) Holding: Asthelawnowstands,amereshowingofpossessionforthirtyyearsormoreisnotsufficient.Itmustbeshown, too,thatpossessionan too,thatpossessionandoccupation doccupationhadstarted hadstartedon12Ju on12June1945or ne1945orearlier. earlier.


Itisworthmentioningthatinthiscase,eventhespouses Itisworthmentioningthatinthiscase,eventhespousesTandonotdisputethatthetruereckoning Tandonotdisputethatthetruereckoningperiodfor periodfor judicialconfirmationofanimperfector judicialconfirmationof animperfectorincompletetitleis incompletetitleisonorbefore12 onorbefore12June1945.Theyalso June1945.Theyalsoadmitthatbasedo admitthatbasedon n thepreviousevidenceonrecord,theirpossessionandoccupationofthesubjectpropertyfallshortoftheperiod prescribedbylaw.Theearliestevidenceof prescribedbylaw.Theearliestevidenceofpossessionand possessionandoccupationoft occupationofthesubjectproperty hesubjectpropertycanbetracedback canbetracedbackto to ataxdeclarationissuedinthenameoftheirpredecessors-in-interestonlyin1952.However,thespousesTanare nowaskingthekindindulgenceofthisCourttotakeintoaccountTaxDeclarationNo.4627issuedin1948,which theyhadattachedtotheirMotionforReconsiderationbeforetheCourtofAppealsbutwhichtheappellatecourt refusedtoconsider.JustastheyhadarguedbeforetheCourtofAppeals,thespousesTanpointoutthatTax DeclarationNo.4627wasnotnewlyissuedbutcancelledTaxDeclarationNo.2948;andshouldtheCourttakejudicial DeclarationNo.4627wasnotnewlyissuedbutcancelledTaxDeclarationNo.2948; andshouldtheCourttakejudicial noticeofthefactthattaxassessmen noticeofthefactthattaxassessmentsarerevisedevery tsarerevisedeveryfouryears,thenTaxDeclar fouryears,thenTaxDeclarationNo.2948 ationNo.2948coveringthe coveringthe subjectpropertywasissuedasearlyas1944. Section34,Rule132of Section34,Rule132oftheRulesof theRulesofCourtexplicitlyprovides Courtexplicitlyprovidesthatthecourt thatthecourtshallconsiderno shallconsidernoevidencewhichhasnot evidencewhichhasnot beenformallyoffered.Thepurposeforwhichtheevidenceisofferedmustbespecified.Onthebasisthereof,itis clearthatevidenceshouldhavebeenpresentedduringtrialbeforetheRTC;evidencenotformallyofferedshould notbeconsidered.Inthiscase,itbearsstressingthatTaxDeclarationNo.4627wasonlysubmittedbytheSpouses TantogetherwiththeirMotionforReconsiderationofthe28February2006DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.The reasongivenbytheSpousesTanwhytheybelatedlyprocuredsuchevidencewasbecauseatthetimeoftrialthe onlyevidenceavailableathandwasthe1952taxdeclaration.Moreso,theyalsobelievedingoodfaiththatthey hadmetthe30-yearperiodrequiredbylaw.TheyfailedtorealizethatunderSection48(b)ofCommonwealthAct No.141,asamended,amereshowingofpossessionforthirtyyearsormoreisnotsufficientbecausewhatthelaw requiresispossessionand requiresispossessionandoccupationon requiresispossessionandoccupationonorbefore12 occupationonorbefore orbefore12 12June1945. June1945.ThisCourt,however,finds June1945. June1945.ThisCourt, ThisCourt,however,findsthereason ThisCourt,however,findsthereason however,findsthereasongivenbythe givenbythe spousesTanunsatisfactory.ThespousesTanfiledtheirapplicationforregistrationoftitletothesubjectproperty undertheprovisionsofSection48(b)ofCommonwealthActNo.141,asamended.Itisincumbentuponthemas applicantstocarefullyknowtherequirementsofthesaidlaw. RECTOvs.REPUBLIC GRNo.160421October4,2004

FACTS:SpousesRectofiledwith FACTS:SpousesRectofiledwiththeRTCan theRTCanapplicationfort applicationfortheregistrationof heregistrationoftitleunderSec.14( titleunderSec.14(1)of 1)ofPD1529,orin PD1529,orin PD1529,orin thealternativeapetitionforregistrationunderSec.48(b)ofCA141,overalotdesignatedasLot806,Cad-424in Sto.Tomas,Batangas. Sto.Tomas,Batangas. Thespousesallegedthattheypurchase Thespousesallegedthattheypurchase thattheypurchasedthelot dthelotfromtheMedrana dthelotfromtheMedranasisters,who sisters,whoinheritedthe inheritedthe samefromtheir samefromtheirparents, samefromtheirparents,whopossesseditpriorto1945. parents,whoposse whopossesseditprio sseditpriorto1945. rto1945. TheMedranafamily,duringtheirpossessionofthelot, TheMedranafamily TheMedranafamily,duringthe ,duringtheirposse irpossessionof ssionofthelot, thelot, continuouslyplantedriceandcorntherein. Theevidencepresentedbythespouses,amongothers,wasa Theevidencepresentedbythespouses,amo Theevidencepresentedbythespouses,amongothers,wasaBlue ngothers,wasaBlue BluePrintCopyofthePlanandTechnicalDescription PrintCopyofthePlanandTechnicalDescription PrintCopyofthePlanandTechnicalDescription ofLot806,bothcertifiedbyLandManagementServices(formerlytheBureauofLands),oftheDepartmentof EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR). The RTC granted granted the petition, petition, hence, hence, ordered ordered the lot’sregistration. lot’sregistration. tion. Howeve How Howe Howeve ever,the ver, r,the r, theOSG, theOSG, OSG, OSG, onappeal onappea on appe appealtothe altothe l tothe CA, CA, contendedthattheRTCerredingrantingthepetition,arguingthatthespousesfailedto:(1)offerinevidencethe origina original l tracin tracing g clothplanof clothplanof the land;(2) land;(2) proveposse provepossessi ssionof onof the lot for the periodrequir periodrequired ed bylaw;and (3) overthrowthepresumptionthatsubjectpro pertyformspartof pertyformspartofthepublic thepublicdomain. domain. TheCA,thus,reversedtheRTC’s TheCA,thus,reversed TheCA,thus,reversedtheRTC’s theRTC’s decisiononthegroundof decisiononthegroundofthespouses’ thespouses’failuretosubmit failuretosubmitinevidencethe inevidencetheoriginaltracingclothplano originaltracingclothplanof fLot806. Lot806. ISSUE:WONfailuretopresenttheoriginaltracingcloth ISSUE:WONfailuretopresenttheoriginaltracingclothplanwouldd ISSUE:WONfailuretop resenttheoriginaltracingclothplanwoulddefeatthespouses’applicationfor resenttheoriginaltracingclothplanwouldd planwouldd efeatthespouses’applicationfor efeatthespouses’applicationforregistration. registration. HELD:No.Thesubmiss HELD:No.Thesubmissionofthetraci HELD:No.Thesubmissionofthetracingclothisamandatoryrequirementforregistr ionofthetracingclothi ngclothisamandatoryrequirementforregistration. ation. However,itwasheld However,itwasheld thatwhilethebestevidencetoiden thatwhilethebestevidencetoidentifyapieceoflandfor tifyapieceoflandforregistra registrationpurpo tionpurposesistheorigin sesistheoriginaltracin altracingclothplan gclothplan from from the Bureau Bureau ofLands, ofLands, blue blue printcopie printcopiesand ntcopies sand and other otherevide otherevidencecoul evidence evidenc ncecould e couldalsoprovidesufficientidentifica couldalsoprovidesufficientidentification. d alsoprovide oprovide suffic sufficient ient identif identifica icatio tion. tion. n. In ,theCourtruledthattheblueprintcopyoftheclothplantogetherwiththelotstechnical togetherwiththelotstechnical Republicv.CourtofAppeals ,theCourtruledthattheblueprintcopyoftheclothplan descriptiondulycertifiedastotheircorrectnessbytheBur descriptiondulycertifiedasto descriptiondulycertifiedastotheircorrectnessbytheBureauofLands theircorrectnessbytheBureauofLands eauofLands(NowtheLandManagementBureauofthe (NowtheLandManagementBureauofthe (NowtheLandManagementB ureauofthe DENR)aresufficienttoidentifythelandappliedforregistration. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

EAGL EAGLE E REAL REALTY TY CORP CORPOR ORAT ATIO ION, N, Peti Petiti tion oner er, , -ver -versus sus- - REPU REPUBL BLIC IC OF THE THE PHIL PHILIP IPPI PINE NES S REPR REPRES ESEN ENTE TED D BY THE THE ADMINISTRATOROFTHELANDREGISTRATIONAUTHORITY,NATIONALTREASUREROFTHEPHILIPPINES,HEIRSOF CASIANODELEONANDMARIASOCORRODELE CASIANODELEONANDMARIASOCORRODELEONANDPLARITAM.REY ONANDPLARITAM.REYES,Respondents. ES,Respondents. GRNO.151424July4,2008 NACHURA,J.:

Facts 1.TheSpousesCasiano 1.TheSpousesCasianodeLeon 1.TheSpousesCasianodeLeonandMaria deLeonandMariaSocorrodeLeon andMariaSocorrodeLeonfiledwithth SocorrodeLeonfiled SocorrodeLeonfiledwiththeCFI filedwiththeCFIof withtheCFIof eCFIof ofRizalanapplication Rizalanapplicationforregistr Rizalanapplicationforregistration forregistration ation oftwolots. oftwolots. 2.Severalpartiesopposedtheapplication,includingtheHeirsofDionisioTomasandthe 2.Severalpartiesopposedtheapplication,includingthe HeirsofDionisioTo HeirsofDionisioTomasand masandtheCarabeofamily. theCarabeofamily. Carabeofamily. 3.OnDecember11,1979,theCFIrenderedadecisioninfavorofCasianodeLeonandhischildren.Copiesofthis decisionweresentthroughregistere decisionweresentthroughregisteredmailtotheLandRegistrationCommiss dmailtotheLandRegistrationCommission(LRC),SolicitorGeneral,and ion(LRC),SolicitorGeneral,andlegal legal counselsofpartiesinopposition. 4.TheHeirsofDionisioTomasappealedtheDeLeonDecision.However,itappearsthatanotherdecision,similarto 4.TheHeirsofDionisioTomasappealedtheDe LeonDecision.However,itappearsthatanotherdecision,similarto theDeLeonDecisionexistsintherecordsoftheLR theDeLeonDecisionexists theDeLeonDecisionexistsintherecordsoftheLR intherecordsoftheLRC.Thisdecision C.Thisdecision C.ThisdecisionawardsthepropertytoMartina awardsthepropertytoMartinaG.Medina.T awardsthepropertytoMartinaG.Medina.T awardsthepropertytoMartina G.Medina.T G.Medina.T hus, pursuanttothisdocu pursuanttothisdocument,OCTNo ment,OCTNo.129wasissue .129wasissuedinthe dinthenameofMar nameofMartinaG.Medina. tinaG.Medina. 5.Medinalaterexchangedthep 5.Medinalaterexchangedthepropertyfora3,000-h ropertyfora3,000-hectareparcelofland ectareparceloflandinNorzagaray,Bulacano inNorzagaray,BulacanownedbyPlarita wnedbyPlarita ReyesthroughaDeedofExchange.ATCTregisteredinthenameof ReyesthroughaDeedofEx change.ATCTregisteredinthenameofReyeswasconsequentlyissued. Reyeswasconsequentlyissued. 6.ThroughaDeedofSale,ReyessoldthepropertytoEagleRealtyCorporation,andaTCTwas issuedinEagleRealty’s name. 7.WhenCesariodeLeondiscoveredthatOCTNo.129wasissuedtoMedin 7.WhenCesariodeLeon discoveredthatOCTNo.129wasissuedtoMedina,theDeLeonssentaletter-com a,theDeLeonssentaletter-complaint plaint totheLRCaskingforaninvestigationonthematter.TheinvestigationconcludedthattheMedinaDecisionwasfake andrecommendedthatappropriateactionbefiledforthenullificationofOCTNo.12 andrecommendedthatappropriateactionbefiledfor thenullificationofOCTNo.129andderivativetitlesissuedin 9andderivativetitlesissuedin thenamesofPlaritaReye thenamesofPlaritaReyesandEagle sandEagleRealtyCorpora RealtyCorporation. tion. Issues 1.W/Ntheone-year 1.W/Ntheone-yearprescriptivepe prescriptiveperiodisapplicab riodisapplicabletothiscas letothiscase? e? 2.W/NEagleRealtyCorpo 2.W/NEagleRealtyCorporationisanin rationisaninnocentpu nocentpurchaserfor rchaserforvalue? value? Held 1.No,theone-yearprescriptiveperiodisnotapplicabletothiscase.Theprincipleof 1.No,theone-yearprescriptiveperiodisnot applicabletothiscase.TheprincipleofindefeasibilityofaTorrenstitle indefeasibilityofaTorrenstitle doesnotapplywherefraudatt doesnotapplywherefraudattendedtheiss endedtheissuanceofthet uanceofthetitle.TheTorren itle.TheTorrenstitledoesnotfu stitledoesnotfurnishashieldfo rnishashieldforfraud. rfraud. Assuch,atitleissuedbasedonvoiddocumentsmaybeannulled.Moreover,elementaryistherulethatprescription doesnotrunagainsttheStateanditssubdivisions. doesnotrunagainsttheStateand itssubdivisions. 2.No,EagleRealtyCorporationisnotaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.Hewho 2.No,EagleRealtyC orporationisnotaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.Hewhoallegesthatheisapurchaserin allegesthatheisapurchaseringood good faithandforvalueofregisteredlandbearstheonusofprovingsuchstatement.Thisburdenisnotdischargedby involvingtheordinarypresumptionofgoodfaith.Inthiscase,petitionerfailedtodischargethisburden.Initsanswer, petitione petitionermerelyalleg rmerelyallegedthatitis edthatitis aninnocentpurch aninnocentpurchased asedfor for valuesinceit valuesinceit acquiredland acquiredlandfromReyesforP1.2M fromReyesforP1.2M withoutnoticeofanyd withoutnoticeofanydefectinhertitleandafterverifyingthegenuinenessofthetitleintheRODofPasay withoutno ticeofanydefectinhe efectinhertitleand rtitleandafterverifying afterverifyingthegenu thegenuinenessof inenessofthetitlein thetitleintheROD theRODofPasay ofPasay Cityand Cityand theLRC.However,petitionerdidnotpresentanyproofthatwouldsubstantiatethisallegationnordiditpresentany ittook ittookotherstepsto otherstepsto toverifythe verifytheauthenticityof verifytheauthenticityofitspredecessors’ itspredecessors’title. title. evidencetoshowthat ittookothersteps ToribioLaxamanavs.LaureanaCarlos,et.al., G.R.No.35797,December13,1932

FACTS: Thecasereferstosevenappe Thecasereferstosevenappealstakenbyoppon rstosevenappealstakenbyoppo alstakenbyopponentsfromth nentsfromthejudgmentof entsfromthejudgmentof ejudgmentoftheCFIrende theCFIrenderedinacivilcasedenyin redinacivilcasedenying g anddismissingtheirrespectiveop anddismissingtheirrespectiveoppositionsandadj positionsandadjudicatingandde udicatinganddecreeingthere creeingtheregistrationofthe gistrationofthelotswithoutthe lotswithoutthe oppositionsdescribedintheapplication,infavoroftheapplicantToribioLaxamanaandhiswifeLeoncia oppositionsdescribedintheapplication,infavoroftheapplicantToribioLaxamana andhiswifeLeonciaConui,with Conui,with theexceptionoftheportionofLotNos.36and60.TheapplicanttheexceptionoftheportionofLotNos.36and60. Theapplicant- appelleequestionsthecourt’sjurisdictiontoreview theevidenceupontheappealtakenbytheopponentsandappellantslastmentionedthruAttorneyV.Franco,in viewofthefactthattheyannouncedtheirintentiontoappealandthenfiledabillofexceptionswithoutwaitingfor viewofthefactthatthey announcedtheirintentiontoappealandthenfiledabillofexceptionswithoutwaitingfor thetrialcourttopassuponthemotionforanewtrialfiledbythemonApr.17,1931,uponthegroundthatthe CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

evidencedoesnotjustifythejudgment,whichiscontrarytolaw,theCFIofPampangahavingapprovedthesaidbill ofexceptionsonApril30,1931. ISSUE: Whetherornottherulesandprocedureinvol Whetherornottherulesandpro WhetherornottherulesandprocedureinvolvingCivilca cedureinvolvingCivil vingCivil ca sesapplytoregistrationcasesaswell sesapplytoregistrationca sesapplytoregis trationcasesaswell sesaswell HELD: Yes,itwillstillapply.Whil Yes,itwillstillapply.Whilethenatur ethenatureoftheaction eoftheactionis is different different,thefactsinthecase ,thefactsinthecaseofConspec ofConspectovsFruto, tovsFruto,are are identicaltothoseinthepresentcase.Althoughth identicaltothoseinthepres entcase.Althoughthecasescitedareordinarycivilactionsandthecase ecasescitedareordinarycivilactionsandthecaseatbarisone atbarisone ofregistration,therulewithreferencetotheorderoffilingthemotionforanewhearing,exception,appeal,and billofexceptionsisthesame.Accordingtotherulingcited,theCourthas billofexceptionsisthesame. Accordingtotherulingcited,theCourthasnojurisdictiontoreviewquestionsoffact nojurisdictiontoreviewquestionsoffact raisedbytheappellantsintheir raisedbytheappellantsintheirbrief;itmustaccep brief;itmustaccep tthetrailcourt’sfindingsuponthevariouslotsaffectedbythe tthetrailcourt’s findingsuponthevariouslotsaffectedbythe opposition,anddeterminemerel opposition, anddeterminemerelyiftheconclusi opposition,anddeterminemerelyiftheconclusionsoflaw yiftheconclusionsoflaw onsoflaw derivedfromthefindingsoffactareinkeepingwiththe derivedfromthefindingsoffact derivedfromthefi ndingsoffact areinkeepingwiththe statute. EgaovCA EgaovCA G.R.No.7978729June1989

Facts: The The respo responde ndents nts filed filed a motion motion for quiet quieting ing the title title and recove recovery ry of posse possessi ssion on and owners ownership hip agains against t the petitione petitioners.Appar rs.Apparentl ently,theyclaimtheyaretheownersoftheparceloflandby y,theyclaimtheyaretheownersoftheparceloflandby virtueof virtueof thedeed ofsalethey enteredintowithRobertoMarforitowhomthepetitionersallegedlysoldtheirlandto.TheEgaosacquiredtheir landtitlebyvirtueofafreepatentandtransferredthe landtitlebyvirtueofafreepatent andtransferredtheirownershipinfavorofMarforiby irownershipinfavorofMarforibyvirtueofadeedofsale. virtueofadeedofsale. However,theCertificateofTitlewasnottransferredin However,theCertificateofTitle wasnottransferredinMarfori’sfavor.Up Marfori’sfavor.Up onpurchaseofthelandfromMarfori,the respondentsintroducedimpro respondentsintroducedimprovementsthereon vementsthereonandpaidtaxesfortheprope andpaidtaxesfortheproperty.However,thepe rty.However,thepetitionersillegally titionersillegally occupiedportionsoftheland.Petitioneranswersthattheyarethetrueownerofthelandbyvirtueofthe occupiedportionsoftheland.Petitioneranswersthattheyarethetrueowneroftheland byvirtueoftheCertificate Certificate ofTitleissuedbytheRegiste ofTitleissuedbytheRegisterofDeedspu rofDeedspursuanttotheirF rsuanttotheirFreePatent.The reePatent.Thelowercourtrule lowercourtruledinfavorofEgao dinfavorofEgao.Upon .Upon appeal,theCAreversedthedecisionofthelowercourtongroundsthatthemainissueshouldbewhetherEgaocan validlysellthelandtoMarforiwhosu validlysellthelandtoMarforiwhosubsequently validlysellthelandto Marforiwhosubsequentlytransferredtheownershiptotherespondents.TheCAholdsboth bsequentlytransferred transferredtheowne theownershiptoth rshiptotherespond erespondents.The ents.TheCAholds CAholdsboth both EgaoandMarforitobeinparidelictoforviolatingthe5-yearrestrictionprovidedbyCommonwealth141against encumbranceandalienationofpubliclandsacquiredthrufreepatentorhomesteadpatent.Theycannottherefore obtainaffirmativerelief.Italsodeclarestherespondentsasinnocentpurchasersforvaluewhotheobtainedthe duplicateoftheOCTstillinthen duplicate oftheOCTstillinthen ameoftheEgaosfromMarforiandownershipwastransferredtothembyphysical duplicateoftheOCTstillinthen ameoftheEgaosfromMarfori ameoftheEgaosfromMar foriandownershipwastransferredtothembyphysical possessionoftheproperty.Itthuspromulgatedjudgmentholdingtherespondentstheabsoluteownersof possessionoftheproperty.I tthuspromulgatedjudgmentholdingtherespondentstheabsoluteownersoftheland theland indispute,tocanceltheOCTofthepetitioneranditstransferthereoftotherespondentsandtosurrenderpeaceful possession of the land to the respondents. Issue: WhetherornotthepetitionersvalidlytransferredtheirownershiptoMarforitoresolvethe Whetherornotthepetitionersvalidly transferredtheirownershiptoMarforitoresolvetherightsoftherespondents rightsoftherespondents overthelandindispute? Ruling: TheSCholdsthatbasedontheadducedevidence,theEgaossoldthelottoMarforiwithinthe5-yearrestriction perio period d provid provided ed by law onFree Paten Patent t based based on the Deed Deed ofSaleenteredintoby ofSaleenteredintoby the partie parties.Altho s.Althoug s.Although ugh ugh h the petitionersdeniedthe petitionersdeniedthevalidityoft petitionersdeniedthevalidityoftheDeedofSalethecourt validityoftheDeed heDeedofSalethe ofSalethecourtheldthatitwas courtheldthatitwas heldthatitwasnotarizedandanotarial heldthatitwasnotarizedandanotarialdocumenth notarizedandanotarialdo notarizedandanotarialdocumenthas documenthas cumenthas as initsfavorthepresumptionofregularity.Whenthelandwassoldtotherespondents,theyknowthattheOCTisstill registeredunderthenameofthepetitioners.Thus,theyarenotconsideredtobeinnocentpurchaserascontraryto registeredunderthenameofthepetitioners.Thus,theyarenotconsideredtobe innocentpurchaserascontraryto therulingoftheCA therulingoftheCA.Where therulingoftheCA.Wherea .Wherea apurchasern purchaserneglectstomak purchaserneglectstomakethene ethenecessaryinqu cessaryinquiriesandclose iriesandcloseshiseyestofactswhich iriesandcloseshis shiseyestofactswhich shiseyestofactswhich shouldputareasonablemanon shouldputareasonablemanonhisguardastothepossibilityofthee easonablemanonhisguardas hisguardas hisguardastothepossibilityoftheexistenceofade tothepossibilityoftheexisten tothepossibilityoftheexistenceofadefectinhisvendor'stitle, xistenceofadefect ceofadefectinhisvendor'stitle, fectinhisvendor'stitle,and and relyingonthebeliefthattherewasnodefectinthetitleof relyingonthebeliefthattherewas nodefectinthetitleofthevendor,purchasesthepropertywithoutmakingany thevendor,purchasesthepropertywithoutmakingany furtherinvestigation,hecannotclaimthatheisapurchaseringoodfaithforvalue. furtherinvestigation,hecannotclaimthatheis apurchaseringoodfaithforvalue.Aprivateindividualcannotbring Aprivateindividualcannotbring anactionforreversionoranyactionwhichwouldhaveanef anactionforreversi onoranyactionwhichwouldhaveanef fectofcancelingafreepatentandthecertificateoftitle anactionforreversionoranyactionwhichwouldhaveanef fectofcancelingafreepatentandthecertificateoftitl fectofcancelin gafreepatentandthecertificateoftitle e issuedonthebasisthereofs issuedonthebasisthereofsincethelandcove incethelandcoveredwillformpartaga redwillformpartagainofthepublicd inofthepublicdomain.Sec.124ofthe omain.Sec.124ofthePublic Public CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

LandActprovidesthatdeedsofsaleofpatentedlands,perfectedwithintheprohibitedfive(5)y LandActprovidesthatdeedsofsale ofpatentedlands,perfectedwithintheprohibitedfive(5)yearperiodarenull ofpatentedlands,perfectedwithinthe prohibitedfive(5)yearperiodarenull earperiodarenull andvoidthustheEgaoshave andvoidthustheEgaoshavenotitleto notitletopassto passtoMar Mar foriandnobodycandisposethat foriandnobodycandisposethatwhichdoesnot whichdoesnotbelongtohim. belongtohim. Therespondentsarenotinnocentpurchasersforvaluewithnostandingtoquestiontherightsofthepetitioners overthelandandtofileanactiontoquietthetitle.Thepetitionersremainedtobetheregisteredownersand entitledtoremaininphysicalpossessionofthedisputedproperty.RespondentsareorderedtodelivertheOCTto thepetitionerswithoutprejudicetoanactionforreversionofthelandtobeinstitutedbytheSolicitorGeneralfor theState. ARMEDFORCESANDPOLICEMUTUALBENEFITASS ARMEDFORCESANDPOLICEMUTUALBENEFITASSOCIATION,INC.vs ARMEDFORCESANDPOLICE MUTUALBENEFITASSOCIATION,INC. MUTUALBENEFITASSOCIATION,INC.vsINESBOLOS OCIATION,INC.vsINESBOLOSS vsINESBOLOSSANTIAGO INESBOLOSSANTIAGO SANTIAGO ANTIAGO G.R.No.147559June27,2008 NACHURA,J.

Facts: OnSeptember14,1994,theNotice OnSeptember14,1994,theNoticeofLevywaspresentedforregistration 1994,theNoticeofLevywas ofLevywas ofLevywaspresentedforregistrationintheRegistry presentedforregistrationintheR presentedforregistrat ionintheRegistryofDeeds intheRegistryofDeedsof egistryofDeedsofPasigCity. ofDeedsofPasigCity. ofPasigCity.The PasigCity.The The NoticewasenteredinthePrimaryEntryBookunderEntryNo.PT-1305.However,itwasnotannotatedonTCTNo. PT-79252. OnSeptember20,1994orsix(6)daysafterthepresentationoftheNoticeofLevy,aDeedofAbsoluteSaledated February24,[1994],executedbyEBRRealtyCorporationinfavorofInesB.Santiagoinvolvingthesameparcelof landcoveredbyTCTNo.PT-97252waspresentedforregistrationandenteredunderEntryNo.PT-1653.TheRegister landcoveredbyTCTNo.PT-97252 waspresentedforregistrationandenteredunderEntryNo.PT-1653.TheRegister ofDeedsissuedTCTNo.PT-94912int ofDeedsissuedTCTNo.PT-94912inthenameofvendeeInesB. henameofvendeeInesB.Santiagoonthebasisof Santiagoonthebasisofthedeedofsale,unaware thedeedofsale,unaware ofthepreviouspresentationoftheNoticeofLevy. WhentheRegisterofDeedsdiscoveredtheerrorheimmediatelysentaletterdatedOctober24,1994toMs.Ines B.Santiagorequestinghertosurrenderthedocuments,particularlythedeedofsaleandownersduplicateofTCT No.PT-94912sothathe No.PT-94912sothathe cantakeappropriaterectific cantakeappropriaterectification ationor or correction correction.Ms.Santiagorefused .Ms.Santiagorefusedto to surrenderthe surrenderthe documentsandownersduplicateofsaidtitle. ThispromptedtheRegisterofDeedstofileaManifestationdatedNovember11, ThispromptedtheRegisterofDeedstofilea ManifestationdatedNovember11,1995 1995inCivilCaseNo.Q-92-11198 inCivilCaseNo.Q -92-11198 informingthecourtoftheforegoingcircumstancesandprayingthatthe informingthecourtofthe foregoingcircumstancesandprayingthattheRegisterofDeedsbeauthorizedtoannotate RegisterofDeedsbeauthorizedtoannotate onTCTNo.PT-94912theNoticeo onTCTNo.PT-94912theNoticeofLevyonAttachmento fLevyonAttachmentofRealProperty. fRealProperty. OnMay28,1997,actingontheconsultabytheRegistryofDeedsofPasigCityontheproprietyofannotatingthe noticeoflevyonattachme noticeoflev yonattachmentonTransfe noticeoflevyonattachmentonTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.PT ntonTransferCertific rCertificateofTitle(TCT) ateofTitle(TCT)No.PT No.PT -94912,theLRAissued -94912, -94912,theLRAissuedaResolutionthatthe theLRAissuedaResolution aResolutionthatthe thatthe subjectNoticeofLevycannotbeannotatedonTCT subjectNoticeofLevy cannotbeannotatedonTCTNo.PT-94912, No.PT-94912,exceptbyorderoft exceptbyorderofthecourt. hecourt. Petitionerfiledamotionfor Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration.OnOcto reconsideration.OnOctober12, reconsideration.OnOctober12,1998,theLRA ber12, ber12,1998,theLRA 1998,theLRAissuedanOrderdenyingthemotionfor issuedanOrderdenyingthemotionfor recons reconsider iderati ationforlackof onforlackof merit. merit. Onpetition Onpetition totheCourt ofAppeals, ofAppeals, itdenied itdenied theinscrip theinscriptio tion n ofthelevyon attachmentuponthetitleofrespondentSantiagowithoutcourtorderandthatsuchcontroversyissubstantiallya judicialissueoverwhich judicialissue overwhichtheRegistry theRegistryofDeed ofDeednorthe northeLandRegistration LandRegistrationAuthorityhas Authorityhasnojurisdiction.Verily, nojurisdiction.Verily, ona mereConsulta,theLandRegistrationAuthoritycouldnotruleonsuchissueonwhetherornotaregisteredowner isabuyerin goodfaithornot.Onlyourordinarycour goodfaithornot.Onlyourordinarycourtshavethatexclusi tshavethatexclusivejurisdic vejurisdictional tionalprerogati prerogativetotryand vetotryand decidesuchcontroversy. Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration;however,thesamewasdeniedinaR Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration;however, thesamewasdeniedinaResolutiondatedMarch15,2 esolutiondatedMarch15,2001. 001. Hence,thispetition. Issues: I.Whetherthenoticeoflevyonattachmentmaybe I.Whetherthenoticeof levyonattachmentmaybeannotatedonTCTNo annotatedonTCTNo.PT-94912; .PT-94912; II.Whetheradeclarationfromthecourtthatrespondentisapurchaserinbadfaithisnecessarybeforethenotice oflevyonattachmentmaybeannotatedonTCT oflevyonattachment maybeannotatedonTCTNo.PT-94912; No.PT-94912;and and



–

III.Whetheracourtorderisnecessaryinorder III.Whetheracourtorderisnecessaryinorderthatthenoticeof thatthenoticeoflevyona levyona ttachmentmaybeannotatedonTCTNo. ttachmentmaybeannotatedonTCTNo. PT-94912. Held: I.Yes.In voluntaryregistration voluntaryregistration,suchasasale,mortgage,leaseandthelike,iftheowner'sduplicatecertificatebe voluntaryregistration ,suchasasale,mortgage,leaseandthelike,iftheowner'sduplicatecertificatebe notsurrenderedandpresentedorifnopaymentofregistrationfeesbemadewithinfifteen(15)days,entryinthe daybookofthedeedofsaledoesnotoperatetoconveyandaffectthelandsold.In involuntaryregistration ,such involuntaryregistration,such involuntaryregistration asanattachment, levy uponexecution,lispendensandthelike,entrythereofinthedaybookisasufficientnotice levyuponexecution,lispendensandthelike,entrythereofinthedaybookisasufficientnotice toallpersonsofsuchadverseclaim. TheentryofthenoticeoflevyonattachmentintheprimaryentrybookordaybookoftheRegistryofDeedson September14,1994issufficientnoticetoallpersons,includingtherespondent,thatthelandisalreadysubjectto anattachment. UnderSections51and52ofPD1529,theactofregistration UnderSections51and52ofPD1529, theactofregistrationistheoperativeactto istheoperativeacttoconveyoraffectthe conveyoraffectthelandinsofar landinsofar asthirdpersonsareconcerned.Constru asthirdpersonsareconcer asthirdpersonsareconcerned.Constructivenoticeisalsocreateduponregistrationofev ned.Constructivenotic ctivenoticeisalso eisalsocreate createduponregistra duponregistrationofev tionofeveryconveyance,mortgage, eryconveyance,mortgag eryconveya nce,mortgag e, lease,lien,attachment,order,judgment,instr lease,lien,attachment, lease,lien,attachment,order,judgment,instrumentorentryaffectingregisteredland. order,judgment,instrumentorentry umentorentryaffectingregisteredland. Inthiscase,thepreferencecreatedbythelevyonattachmentisnotdiminishedbythesubsequentregistrationof thepriorsaletorespondent.Theattachmentthatwasregisteredbeforethesaletakesprecedenceoverthelatter. Superiorityandpreferenceinrightsaregiventotheregistrationofthelevyonattachment;althoughthenoticeof attachmenthasnotbeennotedonthecertificateoftitle,itsnotationinthebookofentryoftheRegisterofDeeds producesalltheeffectswhichthe producesalltheeffectswhichthelawgi producesalltheeffectswhichthelaw lawgi givestoitsregistrationorinscription. vestoitsregistrationor vestoitsregistrationorinscription. inscription. II.No.Adeclarationfrom II.No.Adeclarationfromthecourt thecourtthatrespondentwas thatrespondentwasinbadfaith inbadfaithisnotnecessary isnotnecessaryinorderthat inorderthatthenoticeof inorderthatthenoticeoflevy thenoticeoflevy thenoticeoflevy onattachmentmaybeannotatedonTCTNo.PT-94912becauseoftheirrebuttablepresumptionunderthe ruleof noticethatitispresumedthatthepurchaserhasexaminedeveryinstrumentofrecordaffectingthetitleandthat noticethatitispresumedthatthepurchaserhasexaminedeveryinstrumentofrecordaffectingthetitleandthat heischargedwithnoticeofeveryfactshownbytherecordandispresumedtoknoweveryfactshownbytherecord heischargedwithnoticeofeveryfactshownbytherecordandispresumedtoknoweveryfact shownbytherecord andtoknoweveryfactwhichanexaminationof andtoknoweveryfactwhichanexaminationoftherecordwouldhavedisclosed. therecordwouldhavedisclosed. Thefactthatthenoticeoflevyonattachmentwasnot Thefactthatthenotice oflevyonattachmentwasnotannotatedontheoriginaltitleonfilein annotatedontheoriginaltitleonfileintheRegistryofDeeds, theRegistryofDeeds, whichresultedinitsnon-annotationon whichresultedinitsnon-annotationonTCTNo. TCTNo.PT-94912, TCTNo.PT-94912,shouldnotprejudicepetitioner.Aslong PT-94912, PT-94912,shouldnotprejudicepetitioner.Aslongastherequisites shouldnotprejudicepetitioner.Aslong shouldnotprejudicepetitioner.Aslongastherequisites astherequisites requiredbylawinordertoeffectattachmentarecompliedwithandtheappropriatefeesdulypaid,attachmentis dulyperfected.Theattachmentalreadybindstheland. III.Yes.UnderSectio III.Yes.UnderSection71ofPD1529,“Iftheownernegle n71ofPD1529,“Iftheownerneglectsorrefuse ctsorrefusestocomplywithin stocomplywithinareasonable areasonabletime,the time,the RegisterofDeedsshallreport RegisterofDeedsshallreportthemattertothecourt,anditshall,after themattertothecourt,anditshall,afternotice,enteranordertotheowner, notice,enteranordertotheowner,to to producehiscertificateatatimeand producehiscertificatea tatimeandplacenamedtherein, tatimeandplacenamedtherein,andmayenforce andmayenforcetheorder theorderbysuitableprocess.” bysuitableprocess.” Inthiscase,sincerespondentrefuses Inthiscase,sincerespondentrefusestosurrenderthe tosurrendertheownersduplicatecertificate ownersduplicatecertificatesothatt sothattheattachmentlienmay heattachmentlienmay beannotated,acourtord beannotated,acourtorderisnecessar erisnecessaryinordertocompel yinordertocompeltheresponden therespondenttosurrend ttosurrenderhertitle.Asarule,the erhertitle.Asarule,the functionsoftheRegisterofDeedsaregenerallyregardedasministerialandsaidofficerhasnopowertopassupon thelegalityofanorderissuedbyacourtofjustice. TERESITAROSALARRAZOLAvs.PEDROA.BERNASandSOLE TERESITAROSALARRAZOLAvs.PEDRO A.BERNASandSOLEDADVERNASALIVIO DADVERNASALIVIO G.R.No.L-29740November10,1978 AQUINO,J.:

FACTS Teresi Teresitawasallege tawasallegedly dly anadopteddaught anadopteddaughterof erof Elviro Elviro Bernas Bernas who onMay5, 196 1967,whenhe 7,whenhe was 79years old, old, executedinIloiloCityanotarizedwillwhereinhedisinheritedTeresitaandinstitutedhisbrotherPedroA.Bernas andhissisterSoledadBernasAlivioasheirstoallhisproperties,includingLotsNos.371and373whichhehad allegedly"involuntarilytransferred"toTeresita. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

Amonthlater,oronJune5,1967,ElviroBernasdiedinRoxasCity.HisbrotherPedrofiledwiththeCourtofFirst InstanceofCapizapetitiondated InstanceofCapizapetitiondatedSeptember6,1967 September6,1967for September6,1967forthe forthe fortheprobateofhiswill(SpecialP theprobateof probateofhiswill( probateofhiswill(SpecialProceedingNo. hiswill(SpecialProceedingNo.V-2965).On SpecialProceedingNo.V-2965 roceedingNo.V-2965).On V-2965).On December12,1967,PedroA.BernasfiledwiththeregisterofdeedsofCapizaverifiednoticeofadverseclaim.He allegedinthatadverse alleg edinthatadverse claimthatLotsNos.371and3 73wereconveyedbyhisbrotherElvirotoTeresitaRosalBernas allegedinthatadverseclaimthatLotsNos.371and3 73wereconveyedbyhisbrother 73wereconvey edbyhisbrotherElvirotoTeresitaRosalBern ElvirotoTeresitaRosalBernas as "involuntarily,fictitiouslyandwithoutconsideration"andthatinElviro'swillthetwolotsweredevisedtohim (Pedro)andhissisterSoledad. AftertheregisterofdeedshadannotatedtheadverseclaimonTCTNos.T-6881andT-6882,TeresitaR.Bernas ArrazolafiledinthecadastralandprobateproceedingsamotiondatedAugust13,1968forthecancellationofthe annotationofadverseclaim.Themotionwaspr annotationofadverseclaim. Themotionwaspredicatedonthegroundsthatshe edicatedonthegroundsthatshewasnot wasnot servedwithpriornotice" oftheadverseclaim oftheadverseclaimandthattherewas" oftheadverseclaimand andthattherewas"nopetition thattherewas"no thattherewas"nopetitionfor nopetitionforapproval petitionforapprovalorjustification"thereof forapprovalor approvalorjustification"thereoffiledwitht or justification"thereof justification"thereoffiledwitht filedwiththecourt. hecourt.Pedro Pedro A.BernasandSoledadBernasAlivioopposedthemotion. A.BernasandSoledadBernasAlivioopposedthe motion. ThelowercourtinitsorderofAugust20,1968granteditandorderedtheregisterofdeedstocanceltheannotation. ThelowercourtinitsorderofAugust20,1 968granteditandorderedtheregisterofdeedstocanceltheannotation. Theoppositorsappealed. ISSUE WONthelowercourterredin WONthelowercourterredinorderingthecancellationoftheadverseclaim courterredinorderingtheca orderingtheca orderingthecancellationoftheadverseclaim ncellationoftheadverseclaim RULING YES.Thelowercourterredinorderingthecancellationoftheadverseclaim.ItistruethatthewillofElviroBernas hasnotyetbeenprobatedbutthefact hasnotyetbeenprobatedbutthefactisthatthereisapendingproce isthatthereisapendingproceedingforitspro edingforitsprobate.Andinthatwil bate.Andinthatwillthe lthe testatortransmittedtohissurvivingbrotherandsister,thehereinoppositors-appellantsoradverseclaimants,the righttosecureadeclarationastotheinvalidityofhisconveyanceoflotsNos.371 righttosecureadeclarationastotheinvalidityof hisconveyanceoflotsNos.371and373toTer and373toTeresitaRosal and373toTeresitaRosalArrazola. esitaRosalArrazola. Arrazola. Becauseofthatwill,Tere Becauseofthatwill,Teresita' sita'stitletothetwolots stitletothetwolotshavebecomecont havebecomecontrover roversial.Toaler sial.Toalertthirdperso tthirdpersons,orforthat ns,orforthat matterthewholeworld,tothefactthatPedroA.BernasandSoledadBernasAliviohaveanadverseclaimonthe twolots,section110ofActNo.496givesthemtheremedyofcausingtobeannotatedtheiradverseclaimonthe titlesofthe titlesofthe twolots.Ifthatremedyisnotgiventothem,thentheregisteredowne twolots.Ifthatremedyisnotgiventothem,thentheregisteredownercantransferthelots rcantransferthelotstoan toan innocentpurchaserforvalueand,inthatevent,theunregisteredadverse innocentpurchaserfor innocentpurchaserforvalueand, valueand,inthatevent,theunregisteredadverseclaimwillbenullifiedo inthatevent,theunregisteredadverseclaimwillbenullifiedorfrustrated. claimwillbenullifiedor rfrustrated. Thepurposeofannotatingtheadverseclaimonthetitleofthedisputedlandistoapprisethirdpersonsthatthere isacontroversyo isacontroversyovertheo isacontroversyovertheownershipofthe vertheownershipof wnershipoftheland theland landandtopreserveandprotectthe landandto andtopreserve andtopreserveand preserveandprotecttherightof andprotecttherightof protecttherightoftheadverse theadverseclaimantduring claimantduring thependencyofthecontroversy.Itisanoticetothirdpersonsthatanytransactionregardingthedisputedlandis subjecttotheoutcomeofthedispute. Appellants'adverseclaim,whichwasmadeingoodfaith,hassomebasisandsemblanceofplausibilityandisnot palpablyfrivolousorvexatious.Hence,itisprematuretoorderthecancellationofthe palpablyfrivolousorvexatious.Hence,it isprematuretoorderthecancellationoftheannotationthereofbeforeit annotationthereofbeforeit isfinallydeterminedbythecourtsthatthetitlesof isfinallydeterminedby isfinallydeterminedbythecourtsthat thecourtsthatthetitlesofTeresitaRosalAr thetitlesofTeresitaRosalAr thetitlesofTeresitaRosalArrazolatothedisputedlotsare TeresitaRosalArrazola razolatothedisputedlotsareindefeasibleand razolatothedisputedlotsareindefeasibleand indefeasibleand thatappellants'claimisdevoidofmerit. Ithasbeensaidthattheannotationofanadverseclaimshouldnotbeconfusedwithitsvaliditywhichshouldbe litigatedinaproperproceedingandthattheregistrationofaninvalidadverseclaimisnotasharmfulasthenonregistrationofavalidone(Gabrielvs.Registero registrationofavalid one(Gabrielvs.RegisterofDeedsofRizal,11 fDeedsofRizal,118Phil.980). 8Phil.980). GOVERNMENTOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDSvsMARTINOTOMBISTRINO GOVERNMENTOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDSvs MARTINOTOMBISTRINO GRNo.26849;September21,1927

FACTS: OnJune13,1921,theGovernmentofthePhilippineinitiatedthe"Sagaycadastre,B.L.No.127"tolotNo.1429a publicland.Duringthependencyofthecase,MartinoT.TriñowasnotifiedtoappearbeforetheCFIofNegros Occidental.ThetrialsetforFebruary13,1922,couldnotbehadforthelackofapresidingjudge,butnevertheless thecasewascalledonthatdatebytheclerkofthecourt,andasnooneappearedexceptthedeputyprovincialfiscal, thecasewascalledonthatdatebytheclerkofthecourt, andasnooneappearedexceptthedeputyprovincialfiscal, adecreeofgeneraldefaultagainstthewholeworldwasentered.OnJune5,1923,Triñoappearedandfiledan CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

answer.HedeclaredownershipoverthelandasindicatedonthecadastralplanofthemunicipalityofSagay,then casewasheard.OnDecember3,1925,adecisionwasgiveninfavorofMartinoTriño.Butbeforethedecreewas issued,oneMartinoTumbishadconveyedthelottoCristetaIbañez.CristetaIbañez,throughEstebanVazquezher attorney-in-fact,sold attorney-in-fact,soldthelot attorney-in-fact,soldthelottoLeopoldoEscalanteforP30, thelottoLeopoldo toLeopoldoEscalantefor EscalanteforP30, P30, 000.Transfercertificatesof 000.Transfercertificatesoftitlein certificatesoftitleinthenamesof titlein titleinthenamesofCristeta thenamesofCristeta Cristeta IbañezandLeopoldoEscalanteareof IbañezandLeopoldoEscalanteareofrecord.Anoticeoflispendenswas Escalanteareofrecord.A record.A record.Anoticeoflispendenswasfiledbythepro noticeoflispendenswasfiledby noticeoflispendenswasfiledbytheprovincialfiscalwiththeoffice filedbytheprovincialfiscal theprovincialfiscalwiththeoffice vincialfiscalwiththeoffice oftheregisterofdeedsofNegrosOccidentalonJune29,1926,buthasnotbeennotedbytheregisterofdeedson thecertificates thecertificatesoftitle.Thegover oftitle.Thegovernmenttoo nmenttookstepstocorr kstepstocorrecttheanoma ecttheanomaly,thedeputypro ly,thedeputyprovincia vincialfiscalfiled lfiscalfiledbya bya motionforreconsiderationstatingthat motionforreconsiderationstatingthatMartinoTriño MartinoTriñohadnotyet hadnotyeta a cquirednorperfectedanytitleuponthesaidlot cquirednorperfectedanytitleuponthe cquirednorperfected anytitleuponthesaidlot saidlot andthelandindisputeisapubliclandandobtaineditthroughfraud.ThecounselforMartinoTriñoopposedthe motion.Ahearingwasco motion.Ahearingwasconductedandthemotionfiled hearingwasconductedand nductedand nductedandthemotionfiledbythef themotionfiledbyt themotionfiledbythefiscalwasdeniedby bythefi hefiscalwasdeniedbythe iscalwasdeniedbythelowercourt. scalwasdeniedbythelowercourt.Thegovernment thelowercourt.Thegovernment Thegovernment appealedthedecision.Inamplificationoftheassignederrors,extensivebriefshavebeensubmitted,whilethree appealedthedecision.Inamplificationof theassignederrors,extensivebriefshavebeensubmitted,whilethreesets sets oflawyershavebeenpermittedtoappearasamicicuriae. oflawyershavebeenpermittedtoappear asamicicuriae. Issue: Whetherthecourterredindismissingthe Whetherthecourterredindismissingthemotionfiled motionfiledby bythefiscalandthatMartinoTriñoownsthelotindispute. thefiscalandthatMartino thefiscalandthatMartinoTriñoownsthelotindispute. Ruling: Inacadastralproceeding,acourt Ina Inacadastral cadastralproceeding,acourthasno proceeding,acourthas proceeding,acourthasnojurisdiction hasnojurisdictionto nojurisdictiontodecree jurisdictiontodecreea todecreealottoone decreea alottoonewhohas lottoonewhohasputinnoclaimtoit. whohasputinnoclaimtoit.Thewritten Thewritten declarationclaimingcertaindescribedpropertyistheverybasisofjurisdictiontorenderajudgment.Inacadastral declarationclaimingcertaindescribedpropertyisthev erybasisofjurisdictiontorender erybasisofjurisdiction torenderajudgment.Inacadastral proceeding,underanoppositionclaiminganundefinedportionofacertainlot,acourthasnojurisdictiontomake anawardofthewholelot.Suchanoppositionisvoidforvaguenessanduncertaintyandcannotserveasabasisof award.Alsoinacadastralproceeding,acourthasno award.Alsoinacadastralproceeding,acourthasnojurisdictiontodecreealotas jurisdictionto jurisdictiontodecreea decreealotasnotco lotasnotcontested notcontestedwhenitiscontested, ntestedwhenit whenitiscontested, iscontested, andtoproceedtoadjudicationwithoutgivingtheopposingpartiesanopportunitytobeheard.Thatwouldbe violatedofthemostrudimentarylegalprinciples.Itisheldonthefactsandthelawthatthejudgmententeredin thiscadastralcasewithreferenceto thiscadastralcasewithreferencetolotNo.1429 lotNo.1429isnulland isnullandvoidabinitio voidabinitiobecauseof voidabinitiobecauseoflackofjurisdictionofthe becauseof becauseoflackofjurisdictionofthecourt lackofjurisdictionofthecourt court torenderit. REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,andTheDIRECTOROFLANDS,petitioners,vs.HON.ABRAHAMP.VERA,Judge,CFI, Bataan,BranchI, Bataan,BranchI,andLUI andLUISITO SITOMARTINEZ, MARTINEZ,respondents. respon responden dents. ts. GRNo.L-35778 GRNo.L-3577 .L-35778 8 January27,1983 January January 27,1983 REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES, REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,andTHEDIRECTOROFLAND,pet REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,andTHE andTHEDIRECTOROFLAND,petitioners,vs.HON.ABRAH DIRECTOROFLAND,petitioners,vs. DIRECTOROFLAND,petitioners,vs.HON.ABRAHAMP.VERA,Judge,CFI, itioners,vs.HON.ABRAH HON.ABRAHAMP.VERA,Judge,CFI, AMP.VERA,Judge,CFI, Bataan,BranchI,andTHELMA Bataan,BranchI,andTHELMATANALEGA, TANALEGA,respondents.G.R. respondents.G.R.No.L-35779 No.L-35 No.L-35779 779 January27,1983 Januar January27, y27, 1983

FACTS: G.R.No.L-35778: RespondentLuis RespondentLuisitoMart itoMartinezfiledanapplic inezfiledanapplicationfo ationforregistr rregistrationof ationoftitleofone(1)parcel titleofone(1)parcelofland,withanareaof ofland,withanareaof 323,093squaremeters,more 323,093squaremeters,moreorless.However,theR 323,093squaremeters,moreor orless.However,theRepublicoft less.However,theRepublicof less.However,theRepublicofthePhilippinesfiled epublicofthePhilippinesfiled thePhilippinesfiledanoppositiontothea hePhilippinesfiledan anoppositiontotheapplication anoppositiontotheapplication pplication statingthattheparceloflandappliedforisa statingthattheparceloflandappliedforisaportionof statingthattheparceloflandapplied forisaportionofthepublicdomainbelongingto forisaportionofthepublicdomainbelongingtotheRepublic,not portionofthepublicdomainbelongingto thepublicdomainbelongingtotheRepublic,not theRepublic,notsubjectto theRepublic,notsubjectto subjectto subjectto privateappropriation.ThatsaidlandwasasubjectofcadastralproceedingandthatlandwasassignedasLotNo. 626,MarivelesCada 626,MarivelesCadastre. stre.Responden Respondentcontend tcontendsthatheinherite sthatheinheritedthelandfromhisparen dthelandfromhisparentsandinhispossess tsandinhispossession ion since1938. G.R.No.L-35779: RespondentThelmaTanalegafiledanapplicationforregistrationoftwo(2)parcelsofland,containinganareaof 443,297squaremeters,moreorless,and378,506squaremeters,moreorlesswhichdescribedandIdentifiedas portionsofLot portionsofLot 626,MarivelesCadastre, 626,MarivelesCadastre, coveredby coveredby Plans(LRC) SWO-13430and(LRC)SWO-13431 SWO-13430and(LRC)SWO-13431.Respondent .Respondent Thelmaallegedthat,saidlandwassoldtoherbyElisaLlamaswhoallegedlypossessedthelandsince1935.TheCourt ofFirstInstanceconfirmedthetitlestosubjectparcelsoflandandadjudicatedtheminfavorofapplicantsLuisito MartinezandThelmaTanalega. ISSUE: 1.WhetherornotsaidparcelsoflandwhichareportionsofLotNo.626,MarivelesCadastrearealienableand disposablelandofpublicdomains? CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

2.Whetherornottheallegedpossessionoftheapplicantsthro 2.Whetherornottheallegedpossessio noftheapplicantsthroughtheirpredece ughtheirpredecessors ssors-in-int -in-interestissuffi erestissufficientto cientto sustaintheirclaimforprescription? RULING: Intheinstantcases,privaterespondentsapparentlyeitherdidnotfiletheiranswersintheaforesaidcadastral proceedingsorfailedto proceedingsorfailedtosubstantiatetheir substantiatetheirclaims substantiatetheirclaimsovertheportionsthey claims claimsovertheportionstheyweretheno overtheportionsthey overtheportionstheyweretheno werethenoccupying, ccupying,otherwise,titlesover otherwise,titlesover theportionssubjectoftheirrespectiveclaimswouldhavebeenissuedtothem.TheCadastralCourtmusthave declaredthelandsinquestionpubliclands,anditsdecisionhadalreadybecomefinalandconclusive. Respondentsarenowbarredbypriorjudgmenttoasserttheirrightsoverthesubjectland,underthedoctrineof res .Acadastralproceedingisone .Acadastralproceedingisoneinremand isoneinremandbindsthe inremandbindsthewholeworld. bindsthewholeworld. bindsthewholeworld.Underthis Underthisdoctrine,parties doctrine,partiesareprecluded areprecluded judicata .Acadastralproceeding fromre-litigatingthesameissuesalreadydeterminedbyfinaljudgment. fromre-litigatingthesameissuesalreadyd eterminedbyfinaljudgment. Evengrantingthatrespondentscanstillpetitionforjudicialconfirmationofimperfecttitleoverthelandssubject matteroftheinstant matteroftheinstantcases,the cases,thesamemust samemustnecessarilyfail. samemustnecessarilyfail.Itisto necessarilyfail. necessarilyfail.Itistobenoted Itistobe Itistobenotedthat benotedthatin notedthatintheinst thatintheinstant intheinstantcasesevidenceforthe theinstant antcasesevidenceforthe casesevidenceforthe respondentsthemselvestendto respondentsthemselves respondentsthemselvestendtoshowthatonlyportionsof tendtoshowthat showthatonlyportions onlyportionsofthe ofthe theentireareaappliedfor theentirearea entireareaappliedfor entireareaappliedforare appliedforarecultivated.Amerecasual are arecultivated.Amerecasual cultivated.Amerecasual cultivationofportionsofthelandbytheclaimantdoesnotconstitutepossession cultivationofportions cultivationofportionsofthelandby ofthelandbytheclaimantdoesnotconstitutepossessionunderclaimofownership.In theclaimantdoesnotconstitutepossessionunderclaimo theclaimantdoesnotco nstitutepossessionunderclaimofownership.Inthat underclaimofownership.Inthat fownership.Inthat that sense,possessionisnotexclusiveandnotorioussoastogiverisetoapresumptivegrantfromtheState.The possessionofpubliclandhoweverlong possessionofpubliclandhoweverlongtheperiodthereof theperiodthereofmayhaveextended, mayhaveextended,neverconferstitle neverconferstitletheretouponthe theretouponthe possessorbecausethestatuteoflimitationswithregardtopubliclanddoesnotoperateagainsttheState,unless theoccupantcanprovepossessionandoccupationofthesameunderclaim theoccupantcanprovepossessionandoc cupationofthesameunderclaimofownershipfortherequirednumber ofownershipfortherequirednumber ofyearstoconstituteagrantfromtheState.Applicants,therefore,havefailedtosubmitconvincingproofactual, peacefulandadversepossessionintheconceptofowners peacefulandadversepos peacefulandadversepossessioninthe sessionintheconceptofownersoftheentire conceptofownersof conceptofownersoftheentireareainquestionduringtheperiod oftheentirearea theentireareainquestionduringtheperiodrequired areainquestionduringtheperiodrequired required bylaw. Apartfromtheforegoing, Apartfromtheforegoing,thesurvey Apartfromtheforegoing,thesurveyplanssubmittedbypetitionerswerenotapprovedbytheDirectorof thesurveyplanssubmittedby planssubmittedbypetitionerswere petitionerswerenotapproved notapprovedbytheDir bytheDirectorofLandsbut ectorofLandsbut Landsbut bytheLandRegistrationCommission.TheLandRegistrationCommissionhasnoauthoritytoapproveoriginalsurvey bytheLandRegistrationCommission.TheLandRegistrationCommissionhasno authoritytoapproveoriginal authoritytoapproveoriginalsurvey survey plansinthisparticularcase.Section34-AofR.A.No.6389relieduponbyrespondentsappliesonlytolandssubject oftenancyrelationwhichareexpropria oftenancyrelationwhichareexpropriatedandsub-divided tedandsub-dividedin in favorof favorof newamortizing-o newamortizing-owner-b wner-benefici eneficiaries aries.The .The submissionoftheplanisastatutoryrequirementofmandatorycharacterandunlesstheplananditstechnical descriptionaredulyapprovedbytheDirectorofLands, descriptionaredulyapprovedbytheD irectorofLands,thesamearenotof thesamearenotofmuchvalue. muchvalue.

WIDOWS WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ORPHANS ASSOCIAT ASSOCIATION, ION, INC., (WIDORA) (WIDORA) vs. COURT COURT OF APPEALS APPEALS and ORTIGAS ORTIGAS & COMPANY COMPANY LIMITEDPARTNERSHIP G.R.No.91797August28,1991 Facts: PlaintiffWIDORAfiledbeforetherespondentcourtanapplicationforregistrationofaparceloflandallegingthat saidiscoveredcoveredbyTitulodePropriedadNumero saidiscoveredcoveredbyT itulodePropriedadNumero4136andissuedinthenameof 4136andissuedinthenameofthedeceasedMarianoSan thedeceasedMarianoSan PedroyEstebanandacquiredsaidpropertyfromtheheirsofDonMarianoSanPedrosituatedinatMalitlit-Uoogong, PedroyEstebanandacquiredsaidpropertyfromtheheirsofDon MarianoSanPedrosituatedinatMalitlit-Uoogong, QuezonCity,withanareaof QuezonCity,withanareaof156hectares,moreorless, QuezonCity,withanareaof156 156hectares,moreorless,describedinPlanNo. hectares,moreorless,described hectares,moreorless,describedinPlanNo. describedinPlanNo.LRC(SWO) inPlanNo.LRC(SWO)-15352.Respondentofthe LRC(SWO)-15352.Respondentofthe LRC(SWO)-15352.Respondentofthe previouscase,Molina,filedanoppositiontotheCA,claimingownershipover12to14hectaresofLot8.Petitioner Ortigasfiledamotiontodismissthecaseallegingthatsaidcourthadnojurisdictionoverthecase,thelandbeing appliedforhavingbeenalreadyregisteredundertheTorrensSystemandinthenameofOrtigas.Thecourtissued anorderdirectingtheapplicantto anorderdirectingtheapplicanttoproveitscontentio proveitscontentionthatTCT nthatTCT77652 77652andTCT77653arenotproperderivativesof andTCT77653a andTCT77653arenotproperderivativesof theoriginalcertificatesoftitles.petitionerOrtigasfiledamotionforreconsideration,allegingamongothersthat LandRegistrationCommissionitselfhasadvisedthecourtthatthe156hectarepropertysoughttoberegisteredis coveredbyvalidandsubsistingtitlesinthenameofOrtigas,but coveredbyvalidandsubsistingtitlesin thenameofOrtigas,butwaslaterdeniedbythesameco waslaterdeniedbythesamecourt.TheCA,dated urt.TheCA,dated datedNovember27,1989,declaredrespondentOrtigasandCompanyLimitedPartnership(Ortigas)as datedNovember27,1989, declaredrespondentOrtigasandCompanyLimitedPartnership(Ortigas)astheregistered theregistered ownerofthedisputedparceloflandiscoveredbyTitulodePropriedadNumero4136.Respondentfiledamotion forreconsiderationwhich forreconsiderationwhichwasagaindenied.Later, forreconsiderationwhichwasagain wasagaindenied.Later,respondentOrtigas denied.Later,respondentOrtigas denied.Later,respondentOrtigasinstitutedan institutedanactionfo actionforcertiorar rcertiorari,prohibition i,prohibition andmandamusbeforerespondentcourtprayingfortheannulmentprayedthatthetrialcourtbe andmandamusbeforerespondentcourtprayingfor theannulmentprayedthat theannulmentprayedthatthetrial thetrialcourtbeorderedto courtbeorderedtodismiss orderedtodismiss dismiss thelandregistrationcasewhichgrantedbythecourt.Thepetitiononhand,WIDORAarguesthatrespondentcourt CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

erredin erredin sustai sustainin ning g the validi validityof tyof TCTs TCTs Nos. Nos. 77652and 77652and 77653despi 77653despitethe tethe absen absenceof ceof a suppor supportin ting g decre decree e of registrationandinsteadu registrationandinsteadutilizedsecond tilizedsecondaryevidence, aryevidence,OCT351which OCT351whichissupposed issupposedlyacopyof lyacopyofDecree1425. Decree1425. Issue:Whetherornottheresponde Issue:Whetherornottherespondenttrialcourterredinsustaining nttrialcourterredinsustainingthevalidityoftheTCTNOs. thevalidityoftheTCTNOs. 77652and 77652and77653 77653 despitetheabsenceofasupportingdecreeofregistration. despitetheabsenceofasupportingdecreeof registration. Held:Yes.UnderAct496,itisthedecreeofregistrationissuedbytheLandRegistrationCommissionwhichisthe basisforthesubsequentissuanceofthecertificat basisforthesubsequentissuanceofthecertificateoftitlebythecorrespond eoftitlebythecorrespondingRegisterofDeedsth ingRegisterofDeedsthatquietsthe atquietsthe titletoandbindstheland.Consequently,ifnodecreeofregistrationhadbeenissuedcoveringtheparcelofland appliedfor,thenthecertificateoftitleissuedoverthesaidparceloflanddoesnotquietthetitletonorbindthe “nocorrectionofcertificateof landandisnull landandisnullandvoid.Asfortheerrorofthecourt,Sec.108,PD1529 andvoid.Asfortheerrorofthecourt,Sec.10 andvoid.Asfortheerro rofthecourt,Sec.108,PD1529 8,PD1529 statesthat statesthat – “nocorrectionofcertif titleshallbemadeexceptbyorderofthecourtina titleshallbemadeexceptby orderofthecourtinapetitionfiledforthepurposeandentitledintheoriginal petitionfiledforthepurposeandentitledintheoriginalcasein casein whichthedecree whichthedecreeofregistr whichthedecreeofregistrationwasentered”andjurisprudenceheldthat– ofregistrationwasen ationwasentered tered”andjuris ”andjurisprude prudenceheld nceheldthat– that– “Whilethelawfixesno “While “Whilethelawfixesnoprescriptive thelawfixesnoprescrip prescriptive tive periodtherefor,the periodtherefor,thecourt,how periodtherefor,thecourt,however,isnotauthorizedto court,however,isnot ever,isnotauthorized authorizedto toalterorcorre alterorcorrectthecertificate alterorcorrectthecertificate alterorcorrectthecertificateoftitleif ctthecertificateoftitleifitwouldmeanth oftitleif oftitleifitwouldmeanthe itwouldmeanthee reopeningofthedecreeofregistrationbeyondtheperiodallowedbylaw” reopeningofthedecreeofregistrationbeyondtheperiod allowedbylaw” Asjurisprudencestated – “Onewhorelies “Onewhore “Onewhorelies lies onadocumentevidencinghistitletothepropertymustprovenotonlythegenuinenessthereofbutalsotheidentity ofthelandthereinreferredto”Inthecaseatbar,privaterespondent'sTCTNos.77652and77653tracetheirorigins ofthelandthereinreferredto”Inthe caseatbar,privaterespondent'sTCTNos.77652and77653tracetheirorigins fromOCTNos.337,19,336and334andnotfromOCT351asitisnowclaimedbyrespondentOrtigas.Asforthe decisionofthetrialcourtinthepreviouscase,..."Nowhereinsaiddecision,however,isa decisionofthetrialcourtinthepreviouscase, ..."Nowhereinsaiddecision,however,isapronouncementthatTCT pronouncementthatTCT Nos.77652and77653 Nos.77652and77653 wereissuedfromTCT wereissuedfromTCTNo.227758.Ont No.227758.Onthecontrary, hecontrary,itis itis notdisputedbythe notdispute notdisputedbythepartiesthatTCT dbythepartiesthat partiesthatTCT TCT Nos.77652and77653themselvesshowthattheywerederivedfromOCTNo.337,19,336and334andnotfrom OCT351orTCT227758.Ifindeed,therealoriginthereofisOCTNo. OCT351orTCT22 7758.Ifindeed,therealoriginthereofisOCTNo.351,whatrespondentOrtigasshouldhavedone 351,whatrespondentOrtigasshouldhavedone wastofileapetitionfo wastofileapetitionforthecorre rthecorrectionofthe ctionoftheTCTsin TCTsinquestionas questionasstatedearlier. statedearlier. LaBugal-B’laanTribalAsso.,vs.VictorO.Ramos GRNo.127882 GRNo.127882 127882 December1,2004 December1,2004 December1,2004

Facts:OnJuly25,1987,thenPresidentCorazonC.AquinoissuedExecutiveOrder(E.O.)No.2796authorizingthe DENRSecretarytoaccept,considerandevaluateproposalsfromforeign-ownedcorporationsorforeigninvestors for for cont contra ract cts s or agre agreem emen ents ts invo involvi lving ng eith either er tech techni nica cal l or fina financ ncial ial assi assist stan ance ce for for larg largee-sc scal ale e expl explor orat atio ion, n, development,andutilizationofminerals,which,uponappropriaterecommendationofthe development,andutilizationofminerals, which,uponappropriaterecommendationoftheSecretary,thePresident Secretary,thePresident mayexecutewiththeforeignproponent.OnMarch3,1995,thenPresidentFidelV.RamosapprovedR.A.No.7942 to"governthe to"governtheexploration,development,utilizationandprocessingofallmineralresources."R.A.No.7942 to"gove rntheexploration, exploration,development development,utilization ,utilizationandproce andprocessingof ssingofallmineralre allmineralresources." sources."R.A.No. R.A.No.7942 7942 defines defines themodes of mineral mineral agreemen agreements ts formining operation operations, s, outlinesthe outli outlines outlines nesthe theprocedure theprocedu procedur procedure re e for their their filing andapproval, andapproval, assignment/transferandwithdrawal assignment /transferandwithdrawal,and assignment/transferandwithdrawal,andfixestheirterms.Similarprovisionsgovernfina ,andfixestheirterms.Similar fixestheirterms.Similarprovisionsgovernfina provisionsgovernfina ncialortechnicalassist ncialortechnicalassistance ncialortechnicalassistance ance agreements.OnApril9,1995, agreements.OnApril9,1995,30daysfollow 30daysfollowingitspublicatio ingitspublicationonMarch nonMarch10,1995inMalaya 10,1995inMalayaandManilaTimes andManilaTimes,two ,two newspapersofgeneralcirculation,R.A.No.7942took newspapersofgeneralcirculati newspapersofgeneralcirculation,R.A.No.7942tookeffect.Shortlybeforetheeffectivityo on,R.A.No.7942tookeffect.Shortlybeforetheeffectivity effect.Shortlybeforetheeffectivityo ofR.A.No. fR.A.No.7942,however, fR.A.No.7942,however, 7942,however, oronMarch30,1995,thePresidententeredintoanFTAAwithWMCPcovering99,387hectaresoflandinSouth Cotabato,SultanKudarat,DavaodelSurandNorthCotabato.OnAugust15,1995,thenDENRSecretaryVictorO. RamosissuedDENRAdministrativeOrder(DAO)No.95-23,s.1995,otherwiseknownastheImplementingRulesand RamosissuedDENRAdministrativeOrder(DAO)No.95-23,s. 1995,otherwiseknownastheImplementingRulesand RegulationsofR.A.No.7942.ThiswaslaterrepealedbyDAONo.96-40,s.1996whichwasadoptedonDecember 20,1996.PetitionersclaimthattheDENRSecretaryactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdiction. Theypraythatthe Courtissueanorder:(a)PermanentlyenjoiningrespondentsfromactingonanyapplicationforFinancialorTechnical Courtissueanorder:(a)PermanentlyenjoiningrespondentsfromactingonanyapplicationforFinancialor Technical AssistanceAgreements;(b) AssistanceAgreements;(b)Declaring AssistanceAgreements;(b)DeclaringthePhilippineMiningActof1995orRepublicActNo.7942 DeclaringthePhilipp thePhilippineMining ineMiningActof Actof1995orRe 1995orRepublicAct publicActNo.7942asunconstitutional No.7942asunconstitutional asunconstitutional andnullandvoid;(c)DeclaringtheImplementingRulesandRegulationsofthePhilippineMiningActcontainedin DENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40andallothersimilaradministrativeissuancesas DENRAdministrativeOrderNo.96-40 andallothersimilaradministrativeissuancesasunconstitutionalandnulland unconstitutionalandnulland void;and(d)CancellingtheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreementissuedtoW void;and(d)CancellingtheFinan cialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreementissuedtoWesternMiningPhilippines,Inc. esternMiningPhilippines,Inc. asunconstitutional,illegal asunconstitutional,illegalandnull asunconstitutional,illegalandnulland andnullandvoid. andvoid. void. Issue:Whethero Issue:Whetherornot Issue:WhetherornotRepublicAct7942 rnotRepublicAct RepublicAct7942 7942 isconstitutional. isconstitutio isconstitutional. nal. Held: Held: Yes. Yes. The Courtfind Courtfinds s the follow following ing provis provision ions s ofR.A.7942to beviolativ beviolative e ofSection ofSection 2,ArticleXII 2,ArticleXII ofthe Constitut Constitution.Byallowing ion.Byallowing foreigncontr foreigncontractor actorsto sto manageor manageor operatealltheaspectsoftheminingoperat operatealltheaspectsoftheminingoperation, ion, the CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

provisionsofR.A.No.7942haveineffectconveyed provisionsofR.A.No.7942 haveineffectconveyedbeneficialownershipoverthenationsmineralresourcestothese beneficialownershipoverthenationsmineralresourcestothese contractors,leavingtheStatewithnothingbutbaretitlethereto.Moreover,thesameprovisions,whetherbydesign orinadvertence,permitacircumventionoftheconstitutionallyordained60%-40%capitalizationrequirementfor corpor corporati ations ons or associ associati ations ons engaged engaged in the exploi exploitat tation ion, , develo developme pment nt and utiliza utilizatio tion n of Philipp Philippine ine natura naturall resources.Thesecontractualstipulations,ta resources.Thesecontractualstipulations,takentogether,grant kentogether,grantWMCPbeneficialownership WMCPbeneficialownershipovernaturalresourc WMCPbeneficialownershipovernaturalresour overnaturalresources ces es thatproperlybelongtotheSt thatproperlybelongtotheStateandareintended ateandareintendedforthebenefit forthebenefitofits ofitscitizens.Thesestipulations citizens.Thesestipulationsareabhorrentto areabhorrentto the1987Constitution.Theyare the1987Constitution.Theyarepreciselythevicesthatthefundamentallawseeks the1987Constitution.Theyarepreciselythevi preciselythevicesthatthefundamentallawseeksto cesthatthefundamentallawseeks cesthatthefundamentallawseeksto to avoid,theevilsthatitaimsto avoid,theevilsthatita avoid,theevilsthatitaimsto suppress. HILARIONM.HENARES,JR.,etal. HILARIONM.HENARES,JR.,etal.vs.LANDTRANSPORTATIO vs.LANDTRANSPORTATIONFRANCHISINGAN NFRANCHISINGANDREGULATORYBO DREGULATORYBOARDeta ARDetal.l. G.R.No. G.R.No.158290 158290 October23, October 23,2006 2006

FACTS: CitingstatisticsfromNationalandInternationalagencies,petitionersprayedforawritofmandamuscommanding respondentsLandTransportationFranchisingandRegulatoryBoard( respondentsLandTransportation respondentsLandTransportationFranchisingandRegulatoryBoard(LTFRB)and FranchisingandRegulatoryBoard(LTFRB)andtheDepartmentofTransportation LTFRB)andtheDepartmentofTransportation theDepartmentofTransportation and Commun Communicat ication ions s (DOTC) (DOTC) torequire torequire publicutilit publicutility y vehicle vehicles s (PUVs) (PUVs) touse compre compresse ssed d natura natural l gas (CNG)as (CNG)as alternativefuel.Petitionersallegethattheparticulatematters(PM) –complexmixturesofdust,dirt,smoke,and liquiddroplets,varyinginsizesandcompositionsemittedintotheairfromvariousenginecombustions liquiddroplets,varyinginsizesandcompositionsemittedintotheair fromvariousenginecombustions –havecaused detrimentaleffectsonhealth,productivity, detrimentaleffectsonhealth,productivity,infrastructureandthe infrastructureandtheoverallqualityof overallqualityoflife. life.Inaddition,theyallegethat Inaddition,theyallegethat Inaddition,theyallegethat withthecontinuinghighdemand withthecontinuinghighdemandformoto formotorvehicles, rvehicles,theenergyand theenergyandtransportsecto transportsectorsare rsarelikelyto likelytoremainthe remainthemajor major sourcesofharmfulemissions. sourcesofharmfulemissions.Theycitedstudiessh Theycitedstudiesshowingthatvehicularemiss owingthatvehicularemissionsinMetro ionsinMetroManilahaveresultedto Manilahaveresultedto theprevalenceofchronicobst theprevalenceofchronicobstructiv ructivepulmonar epulmonarydiseases(COP ydiseases(COPD);thatpulmo D);thatpulmonarytuberc narytuberculosis ulosisishighestamong ishighestamong jeepneydrivers;andthatthechildreninMetroManila jeepneydrivers;andthatthe childreninMetroManilashowedmorecompromisedpulmonaryfunc showedmorecompromisedpulmonaryfunc tionthantheir ruralcounterparts.Petitioners ruralcounterparts.Petitionersinferthat inferthattheseare thesearemostlydue most mostly lydu due e theemissionsofPUVs. thee theemi miss ssionsofPUVs. Assertingtheirrighttocleanair,petitionerscontendthatthebasesfortheirpetitionforawritofmandamustoorder Assertingtheirrighttocleanair,petitionerscontendthatthebasesfortheirpetitionfora writofmandamustoorder theLTFRBtorequirePUVstouseCNGasanalternativefuel,lieinSection16 ,12 ArticleIIof theLTFRBtorequirePUVstouseCNGasanalternativefuel,lieinSection16 Articl ArticleIIofthe1987Constitution, eIIofthe198 the1987Cons 7Constitut titution, ion, inOposav.Factoran,Jr.andSection4 inOposav.Factoran,Jr.andSection4 14 ofRepublicActNo.8749otherwiseknownasthe“PhilippineCleanAir ofRepublicActNo.8749otherwiseknownasthe“PhilippineCleanAirAct Act of1999.” PetitionersinsistthatsinceitistheLTFRBandtheDOTCthatarethegovernmentagenciesclothedwithpowerto regulateandcontrolmotorvehicles,particularlyPUVs,andwiththesameagencies’awarenessandknowledgethat regulateandcontrolmotorvehicles,particularlyPUVs,andwith thesameagencies’awarenessandknowledgethat thePUVsemitdangerouslevelsofairpollutants,then,theresponsibilitytoseethatthesearecurbedfallsunder unctionsandawritofmandamusshouldissueagainstthem. shouldissueagainstthem. respondents’functionsandawritofmandamus Ontheotherhand,theSolicitorGeneralsaidthattherespondentgovernmentagencies,theDOTCandtheLTFRB, arenotinapositiontocompelthePUVs arenotinapositiontocompelthePUVstouseCNGas touseCNGasalternativefuel.Heexplained alternativefuel.HeexplainedthatthefunctionoftheDOTC thatthefunctionoftheDOTC thatthefunctionoftheDOTC islimitedtoimplementingtheemissionstandards islimitedtoimplementingtheemissionstandardssetforth setforthinRep.Act inRep.ActNo.8749and No.8749andthesaidlaw thesaidlawonly onlygoesasfaras goesasfaras goesasfaras settingthemaximumlimitfortheemissionof settingthemaximumlimitfo rtheemissionofvehicles,butitdoesnotr vehicles,butitdoesnotrecognizeCNGasalternativeenginefuel.He ecognizeCNGasalternativeenginefuel.He recommendedthatthepetitionshouldbeaddressed recommendedthatthe petitionshouldbeaddressedtoCongress toCongressforitto foritto comeupwithapolicythatwouldcompel comeupwitha comeupwithapolicythatwouldcompel theuseofCNGasalternativefuel. ISSUES Whethertherespondentist Whethertherespondentistheagencyresponsible heagencyresponsibletoimplement toimplementthesuggestedalternative thesuggestedalternativeofrequiring ofrequiringpublicutility publicutility vehiclestousecompressednaturalgas(CNG)-NO. Whethertherespondentcanbecompelledtorequirepublicutilityvehiclestousecompr Whethertherespondentcanbecompelledto Whethertherespondentcanbecompelledtorequirepublicutilityvehiclestousecompressednaturalgas requirepublicutilityvehiclestousecompressednaturalgas essednaturalgasthrough through awritofmandamus-NO. RULING Mandamusisavailableonlytocompelthedoingofanactspecificallyenjoinedbylawasaduty.Here,thereisno lawthatmandatestherespondentsLTFRBandtheDOTCtoorderownersofmotorvehiclestouseCNG. lawthatmandatestherespondentsLTFRBandtheDOTC toorderownersofmotorvehiclestouseCNG.Atmostthe Atmostthe LTFRBhasbeentaskedbyE.O.No.290inpar.4.5(ii),Section 4“tograntpreferentialandexclusiveCertificatesof PublicConvenience(CPC)orfranchisestooperatorsofNGVsbasedonthe PublicConvenience(CPC)orfranchisestooperatorsof NGVsbasedontheresultsoftheDOTC resultsoftheDOTCsurveys.” surveys.” CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

Inaddition,undertheCleanAirAct,itistheDENRthatistaskedtosettheemissionstandards Inaddition,undertheCleanAirAct,it istheDENRthatistaskedtosettheemissionstandards forfueluseandthe taskofdevelopinganactionplan.Asfarasmotorvehiclesareconcerned,itdevolvesupontheDOTCandtheline agency whose mandate mandate is to oversee oversee thatmotor vehicles vehicles prepare prepare an action action planand implement implement the emission emission standardsformotorvehicles,namelytheLTFRB. Petitionersareunabletopinpointthelawthatimposesanindubitablelegaldutyonrespondentsthatwilljustifya grantofthewritofmandamuscompellingtheuseofCNGforpublicutilityvehicles.Thelegislatureshouldprovide firstthespecificstatutoryremedytothecomplexenvironmentalproblemsbaredbyhereinpetitionersbeforeany judicialrecoursebymandamusistaken. judicialrecoursebymandamusi staken. Inaddition,thepetitionhadbeenmootedbytheissuanceofExecutiveOrderNo.29 Inaddition,thepetitionhadbeenmootedby theissuanceof theissuanc eofExecut ExecutiveOrderNo.290 iveOrderNo.290,which 0,whichimplementedaprogram ,whichimplementedaprogram ontheuseofCNGbypublicvehicles.Thecourtwasassuredthattheimplementationforacleanerenvironmentis beingaddressed. DIDIPIOvGOZUN GRNo.157882 GRNo.157882 157882 March30,2006 March30, March30,2006

FACTS: ThispetitionforprohibitionandmandamusunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtassailstheconstitutionalityof RepublicActNo.7942 RepublicActNo.7942otherwiseknown otherwiseknownas otherwiseknownasthePhilippineMiningActof as asthePhilippineMiningActof1995, thePhilippineMiningActof thePhilippineMining Actof1995,togetherwiththeImplementing 1995, 1995,togetherwiththeImplementingRules togetherwiththeImplementingRules Rules andRegulationsissuedpursuant andRegulationsissuedpursuantthereto,D thereto,Departmentof epartmentofEnvironmentand EnvironmentandNatural EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR) Natural NaturalResources(DENR)Administrative Resources(DENR)Administrative Administrative OrderNo.96-40,s.1996(DAO96-40)and OrderNo.96-40,s.1996 (DAO96-40)andoftheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreement(FTAA)enteredinto oftheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreement(FTAA)enteredinto on20June1994 on20 on20June1994by June1994bythe bythe theRepublicofthePhilippinesand theRepublicof Republicofthe RepublicofthePhilippinesandArimco thePhilippinesandArimcoMining PhilippinesandArimcoMiningCorporation ArimcoMiningCorporation MiningCorporation(AMC),a Corporation(AMC),a (AMC),acorporationest corporationestab ab lished lished underthelawsofAustraliaandownedbyitsnationals. underthelawsofAustraliaand ownedbyitsnationals. Subsequently,AMCconsolidatedwithClimaxMiningLimitedtoformasinglecompanythatnowgoesunderthenew nameofClimax-Arimco nameofClimax-ArimcoMiningCorporati MiningCorporation(CAMC) on(CAMC),thecontrolling ,thecontrolling99% 99% ofstockholdersofwhichareAustralia ofstockholdersofwhichareAustralian n nationals. on20June1994,PresidentRamosexecutedanFTAAwithAMCoveratotallandareaof37,000hectarescovering theprovincesofNuevaVizcayaandQuirino. IncludedinthisareaisBarangayDipidio,Kasibu,NuevaVizcaya. IncludedinthisareaisBarangayDipidio,Kasibu,NuevaVizcaya. TheCAMCFTAAgrantsinfavorofCAMCtherightofpossessionoftheExplorationContractArea,thefullrightof ingressandegressandther ingressandegressandtherighttooccupy ighttooccupythesame. ighttooccupythesame. ItalsobestowsCAMCtherightnottobepreventedfromentry ItalsobestowsCAMCt ItalsobestowsCAMCtherightnott herightnottobepr obepreventedfromentry intoprivatelandsbysurfaceownersoroccupantsthereofwhenprospecting,exploringandexploitingminerals therein. DidipioEarth-Savers'Multi-PurposeAssociation,Inc.,anorganizationoffarmersandindigenouspeoplesorganized underPhilippinelaws,representingacom underPhilippinelaws, representingacommunityactuallyaf munityactuallyaffectedbythe fectedbytheminingactivities fectedbytheminingactivitiesofCAMC,as miningactivities miningactivitiesofCAMC,aswellas ofCAMC,aswellasother wellasother other residentsofareasaffectedbytheminingactivitiesofCAMC. ISSUES&RULINGS: I. WHETHERORNOTREPUBLICACTNO.7942 WHETHERORNOTREPUBLICACTNO.7942ANDTHECAMCFTAAAREVOIDBECAUSETHEYALLOWTHEUNJUST ANDTHECAMCFTAAARE VOIDBECAUSETHEYALLOWTHEUNJUST ANDUNLAWFULTAKINGOFPROPERTY ANDUNLAWFU LTAKINGOFPROPERTYWITHOUTP ANDUNLAWFULTAKINGOFPROPERTYWITHOUTP WITHOUTP AYMENTOFJUSTCOMPE AYMENTOFJUSTCOMPENSATION,INVIOL AYMENTOFJUSTCOMPENSATION,INVIOLATIONOFSECTION NSATION,INVIOLATIONOFSECTION ATIONOFSECTION 9,ARTICLEIIIOFTHECONSTITUTION. NO. TheprovisionoftheFTAAinquestionlaysdownthewaysandmeansbywhichtheforeign-ownedcontractor, disqualifiedtoownland, disqualifiedtoownland,identifiesto identifiestothe identifiestothegovernmentthespecificsurface the thegovernmentthespecificsurfaceareaswithin governmentthespecificsurface governmentthespecificsurfaceareaswithin areaswithintheFTAAcontractarea areaswithintheFTAA theFTAAcontractareatobe theFTAAcontractareatobe tobe acquiredforthemineinfrastructure.Thegovernmentthenacquiresownershipofthesurfacelandareasonbehalf ofthecontractor,throughavoluntarytransactioninordertoenablethelattertoproceedtofullyimplementthe FTAA. Eminentdomainisnotyet Eminentdomainisnotyetcalledforatthisstage calledforatthisstagesincetherearest sincetherearest sincetherearestillvariousavenuesbywhichsurfacer illvariousavenuesbywhichsurfacerights ights CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

canbeacquiredotherthanexpropriation.TheFTAAprovisionunderattackmerelyfacilitatestheimplementationof canbeacquiredotherthanexpropriation.TheFTAAprovisionunderattack merelyfacilitatestheimplementationof theFTAAgiventoCAMCandshieldsitfromviolatingtheAnti-DummyLaw. ThereisalsonobasisfortheclaimthattheMiningLawanditsimplementingrulesandregulationsdonotpro ThereisalsonobasisfortheclaimthattheMiningLawanditsimplementingrules andregulationsdonotprovide vide forjustcompensationinexp forjustcompensationinexpropriatingprivateprop forjustcompensationine xpropriatingprivateproperties. ropriatingprivateproper erties. Section76ofRep.ActNo.7942andSection107ofDAO Section76ofRep.ActNo.7942andSection107ofDAO 96-40providefort 96-40provideforthepaymentofju 96-40provideforthepay hepaymentofjustcompen mentofjustcompensation. stcompensation. sation. II. II II.W .WHE WHET WH HETH ETHE THER HER ER R OR NOT NOT THE THE MINI MINING NG ACT ACT AND AND ITS ITS IMPL IMPLEM EMEN ENTI TING NG RULE RULES S AND AND REGU REGULA LATI TION ONS S ARE ARE VOID VOID AND AND UNCONSTITUTIONALFORSANCTIONINGANUNCONSTITUTIONALADMINISTRATIVEPROCESSOFDETERMINING JUSTCOMPENSATION. NO. Thereisnothingintheprovisionsoftheassailedlawanditsimplementingrulesandregulationsthatexcludethe courts courts from their jurisdicti jurisdiction on to determine determine just compensa compensation tion in expropria expropriation tion proceedin proceedings gs involving involving mining mining operations. AlthoughSection105confersuponthePanelofArbitratorstheauthoritytodecidecaseswheresurfaceowners, occupants,concessionairesrefuseper occupants,concessionairesrefusepermitholdersentry,thu mitholdersentry,thus,necessitatinginvolun s,necessitatinginvoluntarytaking,thisdoesno tarytaking,thisdoesnotmean tmean thatthedeterminationofthejustcompensationbythePanelofArbitratorsortheMin thatthedeterminationofthejustcompensationby thePanelofArbitratorsortheMinesAdjudicationBoardisfinal esAdjudicationBoardisfinal andconclusiv andconc andconclusive. lusive. e. Thedeterminationisonlypreliminaryunlessacceptedbyallpartiesconcerned.Thereisnothing Thedetermin Thedetermination ationis is onlyprelimin onlypreliminaryunle aryunlessacceptedbyallpartiesconcerned.Thereisnothing wrongwiththegrantofprimary wrongwiththegrantofprimaryjurisdi jurisdictionby ctionbythePa thePanelofArbitratorsortheMinesAdjudicationBoardtodetermine thePanelof nelofArbitrato Arbitratorsor rsortheMines theMinesAdjudicat AdjudicationBoard ionBoardtodetermine todetermine inapreliminarymatterthereasonablecompensationduetheaffectedlandownersoroccupants.Theoriginaland exclu exclusiv sive e jurisd jurisdict iction ion of the courts courts to decide decide determ determina inatio tion n of just just compen compensat sation ion remain remains s intact intact despit despite e the preliminarydeterminationmadebytheadministrativeagency. III.WHETHERORNOTTHESTATE,THROUGHREPUBLICACTNO.7942ANDTHECAMCFTAA,ABDICATEDITSPRIMARY RESPONSIBILITYTOTHEFULLCONTROLANDSUPERVISIONOVERNATURALRESOURCES. RA7942providesforthestate'scontrolandsupervisionoverminingoperations. RA7942providesforthestate'scontrolandsupervisionoverminingope rations. Thefollowingprovisionsthereof establ establish ish the mechan mechanism ism of inspec inspectio tion n and visito visitoria rial l rights rights over over mining mining opera operatio tions ns and instit institute ute report reportori orial al requirements. ThesetupunderRA7942andDAO96-40hardlyrelegatestheStatetothe ThesetupunderRA7942andDAO9640hardlyrelegatestheStatetotheroleofa“passiveregulator”dependent 40hardlyrelegatestheStatetothe roleofa“passiveregulator”dependent onsubmittedplansandrepo onsubmittedplansandreports. onsubmittedplansandreports. rts. Onthecontrary,thegovern Onthecontrary,thegovernmentagenciesco mentagenciesconcernedare ncernedareempowe empoweredtoappro empoweredtoapprove ve ordisapprove--hence,toinfluence,directandchange-- ordisapprove--hence,to influence,directandchange--thevariousworkprogramsandthecorrespondingminimum thevariousworkprogramsandthecorrespondingminimum expen expendit diture ure commit commitmen ments ts for each each of the explor explorati ation, on, develo developme pment nt and utiliz utilizati ation on phase phases s of the mining mining enterprise. IV. WHETHERORNOTTHERESPONDE WHETHERORNOTTHERESPONDENTS NTS'INTERPRE NTS'INTERPRETATI 'INTERPRETATIONOFTHE ONOFTHE ROLEOF ROLEOF WHOLLYFOREI WHOLLYFOREIGNANDFORE LLYFOREIGNA GNANDFOREIGNGNANDFOREIGNIGNOWNEDCORPORATIONSINTHEIRINVOLVEMENTINMININGENTERPRISES,VIOLATESPARAGRAPH4,SECTION2, ARTICLEXIIOFTHECONSTITUTION. theuseoftheword“involving”signifiesthepossibili theuseoftheword“involving”signifie sthepossibilityoftheinclusionofother tyoftheinclusionofotherformsofassistanceoractiviti formsofassistanceoractivities es havingtodowith, havingtodowith,otherwise havingtodowith,otherwiserelatedtoorcompatiblewith otherwiserelatedto relatedtoorcompatib orcompatiblewithfinancialortechn lewithfinancialortechnicalassistance. financialortechnicalassistance. icalassistance. Thus,wecometotheinevitableconclusionthattherewasaconsciousanddeliberatedecisio Thus,wecometotheinevitableconclusionthatthere wasaconsciousanddeliberatedecisiontoavoidtheuseof ntoavoidtheuseof restrictivewordingthatbespeaks restrictivewordingthatbespeaksanintent restrictivewordingthatbespeaksanintentnottousetheexpression“agreementsxx anintentnotto nottousethe usetheexpression“agreemen expression“agreementsxxxinvolvingeither tsxxxinvolvingeithertechnicalor xinvolvingeithertechnicalor technicalor financialassistance”inanexclusionaryandlimitingmanner. tingmanner.


V.WHETHERORNOTTHE V.WHETHERORNOTTHE1987CONSTITUTION 1987CONSTITUTIONPROHIBITSS 1987CONSTITUTIONPROHIBITSSERVICECONTRACTS PROHIBITSS PROHIBITSSERVICECONTRACTS ERVICECONTRACTS NO.Themerefactthatthetermservicecontractsfoundinthe1973Constitutionwasnotcarriedovertothepresent NO.Themerefactthatthetermservicecontractsfoundinthe1973 Constitutionwasnotcarriedovertothepresent constitut constitution, ion, sans anycategoricalstateme anycategoricalstatementbanning ntbanning servicecontract servicecontracts s inminingactivities, inminingactivities, does notmeanthat servicecontractsasu servicecontractsasunderstood servicecontractsasunderstoodinthe1973 nderstoodinthe inthe1973 1973 Constitutionwaseradicated Constitutionwaseradicatedinthe inthe1987C inthe1987Constitution. 1987C 1987Constitution. onstitution. The1987Constitutionallowsthecontinueduseofservicecontractswithforeigncorporationsascontractorswho wouldinvestinandoperateandmanageextractiveenterprises,subjecttothefullcontrolandsupervisionofthe State;thistime,however,safetymeasureswereputinplacetopreventabusesofthepa State;thistime,however,safetymeasureswereputin placetopreventabusesofthepastregime. stregime. thephraseagreementsinvolvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistance,referredtoinparagraph4,areinfactservice thephraseagreementsinvolvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistance,referredtoinparagraph4,areinfact service contracts. contract s. Butunlikethoseofthe1973variety,thenewonesare Butunlikethoseofthe1973variety,thenewonesarebetweenforeigncorporat Butunlikethoseofthe1973variety,thenewonesarebetweenforeigncorporationsactingascontractors betweenforeigncorporationsacti ionsacti ngascontractors ontheonehand;andontheother,th egovernmentasprincipalor“owner”oftheworks. Inthenewservice contracts,theforeig contracts,theforeigncontractor contracts,theforeigncontractorsprovidecapital,technologyand ncontractorsprovide sprovidecapital,techn capital,technologyandtechnicalknow-ho ologyandtechnicalknow-how,and technicalknow-how,and technicalknow-how,andmanagerialexpertisein w,andmanagerial managerialexpertisein managerial expertisein thecreationandoperationoflarge-scalemining/e thecreationandoperationoflarge-scalemining/extractiveenterprise xtractiveenterprises;andthegovernmen s;andthegovernment,throughitsagencies t,throughitsagencies (DENR,MGB),activelyexercisescontr (DENR,MGB),activelyexercisescontroland (DENR,MGB),actively exercisescontrolandsupervisionovertheentireoperation. olandsupervision supervisionoverthe overtheentireo entireoperation. peration. OBITERDICTA:justiciablecontroversy:definiteandconcretedisputetouchingonthelegalrelationsofpartieshaving adverselegalinterestswhichmayberesolvedbyacourtoflawthroughtheapplicationofalaw.Toexercisethe powerofjudicialre powerofjudicialreview,the powerofjudicialreview,thefollowingmustbeextant view,thefollowingmu followingmustbe stbeextant extant:: (1)theremustbeanactualcasecallingfortheexer (1)theremustbeanactualcasecallingfortheexerciseofjudici ciseofjudicialpower; alpower;- - involvesaconflict involvesaconflictof of legalrights,an legalrights,an assertionofoppositele assertionofoppositelegalclaims,suscep galclaims,susceptibleofju tibleofjudicialresolution dicialresolutionasdistinguishe asdistinguishedfromah dfromahypotheticalor dfromahypotheticalorabstract ypotheticalor ypotheticalorabstract abstract differenceordispute. Intheinstantcase, Intheinstantcase,thereexis thereexistsalivecontrov tsalivecontroversy ersyinvolving involvinga a clashoflegalrights clashoflegalrightsasRep.ActNo.7942hasbeen asRep.ActNo.7942hasbeen enacted,DAO96-40hasbeenappro enacted,DAO 96-40hasbeenapprovedandanFTAAshav enacted,DAO96-40hasbeenapprovedandanFTAAshavebeenenteredinto. vedandanFTAAshavebeenenteredinto. ebeenenteredinto. TheFTAAholdershavealready TheFTAAholders TheFTAAholdershavealreadybeen havealreadybeen been operatinginvariousprovincesofthecountry. (2)thequestionmustberipeforadjudication;and-Aquestionisconsideredripeforadjudicationwhentheact beingchallengedhashadadirectadverseeffectontheindividualchallengingit.(3)thepersonchallengingmust havethe“standing" -personalorsubstantialinterestinthecasesuchthatthepartyhassustainedorwillsustain directinjuryasaresultofthegovernmentalactthatisbeingchallenged,allegingmorethanageneralizedgrievance. directinjuryasaresultofthegovernmentalactthatisbeingchallenged,allegingmorethana generalizedgrievance. Bythemereenactme Bythemereenactmentoftheques ntofthequestion tionedlawortheappro edlawortheapprovalofthechalle valofthechallenged ngedact,thedispu act,thedisputeissaidtohave teissaidtohave ripenedinto ripenedinto a judicial judicial controve controversy oversy even without without any other other over overt t act. act. Indeed, Inde Indeed Indeed, ed, , even even even a singular sing singul singularviolat ular arviolation violation violation ion of ofthe the Constitutionand/orth Constitutionand/orthelawis Constitutionand/orthelawisenoughtoa elawisenough enoughtoawakenjudicialduty. toawakenjudicialduty. wakenjudicialduty. “Taking”undertheconceptofeminentdomainasenteringuponprivatep ropertyformorethanamomentary period,and,underthewarrantorcoloroflegalauthority,devotingittoapublicuse,orotherwiseinformally appropriatingorinjuriouslyaffectingitinsuchawayastosubstantiallyousttheowneranddeprivehimofall beneficialenjoymentthereof.

Therequisitesof Therequisitesoftakingin Therequisitesoftakingineminentdomain,to takingineminentd eminentdomain,towit: omain,towit: wit: ((1) 1) theexpropriator the expropriatormust mustenter entera aprivate privateproperty; property; ((2) 2)

theentry the entrymust mustbe befor formore morethan thana amomentary momentaryperiod. period.

((3) 3)

theentry the entrymust mustbe beunder underwarrant warrantor orcolor colorof oflegal legalauthority; authority;

((4) 4)

theproperty the propertymust mustbe bedevoted devotedto topublic publicuse useor orotherwise otherwiseinformally informallyappropriated appropriatedor orinjuriously injuriouslyaffected; affected;

((5) 5) theutilization the utilizationof ofthe theproperty propertyfor forpublic publicuse usemust mustbe bein insuch sucha away wayas asto tooust oustthe theowner ownerand anddeprive deprivehim him ofbeneficialenjoymentoftheproperty. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

TakinginEminentDomainDistinguishedfromRegulationinPolicePower Thepowerofeminentdomainistheinherentrightofthestate(andof Thepowerofeminentdomainistheinherentrightof thestate(andofthoseentitiestowhich thoseentitiestowhichthepowerhasbeen thepowerhasbeen lawfullydelegated)tocondemnprivatepropertytopublicuseuponpaymentofjustcompensation.Ontheother hand,policepoweristhepowerofthestatetopromot hand,policepoweristhepowerofthestatetopromotepublicwelfarebyrestra epublicwelfarebyrestrainingandregulat iningandregulatingtheuseof ingtheuseof libertyandproperty. Althoughbothpolicepower Althoughbothpolicepowerandthepow andthepowerof erofeminentdomain eminentdomainhave havethegeneralwelfarefortheir thegeneralwelfare thegeneralwelfarefortheir thegeneralwelfarefortheirobject,and fortheirobject,and object,andrecent object,andrecent recent recent trendsshowaminglingofthetwowiththelatterbeingused trendsshowaminglingof thetwowiththelatterbeingusedasanimplementofthefor asanimplementof asanimplement ofthefor thefor mer,therearestilltraditional mer,therearestilltraditional mer,therearestilltradi tional distinctionsbetweenthetwo. Prop Proper erty ty cond condem emned ned under under poli police ce powe power r is usual usually ly noxi noxiou ous s or inten intended ded for for a noxi noxiou ous s purpo purpose se; ; hence hence, , no compensatio compensation compensationshallbepaid. n shallbe paid. Likewise,intheexerciseofpolicepower,propertyrightsofpriv Likewise,in Likewise,in theexerciseof policepower,propertyrightsofprivateindividualsare ateindividualsare subjectedtorestraintsandburdensinordertosecurethegeneralcomfort,health,andprosperityofthestate. subjectedtorestraintsandburdensinordertosecur ethegeneralcomfor ethegeneralcomfort,health, t,health,andprosperity andprosperityofthe ofthestate. state. Thus, anordinanceprohibitingtheatersfromsellingticketsinexcessoftheirseatingcapacity(whichwouldresultinthe diminutionofprofitsofthetheater-owners) diminutionofprofitsofthetheater-owners)wasupheldvalidas diminutionofprofitsofthetheater-owners)wasupheldvalidas wasupheldvalidas thiswouldpromotethecomfort,convenienceand thiswouldpromotethecomfort,convenienceand safetyofthecustomers. whereapropertyinterestismerelyrestrictedbecausethecontinuedusethereofwouldbeinjurioustopublic welfare,orwhereproperty welfare,orwherepropertyisdestroyedbecauseitsco wherepropertyisdestroyed isdestroyed isdestroyedbecauseitscontinuedexistencewould becauseitscontinuedexistencewo becauseitscontinuedexistencewouldbeinjurious ntinuedexistencewouldbeinjurious uldbeinjurioustopubli beinjuriousto topubli topublicinterest,there cinterest,there cinterest,there isnocompensabletaking.However,whenapropertyinterestisappropriatedandappliedtosomepublicpurpose, thereiscompensabletaking.

Ondifferentrolesandresponsibilities: DENRSecretary:accept,considerandevaluateproposalsfromforeign-ownedcorporationsorforeigninvestorsfor contractsofagreementsinvolvingeithertechnicalorfinancialassistanceforlarge-scaleexploration,development, andutilizationofminerals,which,uponappropriaterecommendationoftheSecretary,thePresidentmayexecute withtheforeignproponent.(Executive withtheforeignproponent.(ExecutiveOrderNo.279, OrderNo.279,198 198 7) 1987) Inre:easementsandtaking InAyala deRoxasv. deRoxasv. Cityof Cityof Manila Manila,it ,it was held thatthe thatthe imposi impositio tionof nof burdenover burdenover aprivateprope aprivateproperty rty throug through h easementwasconsideredtaking;hence,paymentofjustcompensationisrequired. easementwasconsideredtaking;hence,paymentofjustcompensationisrequir ed. TheCourtdeclared: TheCourt TheCourtdeclar declared: ed: And,consideringthattheeasementintendedtobeestablished,whatevermaybetheobjectthereof,isno And,consideringthattheeasementintendedto And,consideringthattheeasementintendedtobeestablished,whatevermay beestablished,whatevermaybetheobjectthereof,isno betheobjectthereof,isno betheobjectthereof,is no tmerely arealrightthatwillencumbertheproperty,butisonetendingtopreventtheexclusiveuseofoneportionofthe same,byexpropriatingitforpublicusewhich,beitwhatitmay,cannotbeaccomplishedunlesstheownerofthe propertycondemnedorseized propertycondemned orseizedbepreviouslyand orseizedbepreviouslyanddulyindemnified,it bepreviouslyand bepreviouslyanddulyindemnified,itisproper dulyindemnified,itisproper dulyindemnified,itispropertoprotecttheappellantby ispropertoprotect toprotecttheappellantbymeansof toprotecttheappellantbymeansof meansof theremedyemployedinsuchcases,asitisonlyadequateremedywhennootherlegalactioncanberesortedto, againstanintentwhichisnothingshortofanarbitrary againstanintentwhichis nothingshortofanarbitraryrestrictionimposedbythecitybyvirtueof restrictionimposedbythecitybyvirtueofthecoercivepower thecoercivepower withwhichthesameisinvested. Inorderthatonelawmay Inorderthatonelawmayoperatetorepeal operatetorepealanotherlaw, anotherlaw,thetwolaws thetwolawsmustbeinconsistent. mustbeinconsistent.Theformer Theformermustbeso mustbeso repugnantastobeirreconcilablewiththe repugnantastobeirreconcilablewiththelatteract. latteract.

ATOKBIG-WEDGEMININGv.IAC (G.R.No.63528,September1996) Mererecordingofaminingclaim,withoutperformingannualworkobligation,doesnotconvertthelandintomine Mererecordingofaminingclaim, withoutperformingannualworkobligation,doesnotconvertthelandintomine withoutperformi ngannualworkobligation,doesnotconvertthelandintomine ral land.Therecordingonlyoperatesasreservationtotheregistrantexclusiverightstoundertakeminingactivities. Thus,ifnomineralsareextractedtherefrom,thelandisnotminerallandandregistrationisnotprecludedbysuch recordedclaim.



–

PD1214 issuedonOctob issuedonOctober14,1977;it issued issuedonOctober14,1977;it onOctober14,1977; er14,1977;itrequiredalllocato itrequiredalllocatorsunder requiredalllocators requiredalllocatorsunderth rsunderthePh underthePhilippineB thePhilippineBillof ePhilippineBillof1902tosecure ilippineBillof illof1902tosecuremininglease 1902tosecuremininglease mininglease contractsundertheprovisionsofPD463 – –

Facts: SubjectLand-41,296squaremeterssituatedinthebarrioo SubjectLand-41,296squarem eterssituatedinthebarrioofLucnab,Itogon,Benguet. fLucnab,Itogon,Benguet. Parties: A.ATOKBIG-WEDGEMININGCOMPANY(claimingthatthesaidparceloflandisamineralland.) A.ATOKBIG-WEDGEMININGCOMPANY(clai mingthatthesaidparceloflandisamineralland.) B.TUKTUKANSAINGAN(claimingthatthesaidparceloflandisagricultural.) Contentions: Atok-contendedthatthesaidparcelo Atok-contendedthat thesaidparceloflandwas flandwasbeingregisteredinthe beingregisteredintheofficeof beingregisteredintheofficeofMiningRecorderin1921and officeof officeofMiningRecorderin1921and1931 MiningRecorderin1921and1931 1931 pursuanttoPhilippineBillof1902.ItisaboutsixteenyearsbeforeTUKTUKANdeclaredthelandinquestionfor taxationpurpos taxationpurposesandthirtyfour(34) esandthirtyfour(34)yearsbeforeprivat yearsbeforeprivateresponden erespondentfiledthelandregistrat tfiledthelandregistrationprocee ionproceedingsin dingsin 1965.Theyalsoshowedthepaymentofannualassessment 1965.Theyalsoshowedthepaymentofannualassessmentfeesforthesaidland feesforthesaidlandsince1931. since1931. Tuktukan-whowas70yearsoldatthetimetestifiedshowsthatheacquiredthelandfromhisfather-in-law,Dongail, Tuktukan-whowas70yearsold atthetimetestifiedshowsthatheacquiredthelandfromhisfather-in-law,Dongail, whenhemarriedhisdaughter;thathe whenhemarriedhisdaughter;thathewasthen18 wasthen18yearsold;that yearsold;thatat atthetimeofhisacqui atthetimeof thetimeof thetimeofhisacqui hisacqui hisacquisition,itwasplantedwith sition,itwasplantedwith camotes,casava,langka,gabi,coffeeandavocados;thathelivedonthelandsincehismarriageuptothepresent; thathehasbeenpayingthetaxesduringtheJapaneseoccupationandevenbeforeit;thathewasneverdisturbed inhispossession.Supportinghisoraltestimony,applicant[Tuktukan]submittedtaxdeclarationsxxxbothdated March20,1948,theformerforarurallandandthelatterforurbanlandandimprovementtherein. March20,1948,theformerfora rurallandandthelatterforurbanlandandimprovementtherein. Issue:Whoispreferred,theminingclaimantwhomerelyrecordedorlocated Issue:Whoispreferred,them iningclaimantwhomerely iningclaimantwhomerelyrecordedor recordedorlocatedaminingclaim locatedaminingclaimwithoutperfo aminingclaimwithoutperformingthe withoutperformingthe rmingthe annualworkobligationrequiredbythePhilippineBillof1902ortheapplicantforregistrationwhohaspossessed thelandunderabonafideclaimofownershipfor thelandunderabonafideclaim ofownershipforatleast30years? atleast30years? Held:Theapplicantwhohaspossessedtherighthasabetterright.Therecordingofminingclaimscouldnothave beenintendedtobetheoperat beenintendedtobetheoperativeacto iveactof iveactofclassifyinglandsintomineral f fclassifyinglandsintominerallands. classifyinglandsintominerallands.Therecording classifyinglandsintominerallands.Therecordingonlyoperates lands.Therecordingonlyoperates Therecordingo onlyoperatestoreserve nlyoperatestoreserve toreserve totheregistrantexclusiverightstoundertakeminingactivitiesuponthesubjectland.Thepowertoclassifylands intominerallandscouldnothavebeenintendedunderthePhilippineBillof1902tobevestedinjustanyonewho recordsaminingclaim.Thisstrengthensourholdingthat recordsaminingclaim.Thisstrengthensourholdingthattherightsof recordsaminingclaim.This strengthensourholdingthattherights strengthensourholding thattherightsofamining therightsofa ofamining aminingclaimantareconfinedtopossessing claimantareconfinedtopos claimantareconfinedtopossessing sessing thelandforpurposesofext thelandforpurposesofextractionofm ractionofminerals.Thus,if ractionofminerals.Thus,ifnomineralsareextract inerals.Thus,if inerals.Thus,ifnomineralsareextracted,notwithstandingther nomineralsareextracted,notwithstandingthe nomineralsareextracted,notwithstandingtherecordingof ed,notwithstandingtherecordingof recordingof ecordingof theclaim,thelandisnotminerallandandregistrationthereofis theclaim,theland isnotminerallandandregistrationthereofisnotprecludedbysuchrecordedclaim.Thus,in notprecludedbysuch notprecludedbysuchrecordedclaim. recordedclaim.Thus,incase Thus,incase case atbench,theminingclaimant,who atbench,theminingclaimant,whohadfailedto hadfailedtocomplywiththe complywiththeannualminimumwork annualminimumworkrequirement,couldnot, requirement,couldnot,all all themore,beexpectedtohave themore,beexpectedtohaveextractedmineralsfromthemininglocation. expectedtohaveextractedmineralsf extractedmineralsf extractedmineralsfromthemininglocation. romthemininglocation. TECHNOLOGYDEVELOPERS,INC.,vs.CA G.R.No.94759,January21,1991

Fact Fa Facts: cts: s: Petitioner Petiti Peti Petiti tion oner oner er Techno Tec Technology hnolog logy y Develo Developer pers s Inc. In Inc. Inc c.. iis s a a  corpor corporati ation on who whomanufactures manufacturescharcoal charcoalbriquette. briquette.They They receivedaletterfromPablo receivedaletterfromPabloCruz,theactingm Cruz,theactingmayorof ayorofSta.Maria, ayorofSta.Maria,Bulacanorderingthemto Sta.Maria, Sta.Maria,Bulacanorderingthemtoceaseoperationsand Bulacanorderingthemtoceaseoperationsandto ceaseoperationsandto to bringtohisofficeaB bringtohisofficeaBuildingPermit,anAntiuildingPermit,anAnti- PollutionPermitandotherdocuments. PollutionPermitandotherdocuments.LackingaM LackingaMayor’sPermit, ayor’sPermit,when when inspected,the inspected, theacting actingmayor mayo mayor r had had the th the e plant plan plant t padlocked,stopping padloc padlocked, ked, stoppingtheir their their operat operation ions. s. They They Th The ey y formandamus for formandamusand and prelim prelimina inary ry injunc injunctio tion n against against the respon respondent dent mayorwhich mayorwhich was grante granted d by the lower lower court. court. In a motion motion for reco recons nsid ider erat atio ion n by the the resp respon onde dent nt mayo mayor, r, evid eviden ence ce was was pres presen ente ted d show showin ing g that that the the by-p by-pro rodu duct cts s from from manufacturingprocessdonein theplantarehazardoustopeople’shealth.Thelowercourtthensetasideitsprior orderanddissolvedthewritof orderanddissolvedthewritofinjunction.Thepetitioner injunction.Thepetitionerwasdeniedby injunction.ThepetitionerwasdeniedbytheCAuponappeal. wasdeniedby wasdeniedbytheCAuponappeal. theCAuponappeal. Issue:

Whetherornottheacting Whetherornottheactingmayorcanclosedown mayorcanclosedownthepetitioner’s thepetitioner’spla pla nt plant

Held:Yes.TheCourtruledthatthemayorofatownhasaresponsibilitytoprotecthistown’sinhabitantsfrom pollution,eventhoughthe pollution,eventhoughtheEnvironmentalManagement EnvironmentalManagementBureauof Bureauofthe theDENRistheagencythatdetermineswhether theDENRis DENRistheagency theagencythatdetermineswhether CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

the pollut pollution ion require requires ires contro control l or prohibi prohibitio tion n of a busines business s operat operatiio on. n. Amayo Amay A mayo mayor ormay r may may deny de deny den ny y the th theappl eapplic e application applic icat ation atio ion n of of a permit perm permit it tooperateabusiness toopera tooperate teabusinessbyvirtueo byvirtueofhispolice fhispolicepowerunles powerunlessthebus sthebusinesstakesme inesstakesmeasuresto asurestocontrolpollution controlpollution resultingfromhisbusinessoperations.Inthiscase,theactingmayorcalledonthepetitionertoproducepermits afterreceivingcomplaintsfromhistown’sresidentsabouttheemissionsfromtheplantandclosedtheplantafter hefoundoutthattheplanthadnoproperair hefoundoutthattheplanthadnoproperairpollutiondeviceinstalled. hefoundoutthattheplant hadnoproperairpollutiondeviceinstalled. pollutiondeviceinstalled. MMDAvs.JancomEnvironmentalCorporation G.R.No.147165;January30,2002

Facts: Afterbiddingforawaste Afterbiddingforawastemanagementprojectwiththe forawastemanagementproject managementprojectwiththeMMDA,Jancom managementprojectwiththeMMDA,Jancom withtheMMDA,Jancomwonacon wonacontractfortheMMDA’s wonacontract tractfortheMMDA’sSanMateo tractfortheMMDA’sSanMateo SanMateo wastemanagementproject.ABOTcontractforthewastetoenergyprojectwassignedonDec19,1997,between JancomandthePhilippineGovernment,representedbythePresidentialTaskForceonSolidWasteManagement throughDENRSecretaryVictorRamos,CORD-NCRchairDionisiodelaSerna,andMMDAchairProsperoOreta.The contract,however,wasneversignedbyPresidentRamosasitwastooclosetotheendofhisterm.Heendorsedit toPresidentEstrada,butEstradarefusedto toPresidentEstrada,butEstradarefusedtosignit,fortwo signit,fortworeasons:thepassageof reasons:thepassageofRA87 RA87 49,ortheCleanAirActof 49,ortheCleanAirActof 1999andtheclamourofSanMateoresidentsfortheclosureofthedumpsite.WhentheMMDApublishedanother 1999andtheclamourofSan Mateoresidentsfortheclosureofthedumpsite.WhentheMMDApublishedanother callforproposalsfor callforproposalsforsolidwastemanagement solidwastemanagementprojectsfor projectsforMetroManila, projectsforMetroManila,Jancomfiledapetitionwith MetroManila, MetroManila,JancomfiledapetitionwiththePasigRTC JancomfiledapetitionwiththePasigRTC thePasigRTC askingthe askingthe courtto courtto declareas declareas voidtheresolutionofthe voidtheresolutionofthe GreaterMetropo GreaterMetropolitanManilaSolid litanManilaSolidWasteManagement WasteManagement CommitteedisregardingtheBOTcontract Committeedisregardingthe BOTcontractwithJancom, withJancom,andthecallf andthecallforbidsfor orbidsforaneww anewwastemanagementcontract. astemanagementcontract. Petitionerarguedthattheincinerationtechnologypro Petitionerarguedthat theincinerationtechnologyprovidedinthecontract videdinthecontractisprohibitedby videdinthecontractisprohibitedbylaw,citingtheCleanAir isprohibitedby isprohibitedbylaw,citingtheCleanAir law,citingtheCleanAir Actinsupportthereof. ISSUE: WhetherornotthecontractcouldbeunilaterallycancelledbytheGovernmentsinceincinerationisprohibitedby theCleanAirAct? Held: Thecourtheldthataspointed Thecourtheldthataspointedoutbytheappellatecourt,Section20, Thecourtheldthataspointedout outbytheappellatecourt,Section20, bytheappellatecourt,Section20,whichprovides: whichprovides: “SECTION20.BanonIncineration .-Incinertion,herebydefinedastheburningofmunicipal,biochemica chemical l andhazardou andhazardous s wastes wastes, , which which proces process s emitspoiso emitspoisonou nous s andtoxic fumes, fumes, is hereby hereby prohibited:xxx." doesnotabsolutelyprohibitincinerationasamodeofwastedisposal;rather,onlythoseburningprocesseswhich emitpoisonousandtoxicfumesarebanned. Therulethatastatuteshouldbegiveneffectasawholerequiresthatthestatutebesoconstruedastomakeno partorprovisionthereofasurplusage.Eachandeverypartofthestatuteshouldbegivenitsdueeffectandmeaning inrelationtotherest.Itiswellsettledthat, inrelationtotherest.Itiswellsettledthat,wheneverpossible,al inrelationtotherest.Itiswellsettledthat,wheneverpossible,a wheneverpossible,allegalprovisionmustnotbesoconstruedastobe egalprovisionmustnotbesoconstruedast egalprovisionmustnot besoconstruedastobe obe auselesssurplusage auselesssurplusageand,accordi and,accordingly,meani ngly,meaningless nglessinthesenseofaddingnothin inthesenseofaddingnothingtothelaworhavingnoeffec gtothelaworhavingnoeffectt whatsoevertherein.ToconsiderSection20 whatsoevertherein.To considerSection20oftheClean oftheCleanAirActas AirActasprohibitingallforms prohibitingallformsof of incinerationwouldrender thephrase"whichprocessemitspoisonousandtoxicfumes"auselesssurplusage,whichcouldnothavebeenthe intentionoflegislature,seeingthatourlearnedlegislatorseventookpainstodefine,inSection5,ArticleIIofthe CleanAirActwhatpoisonousandtoxicfumesare, viz: Section5.Definitions.-AsusedinthisAct: Section5.Definitions.-Asusedin thisAct: t) "Pois Poison ono ous and and toxi toxic c fum fumes" es" means eans any any emis emissi sio ons and and fumes umes whic which h are are beyo beyond nd internationa internationally-ac lly-accepted cepted standards, standards, including including but not limited limited to World Health Organizatio Organization n guidelinevalues;


Itmaynot,thus,bearguedthattheCleanAirActprohibitsallformsofincinerationastomakethecontractin questionviolativeoftheCleanAirAct.Thisisnottosay,ofcourse,thatthecontractinvolveddoesnotinfactrun afoulwiththeCleanAirAct afoulwiththeCleanAirAct.Thatissue .Thatissuemaystillber maystillberaisedbythe aisedbytheproperp properpartyinapro artyinaproperaction. peraction. Calanzav.PaperIndustryCorp. Grno.146622 April24,2009;CHICO-NAZARIO,J:

Facts: OnAug231991,petitionersLeonoraCalanzaandotherpetitionersfiledwithDENRDAVAOCITY,applicationsfor smallscaleminingpermitsforthepurposeoferxtrctinggold smallscaleminingpermitsforthepurp oseoferxtrctinggold.Intheirapplications,petitione .Intheirapplications,petitionersstatedthatthearea rsstatedthatthearea wheretheywillconduct wheretheywillconductminingoperat miningoperationswasint ionswasintheMunicipality heMunicipalityofBoston, ofBoston,DavaoOriental. DavaoOriental. OnDec1992,thegovernorofDavaoOriental,RosalindLopezapprovedtheapplicationsandissued OnDec1992,thegovernorofDavaoOriental,RosalindLopezapprove dtheapplicationsandissuedsixsmallscalesixsmallscalemining mining permits permits in favor of thepetitioners. thepetitioners. Since the mining mining areas applied applied for by petitione petitioners rs were within within the respondentloggingconcessionareaunderTimberLicenseAgreementthatcoveredlargetractsofforestlandsof respondentloggingconcessionareaunderTimberLicenseAgreementthatcoveredlargetracts offorestlandsofthe the ProvinceofDavaoOriental. Respondent,throughitsofficer Respondent,throughitsofficerRobertoDormendo,refusedpetitioners’ Respondent,throughitsofficerRoberto RobertoDormendo,refusedpetitioners’ Dormendo,refusedpetitioners’entryintotheminingareaonth entryintotheminingareaonthegrounds egrounds thatithastheexclusiverightofoccupation,possesion,andcontrolovertheareabeingaloggingconcessionaire ingpermitsaredefectivesincetheywereissuedbythegovernorofDavao wereissuedby wereissuedbythegove thegovernorof rnorofDavaoOriental. DavaoOriental. Oriental. thereof.Thatpetitioners’miningpermitsaredefectivesincethey ofpetitioners’permitswerevoidabinitiosincethe initiosincethesamSec.5 initiosincethesamSec.5ofRAno. samSec.5ofRAno. samSec.5ofRAno. Respondentalsoclaimedthattheissuance ofpetitioners’permitswerevoidab 7076,People’sSmallScaleMiningAct,wh sSmallScaleMiningAct,whichprohibitstheiss ichprohibitstheissuanceofmining uanceofminingpermitsoverareasco permitsoverareascoveredbyfores veredbyforestt rightssuchasTLAsofforestreservationsunlesstheirstatusassuchis rightssuchasTLAsoff orestreservationsun orestreservationsunlesstheir lesstheirstatusas statusassuchiswithdrawnby suchiswithdrawnbycompetent withdrawnbycompetentauthority. competentauthority. authority.

Issue: Whetherornotthesmallscaleminingpermitsofthepetitionersarevalid Whetherornotthesmallscale miningpermitsofthepetitionersarevalid Ruling: No,thegovernorhasnoauthoritytoissueminingpermitspursuanttotheprevailingstatuteofRAno.7076.The approv approval al of applica applicatio tion n for mining mining permit permits s and for mining mining contra contracts cts are vested vested in the Provin Provincia cial/C l/City ity Mining Mining Regul Regulato atory ry Board. Board. It is compo composed sed of DENR DENR Repres Represen entat tative ive, , a repres represent entati ative ve for small small scale scale mining mining sector sector, , a representativefromthebigscaleminingindustryandarepresentativefromanenvironmentalgroup,thisbodyis taskedtoapprovesmallscaleminingpermitsandcontracts.Consideringthatthegovernoriswithoutlegalauthority toissuesaidminingpermits,thesamepermitsarenullandvoid. toissuesaidminingpermits,thesamepermitsare nullandvoid. SoutheastMindanaoGoldMiningCorp.vs.BalitePortalMiningCooperative,etal. GRNo.135190 09April2002 09April2002 –

FACTS: ThiscaseinvolvesarichtractofminerallandsituatedinAgusan-Davao-SurigaoForestRiverorknownas Diwalwal .Diwalwalhasbeenembroiledincontro broiledincontroversywithhund versywithhundredsofpeop redsofpeopleperishinginmin leperishinginmineaccidents, eaccidents, GoldRushArea .Diwalwalhasbeenem man-made man-made or otherwise otherwise, , broughtabout broughtabout by unregula unregulatedmining tedmining activities. activities. On March 10, 1988, Marcopper Marcopper was grantedanExplorationPermitNo.133(EPNo.133)over4,491hectaresoflandwhichincludedtheDiwalwalarea. ThisacquisitionofminingrightsbyMarcopperwaschallengedbyApex.However,theCourtfoundoutthatApexdid ThisacquisitionofminingrightsbyMarcopperwas challengedbyApex.However,theCourtfoundoutthatApexdid notcomplywiththeproceduralrequisitesofacquiringminingrightswithinforestreserves. Subseque Subsequently, ntly, Congressenacted Congressenacted RA 7076or thePeoples Small-Scale Small-Scale Mining Mining Act where where DENRissuedan Order Order declaring729hectaresofDiwalwalareaasnon-forestlandopentosmall-scalemining.Lateron,apetitionfor cancellationofEPNo.133wasfiledbefore cancellationofEPNo.133wasfiledbeforeDENRandwh cancellationofEPNo.133 wasfiledbeforeDENRan wasfiledbeforeDENRandwhilethe DENRandwhiletheca dwhiletheca iletheca caseispend seispending,Marcoppe seispending,Marcopperassigned rassigneditsEPNo.133 itsEPNo.133 topetitionerhereinSoutheastMindanaoGoldMiningCorp.


OnMarch3,1995,RA7942orthePhilippineMiningActwasenactedwhichlaterona OnMarch3,1995, RA7942orthePhilippineMiningActwasenactedwhichlaterona llow,throughProvinc llow,throughProvincialMining ialMining RegulatoryBoardofDavao,issuanceoforetransportpertmits(OTPs)tosmall-scaleminersoperatinginDiwalwal mines.Withthis,peti mines.Withthis,petitione tionerfilea rfilea complaintcont complaintcontend endingthattheilleg ingthattheillegalissuanc alissuanceofOTPsallowedextr eofOTPsallowedextravtion avtionand and haulingofP60,000.00worthofgold.On24June1997,Memorandum97-03wasissuedbytheDEBRsecretary providingforad providingforadirectstate irectstateutilization. utilization. ISSUE:WhetherornottheMemorandumissuedbytheSecretaryofDENRdivestedpetitioner’srighttothe ISSUE:WhetherornottheMemorandumissuedbytheSecretaryofDENR divestedpetitioner’srighttothe goldrush areaunderEPNo.133

HELD:No.ThechallengedMemorandum97-03didnotconclusivelyadoptdirectstateutilizationaspolicyinresolving Diwalwaldispute.Theterms Diwalwaldispute.ThetermsoftheMe oftheMemorandumcle morandumclearlyindicatethat arlyindicatethatwhatwas arlyindicatethatwhatwasdirectedthereunde whatwas whatwasdirectedthereunderwasmerely directedthereunderwasmerelya rwasmerelya a ofthisoptionandnothingelse.Itdidnotgrantanymanagement/operatingprofit-sharing didnotgrantanymanagement/operatingprofit-sharingagreementtosmallagreementtosmallstudy ofthisoptionandnothingelse.It scaleminersortoanyp scaleminersortoanyparty scaleminersortoanyparty artybutitsimp butitsimplyinstructedD butitsimplyinstructedDENRofficialsconce ENRofficialsconcernedto rnedtoundertakest undertakestudiestod udiestodetermineits etermineits feasibility. SRMETALSINCVANGELOREYES G.R.No.179669 G.R.No.179669 179669 June04,2014 June04,2014 DelCastillo,J.

Facts:OnMarch9,2006,eachofthe Facts:OnMarch9,2006,eachofthepetition petitionerswasaward erswasawardeda2-yearSmall eda2-yearSmall-Scale -ScaleMiningPerm MiningPermit(SSMP it(SSMP)bythe )bythe ProvincialMiningRegulatoryBoardofAgusandelNorte;theywereallowedtoextractNickelandCobalt(Ni ProvincialMiningRegulatoryBoardofAgusandelNorte;theywereallowedto extractNickelandCobalt(Ni-Co)ina -Co)ina 20-hectareminingsiteinSitioBugnang,Brgy.LaFraternidad,Tubay,AgusandelNorte.TheEMBsentthemining corporationsaNoticeofViolationinformingthemthattheyhadexceededtheallowedannualvolumeof150,000 MTscombinedproductionastheirstockpileinventoryofNickeliferousorehadalreadytotal177,297drymetrictons MTscombinedproductionastheirstockpileinventoryofNickeliferousorehadalreadytotal177,297 drymetrictons (DMT).ThiswasbasedontheAugust10,2006InspectionReport (DMT).Thiswasbasedon theAugust10,2006InspectionReportoftheMGBMonitoringTeamwhichconductedan oftheMGBMonitoringTeamwhichconductedan inspectionaftertheDENRreceivedcomplaintsofviolationsofsmall-scalemininglawsandpoliciesbythemining corporations. Atechnicalconferencewas Atechnicalconferencewasthereafterheldtohearthesideoftheminingcorporationsanentt thereafterheldtohe arthesideoftheminingcorporationsanenttheir heir allegedover-extraction. OnNovember26,2004,DENRSecretaryAng OnNovember26,2004,DENRSecretaryAngeloT.Reyesissue eloT.ReyesissuedaCeaseandDes daCeaseandDesistOrder(CDO)agains istOrder(CDO)againstthemining tthemining corporati corporationssuspe onssuspendin ndingtheiroperatio gtheiroperationsfor nsfor their operation operations.A s.A fewdayslateror onNovember30, onNovember30, 2006,DOJ SecretaryRaulM.Gon SecretaryRaulM.Gonzalezreplied SecretaryRaulM.GonzalezrepliedtoGovernorAmantecitingDOJOpinionNo.74,Seriesof2006. zalezrepliedtoGove toGovernorAmant rnorAmanteciting ecitingDOJOpinion DOJOpinionNo.74,S No.74,Seriesof eriesof2006. 2006. BycomparingPD BycomparingPD 1899toRepublicAct(RA) 1899toRepublicAct(RA)No.7076,asubsequentlawt 1899toRepublicAct(RA)No.707 No.7076,asubsequentlawthatlikewisedef 6,asubsequentlawthat 6,asubsequentlawthatlikewisedefine hatlikewisedefinessmall-scalemin likewisedefinessmall-scaleminin inessmall-scalemining, ssmall-scalemining, ing, g, theDOJopinedthat theDOJop theDOJopinedthat inedthat Section1ofPD1899isdeemedtohavebeenimpliedlyrepealedbyRA7076asnothingfromtheprovisionsofthe latterlawmentionsan latterlawmentionsanythingpe latterlawmentionsanythingpertainingtoanannual ythingpertainingto rtainingtoanannualproduction anannualproductionquotafor productionquotaforsmall-scalemining. quotaforsmall-scalemi small-scalemi ning. Issue:WhetherornotSection1(1)ofPD1899thatsetstheannu Issue:WhetherornotSection1(1)ofPD1899thatsetstheannualproductionlimitof50,000-MTonsmall-scaleis alproductionlimitof50,000-MTonsmall-scaleis alreadyrepealedbyRA7076? Held:No.Under Held:No.UnderSection3(b) Held:No.UnderSection3(b)ofRA7076,small-scaleminingrefersto'miningactivitieswhichrelyheavilyon Section3(b)ofR ofRA7076,small-scale A7076,small-scalemining miningrefersto refersto'miningactivities 'miningactivitieswhichre whichrelyheavilyo lyheavilyon n manual laborusingsimpleimplementsandmethodsanddonotuseexplosivesorheavyminingequipment.’Significantly, thisdefinitiondoesno thisdefinitiondoesnotprovidef tprovideforannuale orannualextractionlimitun xtractionlimitunlikeinPD xtractionlimitunlikeinPD1899.Wedonot,ho likeinPD likeinPD1899.Wedonot,however,subscr 1899.Wedonot,however,subscribetothe wever,subscribetothe ibetothe miningcorporations’avermentthatthe50, mentthatthe50,000-MTsprod mentthatthe50,000-MTsproductionlimitdoesnotapplytosmall 000-MTsproductionlimit uctionlimitdoesno doesnotapplyt tapplytosmall osmall -scaleminersunder -scaleminers -scaleminersunderRA underRA RA RecognizingtheDENR’smandatetoregulatethecountry’snaturalresourcesunderEO192,bothPD1899and EO192,bothPD1899and 7076. RecognizingtheDENR’smandatetoregulatethecountry’snaturalresourcesunder RA7076delegatedtotheDENR,thruitsSecretary,thepowertopromulgatethenecessaryIRRstogiveeffecttothe saidlaws.Significantly,theDENRintheexerciseofsuchpowerhadjustrecentlyresolvedthequestiononthe productio productionlimitinsmall-scal nlimitinsmall-scalemining. emining.On On July5,2007,itissuedDMC2007- 07or“ClarificatoryGuidelinesinthe ImplementationoftheSmall- ScaleMiningLaws”.Byimposingtheannualproductionlimitof50,000DMTtoboth SSMPsissuedunderPD SSMPsissuedunderPD1899andSma 1899andSmall-ScaleMiningCo ll-ScaleMiningContracts(SSMCs) ntracts(SSMCs)underRA underRA7076. 7076.


PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.WILSONB.QUE,accused-appellant. G.R.No.120365.December17,1996 FACTS:TwoweeksbeforeMarch8,1994,SPO1DexterCorpuz,amemberoftheProvincialTaskForceonIllegal Logging,receivedaninformationthataten-wheelertruckbearingplatenumberPAD-548loadedwithillegallycut lumberwillpassthroughIlocosNorte.Actingonsaidinformation,membersoftheProvincialTaskForcewenton patrolseveraltimeswithinthevicinityofGeneralSegundoAvenueinLaoagCity.OnMarch8,1994,SPO1Corpuz, togetherwithSPO1ZaldyAsunc togetherwithSPO1ZaldyAsuncionandSPO1ElmerPato ionandSPO1ElmerPatocwentonpatrolaround cwentonpatrolaroundthearea.Atabout1:00inthe thearea.Atabout1:00inthe morning,theypostedthemselvesatthecornerofGeneralSegundoAvenueandRizalStreet.Therewerethree personsonboardthetruck:driver personsonboardthetruck:driverWilfredoCacao WilfredoCacao,accused,accused-appella appellantWilsonQue,andanunnamedperso ntWilsonQue,andanunnamedperson.The n.The driveridentified driveridentifiedaccused-a accused-appellan ppellantastheownerofthetruc tastheownerofthetruckandthecargo.SPO1 kandthecargo.SPO1Corpuzcheck Corpuzcheckedthecargoand edthecargoand foundthatitcontained foundthatitcontainedcoconutslabs. coconutslabs.Wheninterviewed, Wheninterviewed,accused-appellanttold accused-appellanttoldSPO1 SPO1Corpuzthatthereweresawn Corpuzthattherewere Corpuzthatthereweresawn sawn lumberinsertedinbetweenthecoconutslabs.SPO1Corpu lumberinsertedinbetweenthecoconutslabs.SPO1Corpuzaskedaccused-ap zaskedaccused-appellant pellantforthe forthe cargo'ssupportin cargo'ssupporting g documents,specifically:(1)certificateoflumberorigin,(2)certificateoftransportagreement,(3)auxiliaryinvoice, (4)receiptfromtheDENR,and(5)certi (4)receiptfromtheDENR,and(5)certificati ficationfromthefores onfromtheforestrangerregard trangerregardingtheoriginofthecoconut ingtheoriginofthecoconutslabs. slabs. Accuse Accused-a d-appe ppellan llant t failed failed to presen present t any of these these docume documents nts. . All he could could show show was a certif certifica icatio tion n from from the CommunityEnvironmentandNatural CommunityEnvironment andNaturalResourcesOffice ResourcesOffice(CENRO), (CENRO),SanchezMira, SanchezMira,Cagayanthat SanchezMira,Cagayanthathelegallyacquiredthe Cagayanthat Cagayanthathelegallyacquiredthe helegallyacquiredthe coconutslabs.ThecertificationwasissuedtofacilitatetransportoftheslabsfromSanchezMira,CagayantoSan Vicente,Urdaneta,Pangasinan. At10:00o'clockinthemorning,themembersoftheProvincialTaskForce,togetherwiththreeCENROpersonnel examinedthecargo.Theexaminationconfirmedthatthecargoconsistedofcoconutslabsandsawntanguilelumber. Thecoconutslabswerepiledatthesidesofthetruck,concealingthetanguilelumber.Whenthe Thecoconutslabswerepiledatthe sidesofthetruck,concealingthetanguilelumber.Whenthe sidesofthetruck,concealingthetanguilelumber.WhentheCENROpersonnel CENROpersonnel inventoriedandscaledtheseizedforestproducts,theycounted258piecesoftanguilelumberwithatotalvolume of3,729.3boardfeet(8.79cubicmeters)and of3,729.3boardfeet(8.79cubicmeters)andtotalassessedvalueof totalassessedvalueofP93,232.50. P93,232.50. OnJune23,1994,accused-appellantwaschargedbeforetheRegionalTrialCourto OnJune23,1994,accused-appellantwaschargedbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofLaoagwithviolation OnJune23,1994, accused-appellantwaschargedbeforetheRegional accused-appellantwaschargedbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofL TrialCourtofLaoagwithviolation fLaoagwithviolation aoagwithviolationofSection ofSection 68ofP.D.705asamendedbyE.O.277.Accused-appellantdeniedthechargeagainsthim.Heclaimedthathe acquiredthe258piecesoftanguilelumberfromalegalsource.Duringthetrial,hepresentedtheprivatelandtimber permits(PLTP)issuedbytheDepar permits (PLTP)issuedbytheDepartmentofEnviron permits(PLTP)issuedbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)toEnricaC tmentofEnvironmentandNatura mentandNaturalResource lResources(DENR)toEnricaC s(DENR)toEnricaC ayosaandElpidio ayosaandElpidio ayosaandElpi dio Sabal.Heallegedthatthetanguilelumbercame Sabal.Heallegedthat thetanguilelumbercamefromthe fromtheforestareaco forestareacoveredbythePLT veredbythePLTP'sof P'sofCayosaandSabal CayosaandSabaland and thattheyweregiventohimbyCayosaandSabalas thattheyweregiventohim byCayosaandSabalaspaymentforhishaulingservices. paymentforhishaulingservices. The trial trial court court found found accuse accused-a d-appe ppellan llant t guilty guilty and senten sentenced ced him to reclusi reclusion on perpet perpetua. ua. It also also ordere ordered d the confiscationoftheseizedlumberandtheten-wheelertruckownedbyaccused-appellant. confiscationoftheseizedlumberand theten-wheelertruckownedbyaccused-appellant. ISSUE:CanQuebeconvictedforviolationofSection68ofP.D.705becauseE.O.277whichamendedSection68to penalizethepossessionoftimbero penalizethepossession penalizethepossessionoftimberor oftimberorotherforestproductswithout rotherforestproductswithouttheproperlegaldo otherforestproductswithout otherforestproductswithouttheproperlegaldo theproperlegaldocumentsdidnotindicatethe theproperlegaldocumentsdidnot cumentsdidnotindicatethe cumentsdidnotindicatethe particulardocumentsnecessarytomakethe particulardocumentsnecessary tomakethepossessionlegal(neither possessionlegal(neitherdidother possessionlegal(neitherdidotherforestlawsandregulationsexisting didother didotherforestlawsandregulationsexisting forestlawsandregulationsexisting atthetimeofitsenactment)? HELD:Yes.Accused-appellant'spossessionofthesubjectlumber HELD:Yes.Accused-appellant'spossess HELD:Yes.Accused-appellant'spossessionofthesubjectlumberwithoutany ionofthesubjectlumberwithoutany withoutany documentationclearlyconstitutesan offenseunderSection68ofP.D.705,whichprovides:

Sec.68.Cutting,Gatheringand/orCollectingTimber,orotherForestProductsWithoutLicense. —Any personwhoshallcut, personwho shallcut, gather,collect, removetimber orother orotherforestproducts forestproductsfrom fromanyforest anyforest land,or timberfromalienableordisposablepublicland,orfromprivatelandwithoutanyauthority,orpossess timberorotherforestproductswithoutth timberorotherforestp roductswithoutthelegaldocumentsa elegaldocumentsasrequiredunderexistingfo srequiredunderexistingforestlawsand restlawsand regulations,shallbepunishedwiththepenaltiesimposedunderArticles309and310oftheRevisedPenal regulations,shallbepunishedwiththepenaltiesimposedunderArticles309and310 oftheRevisedPenal Code:Provided,Thatinthe Code:Provided,Thatinthecaseofpa caseofpartnerships,assoc rtnerships,associations,orco iations,orcorporations,the rporations,theofficerswho officerswhoordered ordered thecutting,gathering,collectionorpossessionshallbeliableandifsuchofficersarealiens,theyshall,in additiontothepenalty,bedeportedwithoutfurtherproceedingsonthepartoftheCommissionon ImmigrationandDeportation.TheCou ImmigrationandDeportation.TheCourtshallfurtherorderthecon rtshallfurtherordertheconfiscationinfavorof fiscationinfavorofthegovernment thegovernment CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

ofthetimberoranyforestproductscut,gathered,collected,removed,orpossessed,aswellasthe machi machiner nery, y, equipm equipment ent, , implem implement ents s and tools tools illegal illegally ly used used in the area area where where the timber timber or forest forest productsarefound. TheCourtrejectsappellant'sargumentt TheCourtrejectsappellant'sargumentthatthelaw hatthelawonlypenalizespossession onlypenalizespossessionofillegalforest ofillegalforestproductsandthat productsandthatthe the possessorcannotbeheld possessorcannotbeheldliableifhe liableifheprovesthat provesthatthecutting, thecutting,gathering,collectingor gathering,collectingorremovalof removalofsuchforest suchforestproducts products islegal.Therearetwo(2)distinctandseparateo islegal.Therearetwo (2)distinctandseparateoffensespunishedunder68ofP.D. ffensespunishedunder68ofP.D.705,towit: 705,towit: (1)Cutting,gathering,collectingandremoving (1)Cutting,gathering,collectingandremovingtimberoro timberorotherforestpr therforestproductsfrom oductsfromany any forestland,ortimberfrom forestland,ortimberfro forestland,ortimberfrom m alienableordisposablepublicland,orfromprivatelandwithoutanyauthority;and (2)Possessionoftimberorotherforestproductswithoutthelegaldocumentsrequiredunderexistingforestlaws andregulations. Inthefirstoffense,onecanraiseasadefensethelegalityoftheactsofcutting,gathering,collectingorremoving timberorotherforestproductsbypresentingtheauthorizationissuedbytheDENR.In timberorotherforestproductsby presentingtheauthorizationissuedbytheDENR.Inthesecondoffense,however, thesecondoffense,however, itisimmaterialwhetherthecutting,gathering,collectingandremovaloftheforestproductsislegalornot.Mere possessionofforestproductswithouttheproperdocumentsconsummatesthecrime.Whetherornotthelumber comesfromalegalsourceisimmaterialbecauseE.O.277considersthemerepossessionoftimberorotherforest productswithouttheproperlegaldo productswithouttheproperlegaldocumentsasmalum cumentsasmalumprohibitum. prohibitum. Quelikewiseinterpretsthephrase"existingforestlawsandregulations"(underSec.68,PD705)torefertothose laws laws and regulat regulation ions s which which were were alread already y in effect effect at the time time of the enactm enactment ent of E.O. E.O. 277 277. . The sugges suggested ted interpretationisstrainedandwouldrender interpretationisstrainedandwouldrenderthelawinutile.S thelawinutile.Statutoryconstruction tatutoryconstructionshouldnotkillbut shouldnotkillbutgivelifeto shouldnotkillbutgivelifetothe givelifetothe givelifetothe law.Thephraseshouldbeconstruedtoreferto law.Thephraseshouldbeco nstruedtorefertolawsandregulationsexistingatt lawsandregulationsexistingatthetimeofpossessio hetimeofpossessionoftimberor hetimeofpossessionoftimberor noftimberor otherforestproducts.DENRAdministrativeOrderNo.59seriesof1993specifiesthedocumentsrequiredforthe transportoftimberandotherforestproducts.Section3of transportoftimberandother forestproducts.Section3oftheAdministrativeOrder.DENRAdministrativeOrderNo. theAdministrativeOrder.DENRAdministrativeOrderNo. 59seriesof1993specifiesthedocumentsrequiredforthetransportoftimberand 59seriesof1993specifiesthedocumentsrequiredforthetrans 59seriesof1993specifiesthedocumentsrequiredfor specifiesthedocumentsrequiredforthetransportof thetransportoftimberandotherforest portoftimberandotherforestproducts. timberandotherforestproducts.Section3 otherforestproducts.Section3 products.Section3 Section3 oftheAdministrativeOrderprovides:

Section3.DocumentsRequired Section3.DocumentsRequired.Consistentwith .Consistentwiththepolicyst thepolicystatedabove, atedabove,themovement themovementoflogs,lu oflogs,lumber, mber, plywood,veneer,non-timberforest plywood,veneer,non-timberforestproductsand productsandwood-basedor w wood-basedornonwood-basedproducts ood-basedornonwood-basedproducts/commodities /commodities shallbecoveredwith shallbecoveredwithappropriateCertifica appropriateCertificatesof tesofOrigin,i tesofOrigin,issuedbyauthorized Origin,i Origin,issuedbyauthorizedDENRofficials, ssuedbyauthorizedDENRofficials,asspecified DENRofficials,assp asspecified ecified inthesucceedingsections. xxxxxxxxx 3.3 Lumber. Lumber. Unless Unless otherwise otherwise herein herein provided,the provided,the transport transport of lumber lumber shall be accompan accompanied ied by a CERTIFICATEOFLUMBER CERTIFICATEOFLUMBERORIGIN(CLO)issuedb CERTIFICATEOFLUMBERORIGIN ORIGIN(CLO)issuedbytheCENR (CLO)issuedbytheCENROorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativewhich ytheCENROorhis Oorhisdulyau dulyauthorizedrepresenta thorizedrepresentativewhich tivewhich hasjurisdictionovertheprocessingplantproducingthesaidlumberorthelumberfirmauthorizedto dealinsuchcomm dealinsuchcommodities.In dealinsuchcommodities.Inorderto odities.Inordertobevalid,the ordertobevalid,theCLO bevalid,theCLOmustbesupportedbythecompanytallysheet CLO mustbesupportedbythecompanytallysheetor or deliveryreceipt,andincaseo deliveryreceipt,andincaseofsale,alum fsale,alumbersalesinvoice bersalesinvoice.. xxxxxxxxx WhenapprehendedonMarch8, Whenapprehendedon March8,1994,ac March8,1994,accused-appellantfailedtopresent 1994,ac 1994,accused-appellantfailedtopresentanycertificate cused-appellantfailedtopresentanycert cused-appellantfailedto presentanycertificateoforiginof anycertificateof ificateoforiginofthe258 oforiginofthe258pieces the258pieces pieces oftanguilelumber. REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES ,Represented Representedbythe RepresentedbythePOLLUTIONADJUDICATIONBOARD(DENR),vs. bythePOLLUTI POLLUTIONADJU ONADJUDICAT DICATIONBOA IONBOARD(DE RD(DENR),v NR),vs. s. MARCOPPER MARCOPPER MININGCORPORATION G.R.No.137174 July10,2000 FACTS: RespondentMMCwasissuedatemporarypermittooperateatailingsseadisposalsystem.Inthemeantime,the Nation Nat National ional al Pollution Pollu Pollut Pollution tion ion Control Control Commission Commi Commissio Commission ssion n (NPCC) (NPCC (NPC (NPCC) C)) was wa was s abolis abo abolish lished hed ed b by y EO EO No. No. 192 192 datedJune date dated dJune10, 10,1987, 1987,and andits its powersand powersandfunctions functionswere wereintegrated integratedinto intothe the Enviro Environmen ironme nmental nmenta ntal tall Managem Management agement ent ent Bure Bu Bureau Bur reau eau au and and into into the the Pollution Pollu Polluti tion on AdjudicationBoard(PAB). CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

OnApril11,1988,theDENRSecretary,inhiscapacityasChairmanofthePAB,issuedanOrderdirectingMMCto "ceaseanddesistfromdischargingminetailingsintoCalancanBay." "ceaseanddesistfrom dischargingminetailingsintoCalancanBay."ThiswasappealedbytheMMC dischargingminetailingsintoCalancanBay."ThiswasappealedbytheMMCwiththeOffice ThiswasappealedbytheMMCwiththeOffice ThiswasappealedbytheMMCwiththeOffice ofthePresident(OP).InlinewiththedirectivefromtheOP,the ofthePresident(OP).InlinewiththedirectivefromtheOP,the CalancanBayRehabilita CalancanBayRehabilitationProjec tionProject(CBRP) t(CBRP)was was created,andMMCremittedtheamountofP30,000.00 created,andMMCremittedthe created,andMMCremittedtheamountofP30,000.00aday, amountofP30,000.00aday, aday, startingfromMay13,1988totheEcologyTrustFund startingfromMay13,1988totheE startingfromMay13,1988totheEcologyTrustFund cologyTrustFund (ETF)thereof.However,on (ETF)thereof.However,onJune30,1991, June30,1991,MMC MMC stoppeddischargingitstailings stoppeddischargingitstailingsintheBay, intheBay,hence,itlikewiseceased hence,itlikewiseceased frommakingfurtherdepositstotheETF.ThePABsoughtfortheenforcementoftheorderissuedbytheOP, however,theCAactedonMarcopper’spetition however,theCAactedon Marcopper’spetitionandorderedthePABtorefrainanddesistfromenforcingaforesaid Marcopper’spetitionandorderedthePABtorefrainanddesistfromenforcingaforesaid Order.Hence,theinstantpetition. ISSUE:WONCAerredinrulingthatRA7942repealedtheprovisionsofRA3931, ISSUE:WONCAerredinrulingthatRA7942 repealedtheprovisionsofRA3931,asamendedbyPD984, asamendedbyPD984,withrespect withrespect to to the th the e powerand power powerand functi function on ofpetitioner ofpetitioner petitioner Pollution Pollution AdjudicationBoard Adjudication Adjudication Board Board to toissue, issue, issue, renewor renew renewor deny den denypermits ypermits permits forthe forthe dischargeoftheminetailings. HELD: NO.TheCourtruledthatitappearsthatthereisnogenuineconflictbetweenRA7942andRA3931 NO.TheCourtruledthatitappearsthatthereisno genuineconflictbetweenRA7942andRA3931asamendedby asamendedby PD984thatprecludestheircoexistence.Thelegislatureintendedtomaximizetheexploration,developmentand utilizationofthecountry’s utilizationofthecountry’smineralresource mineralresourcesto sto contribute contributetotheachievementofnationaleconomicandsocial ibutetotheachievementofnationaleconomicandsocial developmentwithdueregardtothe developmentwithduer egardtothesocialandenvironmental socialandenvironmentalcostimplicationsr costimplicationsrelativethereto.The elativethereto.Thelawintendsto lawintendsto increasetheproductivityofthe country’smineralresourceswhileatthe country’smineralresourceswhileatthesametimeassuringits sametimeassuringitssustainabilitythrough sustainabilitythrough judicioususeandsystematicrehabilitation.Henceforth,theDepartmentofEnvironment andNaturalResourcesas andNaturalResourcesas theprimarygovernmentagencyresponsiblefortheconservation,management,development,andproperuseof theStatesmineralresources,throughits theStatesmineralresources,throughitsSecretary,has Secretary,hastheauthorityto theauthoritytoenterinto enterintomineralagreementson mineralagreementsonbehalfof behalfof theGovernmentupontherecommendationoftheDirector,andtopromulgatesuchrulesandregulationsasmay benecessarytocarryouttheprovisionsofRA7942. ThePABandtheMinesRegionalDirector,withtheircomplementaryfunctionsandthroughtheirco ThePABandtheMinesRegionalDirector,withtheirco mplementaryfunctionsandthroughtheircombinedefforts, mbinedefforts, servetoaccomplishthe servetoaccomplishthemandateof servetoaccomplishthemandateofRA3931(NationalPollu mandateofRA3931 RA3931(NationalPollutionControlDecree (NationalPollutionControlDecreeof1976) tionControlDecreeof tionControlDecreeof1976)as of1976)asamended 1976)asamendedbyPD984and asamendedbyPD amendedbyPD984and byPD984and EO192andthatofRA7942(PhilippineMiningActof1995). NARRANICKELMININGANDDEVELOPMENTCORP.,TESOROMININGANDDEVELOPMENT, NARRANICKELMININGANDDEVELOPMENTCORP.,TE SOROMININGANDDEVELOPMENT,INC.,and SOROMININGANDDEVELOPMENT,INC.,and MCARTHUR MINING,INC.,Petitioners,vs.REDMONTCONSOLIDATEDMINESCORP.,Respondent. MINING,INC.,Petitioners,vs.REDMONTCONSOLIDATEDM INESCORP.,Respondent. G.R.No.195580April21,2014

FACTS: FACTS: Somet Sometime ime in Decemb December er 200 2006, 6, respon responden dent t Redmon Redmont t Consol Consolida idated ted Mines Mines Corp. Corp. (Redmo (Redmont) nt), , a domest domestic ic corporationorganizedandexistingunderPhilippinelaws,tookinterestinm corporationorganizedandexisting underPhilippinelaws,tookinterestinminingandexploringcertainareasoft iningandexploringcertainareasofthe he provinceofPalawan.Afterinquiringwith provinceofPalawan.AfterinquiringwiththeDepartmentof theDepartmentofE E nvironmentandNatural nvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR) Resources(DENR),itlearned ,itlearned thattheareaswhereitwantedtoundertakeexplorationandminingactivitieswherealreadycoveredbyMineral ProductionSharingAgreement(MPSA)applications ProductionSharingAgreement (MPSA)applicationsofpetitionersN ofpetitionersNarra,Tesoro arra,TesoroandMcArthur. andMcArthur. PetitionerMcArthurNarraandTesoro,filedanapplicationforanMPSAandExplorationPermit(EP)whichwas subsequentlyissued. OnJanuary2,2007,Redmont OnJanuary2,2007,RedmontfiledbeforetheP filedbeforethePanelofArbitrator anelofArbitrators(POA)o s(POA)oftheDENR ftheDENRthree(3) three(3) separatepetitionsforthe separatepetitionsforthedenialofpetitioners’applicationsfor forthedenialof denialof denialofpetitioners’applicationsforMPSA. petitioners’applicationsforMPSA. MPSA. Redmontallegedthatatleast60%ofthecapitalstockof Redmontallegedthatatleast60%of thecapitalstockofMcArthur,TesoroandNarraareownedandcontrolledby thecapitalstockofMcArthur,TesoroandNarraareow McArthur,TesoroandNarraareownedandcontrolledby nedandcontrolledby MBMIResources,Inc.(MBMI),a100% MBMIResources,Inc.(MBMI),a100%Canadiancorporation.Redmont Canadiancorporation.RedmontreasonedthatsinceMBMI reasonedthatsinceMBMIisaconsiderable isaconsiderable stockholderofpetitioners,it stockholderofpetitioners,itwasthe wasthedrivingforce drivingforcebehind drivingforcebehindpetitioners’filingofth behind behindpetitioners’filingoftheMPSA petitioners’filingoftheMPSAsovertheareascoveredby petitioners’filingoftheMPSA eMPSAsovertheareascoveredby applicationssinceitknowsthatitcanonlyparticipateinminingactivitiesthroughcorporationswhicharedeemed Filipinocitizens.Redmontargu Filipinocitizens.Redmontarguedthat Filipinocitizens.Redmontarguedthatgiventhatpetitioners’capitalstocksweremostlyownedbyMBMI,theywe edthatgiventhat giventhatpetitioners’capitalstocksweremostlyownedbyMBMI,theywe re likewisedisqualifiedfromengaginginminingactivitiesthro likewisedisqualifiedfrom engaginginminingactivitiesthroughMPSAs,which ughMPSAs,whicharereservedonly arereservedonlyfor forFilipinocitizens. Filipinocitizens. PetitionersaverredthattheywerequalifiedpersonsunderSection3(aq)ofRepublicActNo.(RA)7942orthe PhilippineMiningActof1995.Theystatedthattheirnationalityas PhilippineMiningActof1995. Theystatedthattheirnationalityasapplicantsisimmaterialbecausetheyalsoapplied applicantsisimmaterialbecausetheyalsoapplied


forFinancialorTechnicalAssistanceAgreements(FTAA)denominatedasAFTA-IVB-09forMcArthur,AFTA-IVB-08 forTesoroandAFTA-IVB-07forNarra,whicharegrantedtoforeign-ownedcorporations.Nevertheless,theyclaimed forTesoroandAFTA-IVB-07fo rNarra,whicharegrantedtoforeign-ownedcorporations.Nevertheless,theyclaimed thattheissueonnationalityshouldnotberaisedsinceMcArthur,TesoroandNarra thattheissueonnationalityshouldnot beraisedsinceMcArthur,TesoroandNarraareinfactPhilippineNationals areinfactPhilippineNationals as60%oftheircapitalisownedbycitizensof as60%oftheirca pitalisownedbycitizensofthePhilippines. thePhilippines. On Decemb December er 14, 200 2007, 7, the POA issued issued a Resolu Resolutio tion n disqua disqualif lifying ying petiti petitione oners rs from from gaining gaining MPSAs. MPSAs. The POA consideredpetitionersasforeigncorporationsbeing"effectivelycontrolled"byMBMI,a100%Canadiancompany anddeclaredtheirMPSAsnullandvoid. PendingtheresolutionoftheappealfiledbypetitionerswiththeMAB,RedmontfiledaComplaintwiththeSecurities andExchangeCommission(SEC) andExchangeCommission(SEC),seekingthe ,seekingthe revocationofthe revocationofthe certificates certificatesfor for registratio registrationof nof petitionersonthe petitionersonthe groundthattheyareforeign-ownedo groundthattheyareforeign-ownedorcontrolledco rcontrolledcorporationsengagedinm rporationsengagedinminingin ininginviolationofPhilippinelaws. violationofPhilippinelaws. violationofPhilippinelaws. CAfoundthattherewasdoubtastothenationalityofpetitionerswhenitrealizedthatpetitionershadacommon majorinvestor,MBMI,aco majorinvestor,MBMI,acorporationcomposed rporationcomposedof100%C of100%Canadians.Pursuantto anadians.Pursuanttothefirstsentence thefirstsentenceofparagraph7 ofparagraph7of of DepartmentofJustice(DOJ)OpinionNo.020,Seriesof2005,adoptingthe1967SECRuleswhichimplementedthe requirementoftheConstitutionandot requirementoftheConstitutionandotherlawspertainingto herlawspertainingtotheexploitation theexploitationof ofnaturalresources,theCAusedthe naturalresources,the naturalresources,theCAusedthe "grandfatherrule"todetermine "grandfatherrule"todeterminethenationality "grandfatherrule"todeterminethenationalityofpetitioners. thenationalityofpetitioners. Indeterminingthenationalityofpetitioners,theCAlookedintotheircorporatestructuresand Indeterminingthenationalityofpetitioners, Indeterminingthenationalityofpetitioners,theCAlookedinto theCAlookedintotheircorporatestructuresand theircorporatestructuresandtheircorresponding theircorresponding commonshareho commonshareholders. lders.Usingthegrandfa Usingthegrandfatherrule, therrule,theCAdiscover theCAdiscoveredthatMBMIineffec edthatMBMIineffectownedmajo townedmajorityofthe rityofthe commonstocksofthepetitionersaswellasatleast60%equityinterestofothermajorityshareholdersofpetitione commonstocksofthepetitionersaswellasatleast60%equity interestofothermajorityshareholdersofpetitionersrs rs throughjointventureagreements.TheCAfoundthatthrougha"webofcorporatelayering,itisclearthatone commoncontrollinginvestorinallminingcorporationsinvolvedxxxisMBMI."Thus,itconcludedthatpetitioners McArthur,TesoroandNarra McArthur,TesoroandNarraarealsoinpartnershipwith,or andNarraarealsoin arealsoin arealsoinpartnershipwith,orprivies-in-interestof,M partnershipwith,orprivies-in-interestof,MBMI. privies-in-interestof,MBMI. BMI. ISSUE: WhetherornottheCourtofA therornottheCourtofAppeals’rulingthatNarra,TesoroandMcArthurareforeigncorporationsbasedonthe ppeals’rulingthatNarra,TesoroandMcArthurareforeigncorporationsbasedonthe "GrandfatherRule"iscontrarytolaw,particularlytheexpressmandateoftheForeignInvestmentsActof1991,as amended,andtheFIARules. HELD: No.Therearetwoacknowledgedtestsindetermining No.Therearetwoacknowle dgedtestsindeterminingthe the nationalityofa nationalityofa corporatio corporation:thecontroltestandthe n:thecontroltestandthe gran grandf dfat ather her rule rule. . Para Paragr grap aph h 7 of DOJ DOJ Opin Opinio ion n No. No. 02 020, 0, Seri Series es of 2005 2005, , adop adopti ting ng the the 1967 1967 SEC SEC Rules Rules whic which h implem implement ented ed the require requiremen ment t of the Consti Constitut tution ion and other other laws laws pertai pertainin ning g to the contro controllin lling g intere interests sts in enterprisesengagedintheexploitationof enterprisesengagedinthe exploitationofnaturalresourceso naturalresourcesownedbyFilipinocitizens, wnedbyFilipinocitizens,provides: provides: Sharesbelongingtocorporationsorpartnershipsatleast60%ofthecapitalofwhichiso Sharesbelongingtocorporationsorpartnershipsatleast60%ofthecapital ofwhichisownedbyFilipino ofwhichisown wnedbyFilipino edbyFilipino citizensshallbeconsidered citizensshallbeconsideredasof citizensshallbeconsideredasofPhilippinenationality(CONTROLTEST), asofPhilippine Philippinenationality(CONTR nationality(CONTROLTEST OLTEST),butifthe ),butifthepercentageof butifthepercentageofFilipino percentageofFilipino Filipino ownershipinthecorporationor ownershipinthecorporationorpartnershipisless partnershipislessthan60%,only partnershipislessthan60%,onlythenumberofshares than60%,only than60%,onlythenumberofsharescorresponding thenumberofsharescorresponding corresponding tosuchpercentageshallbecountedas tosuchpercentageshallbecountedasofPhilippinenationality ofPhilippinenationality(GRANDFATHERR (GRANDFATHERRULE).Thus, ULE).Thus,if100,000 if100,000 sharesareregisteredinthenameofacorporationorpartnershipatleast60%ofthecapitalstockor capital,respectively,ofwhichbelongto capital,respectively,of whichbelongtoFilipinocitizens,allo Filipinocitizens,alloftheshares fthesharesshallberecordedas shallberecordedasownedby ownedby Filipinos.Butiflessthan60%,orsay,50%ofthecapitalstockorcapitalofthecorporationorpartnership, Filipinos.Butiflessthan60%,orsay,50% ofthecapitalstockorcapitalofthecorporationorpartnership, respectively,belongstoFilipinocitizens,only50,000sharesshallbecountedasownedbyFilipinosand respectively,belongstoFilipinocitizens,o respectively,belongstoFilipinocitizens,only50,000sharesshallbe nly50,000sharesshallbecountedasownedbyFilipinosand countedasownedbyFilipinosand theother50,000shallberecordedasbelongingtoaliens. theother50,000shallbe recordedasbelongingtoaliens. Inminingdisputes,thePOAhasjurisdictiontopassuponthenationalityofapplicationsforMPSAs.Petitionersalso Inminingdisputes,thePOAhasjurisdictiontopassuponthe nationalityofapplicationsforMPSAs.Petitionersalso scoffedatthisCourt’sdecisiontoupholdthejurisdictionofthePanelofArb itrators(POA)oftheDepartmentof EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)sincethePOA’sdeterminationofp EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)since thePOA’sdeterminationofpetitioners’nationalitiesissupposedly etitioners’nationalitiesissupposedly beyonditslimitedjurisdiction.Indeed,asthePOAhasjurisdictiontoentertain"disputesinvolvingrightstomining areas,"itnecessarilyfollowsthatthePOAlikewisewieldstheauthoritytopass areas,"itnecessarilyfollowsthat thePOAlikewisewieldstheauthoritytopassuponthenationalityissueinvolving uponthenationalityissueinvolving

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

petitioners,sincetheresolutio petitioners,sincetheresolutionofthisissueise nofthisissueisessentialandindisp ssentialandindispensableinther ensableintheresolutionofth esolutionofthemainissue,i.e., emainissue,i.e., thedeterminationofthepetitioners'righttotheminingareasthroughMPSAs. Thegrandfatherrule,petitionersreasoned,hasnolegtostandonintheinstantcasesincethedefinitionofa "PhilippineNational"underSec.3oftheFIAdoesnotprovideforit.Theyfurtherclaimthatthegrandfatherrule "hasbeenabandonedandisnolongertheapplicablerule."TheyalsoopinedthatthelastportionofSec.3ofthe FIAadmitstheapplicationofa"corporatelayering"schemeofcorporations.Petitionersclaimthattheclearand unambiguouswordingsofthestatuteprecludethecourtfromconstruingitandpreventthecourt’suseofdiscretion inapplyingthelaw.The inapplyingthelaw.Theysaidthatth ysaidthattheplain,literal eplain,literalmeaningof meaningofthestatute thestatutemeantthe meanttheapplicationof applicationofthecontro thecontroltest ltest isobligatory. SCdisagreed."Corporatelayering SCdisagreed."Corporatelayering"isadmittedlyallowed "isadmittedlyallowedbytheFIA;butifitisu bytheFIA;butifitisusedtocircumvent sedtocircumventtheConstitution theConstitution andpertinentlaws,thenitbecomesillegal.Further,thepronouncementofpetitionersthatthegrandfatherrulehas alreadybeenabandonedmustbediscreditedforlackofbasis. alreadybeenabandonedmustbediscreditedforlack ofbasis. PetitionersMcArthur,TesoroandNarraarenotFilipinosinceMBMI,a100%Canadiancorporation,owns60%or more of their their equity equity interests interests. . Such conclusio conclusion n is derived derived from grandfath grandfatherin ering g pe titioners’corporate titioners’corporate owners, owners, namely:MMI,SMMIandPLMDC.The"controltest"isstilltheprevailingmodeofdeterminingwhetherornota corporationisaFilipinocorporation,withintheambitofSec.2,Art.IIofthe1987 corporationisaFilipinocorporation,withintheambitofSec.2, Art.IIofthe1987Constitution,entitledtoundertake Constitution,entitledtoundertake theexploration,developmentandutilizationofthenaturalresourcesofthePhilippines.Wheninthemindofthe Court Court there there is doubt, doubt, based on theattendantfacts theattendantfacts andcircumstances andcircumstances of thecase, in the60-40 FilipinoFilipino-equi equity ty ownershipinthecorporation,thenitmayapplythe"grandfatherrule." ownershipinthecorporation,thenitmaya pplythe"grandfatherrule." ProvinceofRizalv.Execu ProvinceofRizalv.ExecutiveSecretary, tiveSecretary,G.R.No.129540,Dece G.R.No.129540,December13,2005 mber13,2005 Petitioners: ProvinceofRizal,MunicipalityofSanMateo,PintongBocaueMultipurposeCooperative,Concerned CitizensOfRizal,Inc.,RolandoE.Villacorte,BernardoHidalgo,AnaniasEbuenga,VilmaT.Montajes,FedericoMunar, CitizensOfRizal,Inc.,Rolando E.Villacorte,BernardoHidalgo,AnaniasEbuenga,VilmaT.Montajes,FedericoMunar, Jr.,RolandoBeas,Sr., Jr.,RolandoBeas,Sr.,EtAl.,AndKilos EtAl.,AndKilosbayan,Inc. bayan,Inc. Executive Secretary, Secretary, Secretary Secretary of Environme Environment nt & Natural Natural Resource Resources, s, Laguna Laguna Lake Developm Development ent Respondents: Executive Authority,SecretaryofPub Authority,SecretaryofPublicWorks&Highways,Secretary cretaryofPublicWorks& licWorks& licWorks&Highways,SecretaryofBudget Highways,SecretaryofBud Highways,SecretaryofBudget&Manag ofBudget&Manageme get&Management,Metr &Management,MetroM ement,MetroManilaDevelopment nt,MetroManila oManilaDevelopment anila Development AuthorityAndTheHonorableCourtofAppeals DOCTRINE: DOCTRINE: Waterislife,andmustbesavedatallcosts.Themostimportantproductofawatershediswater,whichisoneof themostimportanthumannecessities.Theprotectionofwatershedsensuresanadequatesupplyof themostimportanthumannecessities.Theprotectionof watershedsensuresanadequatesupplyofwaterforfuture waterforfuture generationsandthecontro generationsandthecontrolofflashfloodsthat lofflashfloodsthatnotonlydamage notonlydamagepropertybutalso propertybutalsocauselossoflives.Pr causelossoflives.Protectionof otectionof watershedsisanintergenerationalresponsibilitythatneedstobeanswerednow. FACTS: ThisisapetitionfiledbytheProvinceofRizal,themunicipalityofSanMateo,andvariousconcernedcitizensfor certiorarioftheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA-G.R.SPNo.41330,denying,forlackofcauseof reviewon certiorari oftheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA-G.R.SPNo.41330,denying,forlackofcauseof action,thepetitionfor certiorari,prohibitionand ,prohibitionand mandamus withapplicationforatemporaryrestrainingorder/writ temporaryrestrainingorder/writ mandamuswithapplicationfora ofpreliminaryinjunctionassailing ofpreliminaryinjunctionassailingthelegality thelegalityandconstitut andconstitutionalityofProclamat ionalityofProclamationNo.635. ionNo.635.

ProclamationNo.635:DuetogarbagecrisisplaguingMetroManilaanditsenvirons,partsoftheMarikinaWatershed ProclamationNo.635:DuetogarbagecrisisplaguingMetroManilaanditsenvirons,partsof theMarikinaWatershed Reservatio Reservationweresetaside nweresetasidebytheOfficeofthePres bytheOfficeofthePresiden identforuseasasanitaryland tforuseasasanitarylandfillandsimil fillandsimilarwastedisp arwastedisposal osal applications.Infact,thissite,extendingtomoreorless18hectares,hadalreadybeeninoperationsince19February applications.Infact,thissite,extendingtomoreorless18hectares,had alreadybeeninoperationsince19February 1990forthesolidwastes 1990forthesolidwastesofQuezon ofQuezonCity,Marikina,San City,Marikina,SanJuan,Mand Juan,Mandaluyong,Patero aluyong,Pateros,Pasig,and s,Pasig,andTaguig. Taguig. Atthe heigh height t ofthe garbag garbage e crisis crisis plagui plaguingMetro ngMetro Manila Manila and its enviro environs, ns, partsof partsof the Mariki MarikinaWater naWatershe shed d Reservationweresetasid Reservationweresetasidebythe ebytheOfficeof ebytheOfficeofthePresident,th Officeof OfficeofthePresident,throughProc thePresident,through thePresident,throughProclamationNo roughProclamationNo.635d ProclamationNo.635dated lamationNo.635dated28 .635dated28 ated28 28 August1995,for August1995, August1995,for for useasasanitarylandfillandsimilarwastedisposalapplications.Thissite,extendingtomoreorless18hectares,had useasasanitarylandfillandsimilarwastedisposalapplications.Thissite, extendingtomoreorless18hectares,had


alread already y been been in opera operatio tion n since since 19 Februa February ry 1990 1990 for the solid solid wastes wastes of Quezon Quezon City, City, Marikin Marikina, a, San Juan, Juan, Mandaluyong,Pateros,Pasig, Mandaluyong,Pateros,Pasig,andTaguig andTaguig.. On24November1995,thepetitionersMunicipalityofSanMateo On24November1995, thepetitionersMunicipalityofSanMateoandtheresidentsofPintongBocaue,represented andtheresidentsofPintongBocaue,represented byformerSenatorJovitoSalonga,sentalettertoPresidentFidelRamosrequestinghimtoreconsiderProclamation byformerSenatorJovitoSalonga, sentalettertoPresidentFidelRamosrequestinghimtoreconsiderProclamation No.635.Receivingnoreply,theysentanotherletteron02January No.635.Receivingnoreply, theysentanother theysentanotherletteron letteron02January1996reiterating 02January1996reiteratingtheirpre 1996reiteratingtheirpreviousrequest. theirpreviousrequ viousrequest. est. On22 JuIy 1996, thepetitionersfiled thepetitionersfiled beforethe beforethe Court Court of Appealsa Appealsa civilactionfor certiorar certiorari, i, prohibiti prohibition on and mandamuswithapplication mandamuswithapplicationforatemporaryre mandamuswithapplicationfora foratemporaryrestrainingor temporaryrestrainingor temporaryrestrainingorder/writof der/writofpreliminary preliminaryinjunction. injunction. On19July1999,PresidentJos On19July1999,PresidentJosephE.Estr On19July1999,PresidentJosephE. 9,PresidentJosephE.Estrada,taking ephE.Estrada,takingcog Estrada,takingcognizanceo ada,takingcognizanceofth cognizanceofthegravityoftheproblem nizanceofthe fthegravityoftheproblemsintheaf e gravityoftheproblemsin gravityoftheproblemsintheaffecte sintheaffectedareas theaffectedareas fectedareas dareas andthelikelihoodthatviolencewoulderuptamongthepartiesinvolved,issueda andthelikelihoodthatviolencewould eruptamongthepartiesinvolved,issuedaMemorandumorderingtheclosure Memorandumorderingtheclosure ofthe dumps dumpsite ite on 31 Decemb December er 2000. 2000. Accord According ingly, ly, on20 on20 July July 1999, 1999, the Presid Presiden entia tial l Commit Committee tee onFlagship onFlagship ProgramsandProject ProgramsandProjectsand sand theMetro Manila Manila Developm DevelopmentAuthor entAuthority(MMDA)entere ity(MMDA)enteredinto dinto a Memorand Memorandumof umof Agreement(MOA)withtheProvi Agreement(MOA )withtheProvincialGov Agreement(MOA)withtheProvincialGovernmentofRizal,theMunicipalityofSanMateo,and ncialGovernmentofRizal ernmentofRizal,theMunicipa ,theMunicipalityofSanMa lityofSanMateo,and teo,and theCityofAntipolo, theCityofAnti theCityofAntipolo, polo, whereinthelatteragreedtofurtherextendtheuseofthedumpsiteuntilitspermanentclosureon31December 2000. On11 January2001,Preside January2001,PresidentEstradadirect ntEstradadirectedDepart edDepartment ment ofInteriorand ofInteriorand LocalGovemment LocalGovemment (DILG) (DILG) Secretar Secretary y AlfredoLimandMMDAChairmanBinaytoreo AlfredoLimandMMDAChairmanBinaytoreopentheSan pentheSanMateodumpsite" Mateodumpsite"inviewoftheeme inviewoftheemergencysituationo rgencysituationof f uncollectedgarbageinM uncollectedgarbageinMetr uncollectedgarbageinMetr etroManila,resu oManila,resultinginacriticalan oManila,resultinginacriticalandimmine dimmine dimminenthealthan nthealthandsanitatione nthealthandsanitationepidemic." dsanitationepidem pidemic." Claiming Claiming theaboveeventsconstituteda"clearandpresentdangerof theaboveeventsconstituteda"clear andpresentdangerofviolenceeruptingintheaffectedareas,"the violenceeruptingintheaffectedareas,"thepetitioners petitioners filedanUrgentPe filedanUrgentPetitionfor filedanUrgentPetitionforRestrainingOrderonl9 titionforRestraining RestrainingOrderon Orderonl9 l9 January2001. January2001. On24January2001,theSupremeCourtissuedtheTemporaryRestrainingOrderprayedfor,"effectiveimmediately On24January2001, theSupremeCourtissuedtheTemporaryRestrainingOrderprayedfor,"effectiveimmediately and until until furth further er orders orders." ." Meanwh Meanwhile ile , on 26 Januar January y 2001, 2001, Presid Presiden ent t Estrad Estrada a signe signed d Repub Republic lic Act No. 9003, 9003, otherwiseknownas otherwiseknownas"TheEcolo otherwiseknownas"TheEcologicalSolidWasteMana "TheEcologicalSolidW gicalSolidWasteManagementActof asteManagementActof2000,"int gementActof2000,"intolaw. 2000,"into o law. LowerCourt'sRuling: TheCourtofAppealsruledinfavorofExecutiveSecretary,etal.TheCAdenied,forlackof causeofaction,thepetitionforcertiorari,prohibition causeofaction,thepetition forcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamuswithapplicationforatemp andmandamuswithapplicationforatemporaryrestraining oraryrestraining order/writofprelimin order/writofpreliminaryinjunction aryinjunctionassailingth assailingthelegality elegalityandconst andconstitutionalityof andconstitutionalityofProclamationNo.635. itutionalityof itutionalityofProclamationNo.635. ProclamationNo.635. ISSUES: WhetherthepermanentclosureoftheSanMateolandfillismandatedbyRep.Act.No. WhetherthepermanentclosureoftheSanMateolandfill ismandatedbyRep ismandatedbyRep.Act.No .Act.No.9003(YES) .9003(YES) 9003(YES) AaProclamationNo.635isconst AaProclamationNo.635isconstitutional(NO) itutional(NO) HELD: YES.Weholdthat YES.WeholdthattheS YES.WeholdthattheSan theSanMateoLandfillwillremain anMateoLandfillwillremainpermanen MateoLandfillwillremain MateoLandfillwillremainpermanently permanentlyclosed. permanentlyclosed. tlyclosed. closed. ThelawandthefactsindicatethatamereMOAdoesnotguaranteethedumpsitespermanentclosure.Abriefreview Thelawandthefactsindicatethata mereMOAdoesnotguaranteethedumpsitespermanentclosure.Abriefreview oftherecordsofthiscaseindicatestwoself-evidentfacts. First,theSanMateositehasadverselyaffectedits ,theSanMateositehasadverselyaffectedits second,sourcesofwatershouldalwaysbeprotected.Theadverseeffectsof environs,and second ,sourcesofwatershouldalwaysbeprotected.Theadverseeffectsof thesitewerereportedas ,sourcesofwatershouldalwaysbeprotected.Theadverseeffectsofthesitewerereportedas earlyas19June1989,whentheInvestigationReportoftheCommunityEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOfficer earlyas19June1989, whentheInvestigationReportoftheCommunityEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOfficer ofDENR-IV-1statedthatthesourcesofdomesticwatersupplyofoveronethousandfamilieswouldbeadversely affectedbythedumpingoperations.Thesucceedingreportincludedtheobservationthattheuseoftheareasas dumpingsitegreatlyaffectedtheecologicalbalanceandenvironmentalfactorsofthecommunity.RespondentLLDA dumpingsitegreatlyaffectedtheecologicalbalanceandenvironmentalfactorsofthe community.RespondentLLDA infactinformedtheMMAthattheheavypollutionandriskofdiseasegeneratedbydumpsitesrenderedthelocation infactinformedtheMMAthattheheavypollutionandrisk ofdiseasegeneratedbydumpsitesrenderedthelocation ofadumpsitewithintheMarikinaWatershedReservationincompatiblewithitsprogramofupgradingthewater qualityoftheLagunaLake.TheDENRsuspendedthesitesECCafterinvestigationsrevealedgroundslumpingand erosionhad erosionhad resultedfromimprope resultedfromimproper r developm developmentof entof the site. Investiga Investigation tion Reportssubmitte Reportssubmitted d bythe Regional Regional Tech Techni nica cal l Dire Direct ctor or to the the DENR DENR repo report rted ed resp respir irat ator ory y illn illnes esse ses s amon among g pupi pupils ls of a prim primar ary y scho school ol loca locate ted d approximately100metersfromthesite,aswellastheconstantpresenceoflargefliesandwindblowndebrisallover approximately100metersfromthesite,aswellas theconstantpresenceoflargefliesandwindblowndebrisallover theschools theschools playgroun playground.It d.It furtherreitera furtherreiteratedreport tedreports s that theleachate theleachate treatment treatment plant hadbeeneroded twice


already,contaminatingthenearbycreeksthatweresourcesofpotablewaterfortheresidents. Thecontaminated waterwasalsofoundto waterwasalsofoundtoflowtoth waterwasalsofoundtoflowtotheWawaDamandBosoboso flowtotheWawaDaman eWawaDamandBosoboso dBosoboso River, River, whichinturnemptiesintoLag whichinturnemptiesintoLagunadeBay. unadeBay. Thisbringsustothesecondself-evidentpoint.Waterislife,andmustbesavedatallcosts.In Colladov.Courtof Appeals, Appeals,wehadoccasionto wehadoccasiontoreaffirmourpreviousdiscussionin wehadoccasiontoreaffirmourpreviousdiscussionin Sta.RosaRealtyDevelopmentCorporationv.Court ofAppeals,ontheprimordialimportanceofwatershedareas,thus:Themostimportantproductofawatershedis ofAppeals ,ontheprimordialimportanceofwatershedareas,thus:Themostimportantproductofawatershedis water,whichisoneofthemostimportanthumannecessities.Theprotectionofwatershedsensuresanadequate supplyofwaterforfuturegenerationsandthecontrolofflashfloodsthatnotonlydamagepropertybutalsocause lossoflives.Protection lossoflives.Protectionofwatershedsis ofwatershedsisa a nintergenerationalresponsibilitythat nintergenerationalresponsibilitythatneedstobe needstobeanswerednow. answerednow. Threeshortmonths before ProclamationNo.635waspassedtoavertthegarbagecrisis,Congresshadenactedthe NationalWaterCrisisActtoadopturgentandeffectivemeasurestoaddressthenationwidewatercrisiswhich adverselyaffectsthehealthandwellbeingof adverselyaffectsthehealthandwellbeingofthepopulation,foodproduction,andindustrialization healthandwellbeingofthepopulation, thepopulation, thepopulation,foodproduction,andindustrializationprocess.Oneof foodproduction,andindustrializationprocess.Oneof process.Oneof theissuesthelawsoughttoaddresswasthe protectionand protection and conservation conservationof of watersheds. Inotherwords,while respondentswereblandlydeclaringthatthereason respondentswereblandly declaringthatthereasonforthecreation forthecreationoftheMarikina forthecreationoftheMarikinaWatershedReservation, oftheMarikina oftheMarikinaWatershedReservation, WatershedReservation, i.e.,to i.e.,to protectMarikinaRiverasthesourceofwatersupplyoftheCityofManila,nolongerexists,therestofthecountry wasgrippedbyashortageofpotablewatersoserious,itnecessitateditsownlegislation.Respondentsactionsinthe wasgrippedbyashortageof potablewatersoserious,itnecessitateditsownlegislation.Respondentsactionsinthe faceofsuchgraveenvironmental faceofsuchgraveenvironmentalconsequencesdefy consequencesdefyalllo alllogic.Thepetitionersrightlynot gic.Thepetitio gic.Thepetitionersrightlynot gic.Thepetitionersrightlynotedthatinst nersrightlynotedthatinst edthatinsteadof edthatinsteadof eadofproviding eadofproviding providing providing solutions,theyhave,withunmitigatedcallousness, solutions,theyhave,withunmitigatedcallousness,worsenedthe worsenedtheproblem. problem. TheReorganizationActoftheDENRDefinesandLimitsItsPowersovertheCountry'sNafuralResources AdministrativeCodeof1987andExecutiveOrderNo.192 AdministrativeCodeof1987 andExecutiveOrderNo.192entrusttheDENRwith entrusttheDENRwiththe the guardianship and safekeeping oftheMarikinaWatershedReservationandour ofthe oftheMarikinaWa MarikinaWatershedReservationandourothernatural tershedReservationandour tershedReservationandourothernatural othernaturaltreasures.However, treasures.However,althoughtheDE althoughtheDENR,an althoughtheDENR, NR,an NR,anagencyof agencyof agencyof thegovernment,ownstheMarikinaReserveandhasjurisdictionoverthesame, thispowerisnotabsolute,butis definedbythedeclaredpoliciesofthestate,andissubjecttothe definedbythedeclaredpoliciesofthestate,andissubjecttothelawandhigherauthority. lawandhigherauthority. Section2,TitleXIV,Book IVoftheAdministrativeCodeof1987, IVoftheAdministrativeCodeof1987,whilespecifical whilespecificallyreferri lyreferringtothemandateoftheDENR,makespart ngtothemandateoftheDENR,makesparticular icular refere referenceto nceto the agencys agencys being being subjec subject t to law and higherauthor higherauthority ity. . It is the height height of irony irony that that the public public respondentshavevigorouslyarrogatedtothemselvesthepowertocontroltheSanMateosite,buthavedeftly ignoredtheircorrespondingresponsibility ignoredtheircorrespo ignoredtheircorrespondingresponsibilit ndingresponsibilityasguardiansand yasguardiansandprotectorsofthistormentedpieceofland. asguardiansandprotectorsofthistormentedpieceofland. TheLocalGovernmentCodeGivestoLocal TheLocalGovernmentCodeGivestoLocalGovernmentUnit GovernmentUnitsAlltheNecessaryPowe sAlltheNecessaryPowerstoPromotetheGeneral rstoPromotetheGeneral WelfareofTheirInhabitants NO.ThecircumstancesunderwhichProclamationNo.635waspassedalsoviolatesRep.ActNo.7160,ortheLocal GovernmentCode.Contrarytotheavermentoftherespondents,ProclamationNo.635,whichwaspassedon28 August1995,issubjecttotheprovisionsoftheLocalGovernmentCode,whichwasapprovedfouryearsearlier,on 10October1991. Section2(c)ofthesaidlawdeclaresthatitisthepolicyofthestatetorequireallnationalagenciesandofficesto cond conduct uct perio periodi dic c cons consul ulta tati tion ons s with with appro appropr pria iate te loca local l gove govern rnme ment nt unit units, s, nong nongov over ernm nmen enta tal l and and peopl people' e'ss organizations,andotherconcernedsectorsofthecommunitybeforeanyprojectorprogramisimplementedintheir organizations,andotherconcernedsectorsofthecommunitybeforeanyprojectorprogramis implementedintheir respectivejurisdictions.Likewise,Section respectivejurisdictions. Likewise,Section27requires 27requirespriorconsultations priorconsultationsbeforea beforeaprogramshall beforeaprogramshallbeimplementedby programshall programshallbeimplementedby beimplementedby governmentauthoritiesandthepriorapproval governmentauthoritiesand thepriorapprovalofthe ofthe sanggunian isobtained. When all themunicipalmayorsoftheprovinceofRizalopenlydeclaredtheirfullsupportfortheprotestrallyand notifiedtheMMDAthattheywouldopposeanyfurtherattempttodumpgarbage notifiedtheMMDAthattheywould opposeanyfurtherattempttodumpgarbageintheirprovince,theyactedwithin intheirprovince,theyactedwithin thescopeoftheir thescopeoftheirpowers,andwerein thescopeoftheirpowers,and powers,andwereinfactfulfillingtheir wereinfactfulfillingtheir wereinfactfulfillingtheirmandate,whentheydidthis. factfulfillingtheirmandate, mandate,whentheydidthis.Section16 mandate,whentheydidthis.Section whentheydidthis.Section16allowseverylocal Section16a 16allowseverylocal allowseverylocal governmentunittoexercisethepowersexpresslygranted,thosenecessarilyimpliedtherefrom,aswellaspowers necessary,appropriate,orincidentalforitsefficientandeffective necessary,appropriate,or incidentalforitsefficientandeffectivegovernance,andthosewhichareessential governance,andthosewhichareessentialtothe tothe promotionofthegeneralwelfare,whichinvolve,amongotherthings, promot(ing)health andsafety,enhance(ing) andsafety,enhance( andsafety,enhance(ing) ing) therightofthepeopleto therightofthepeopletoabalanced abalancedecology,an ecology,andpreserv(ing)th dpreserv(ing)the e comfortandconvenienc comfortand comfortandconvenienc comfortandconvenienceofth convenienceofth eoftheir eoftheir eir eirinhabitants inhabitants inhabitants . In Lina,Jr.v.Pao ,theCourtheldthatSection2(c),requiringconsultationswiththeappropriatelocalgovernment units, units, shouldapply shouldapply tonational tonational govern government ment projec projects ts affect affectingthe ingthe environ environmen mental tal orecologica orecological l balanc balance e ofthe CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz 2CAY2016-2017


–

particularcommunityimplementingtheproject.In BangusFryFisherfolkv.Lanzanas ,theCourtheldthattherewas nostatutoryrequirementforthe sangguniangbayan ofPuertoGaleratoapprovetheconstructionofamooring facility,asSections26and27areinapplicabletoprojectswhicharenotenvironmentallycritical. UndertheLocalGovernmentCode,therefore,tworequisitesmustbemetbeforeanationalprojectthataffectsthe UndertheLocalGovernmentCode,therefore,tworequisitesmustbemet beforeanationalprojectthataffectsthe environmentalandecologicalbalanceoflocalcommunitiescanbeimplemented:prior environmentalandecologicalbalanceoflocal communitiescanbeimplemented:prior consultation withtheaffected local communit communities, ies, and prior prior approval of the project project by the appropri appropriate ate sanggunian. Absent Absent either either ofthese mandatoryrequirements,theprojectsimplementationisillegal. WasteDisposalIsRegulatedbytheEcologicalSolidWasteManagementActof2000 RepublicActNo.9003(EcologicalSolidWasteManagementActof2000),approvedon26January2001, RepublicActNo.9003(EcologicalSolidWasteManagementActof2000), approvedon26January2001,wasenacted wasenacted pursuant pursuant tothe declaredpolicyof declaredpolicyof thestateto adopt adopt a systemati systematic, c, comprehen comprehensiveand siveand ecological ecological solid waste mana manage geme ment nt syst system em whic which h shal shall l ensu ensure re the the prot protec ecti tion on of publ public ic heal health th and and envi enviro ronm nmen ent, t, and and util utiliz ize e environm environmenta entally lly sound methods methods that maximize maximize the utilizat utilization ion of valuable valuable resources resources and encourage encourage resource resource conservationandrecovery.ItrequirestheadherencetoaLocalGovernmentSolidWasteManagementPlanwith regardtothecollection regardtothecollectionandtransfer andtransfer,processing,so ,processing,sourcereductio urcereduction,recycling, urcereduction,recycling,compostingandfina n,recycling, n,recycling,compostingandfinaldisposalo compostingandfinaldisp compostingandfinaldisposalofsoli ldisposalofsolid osalofsolid fsolid d wastes,thehandlinganddisposalofspecialwastes,education andpublicinformati wastes,thehandlinganddisposalofspecialwastes,educationa ndpublicinformation,andthefundingofsolidwaste on,andthefundingofsolidwaste on,andthefundingofsolidwaste managementprojects.Thesaidlaw managementprojects.Thesaidlawmandatesthe mandatestheformulation formulationofaNationa ofaNationalSolidWaste lSolidWasteManagementFr ManagementFramework, amework, whichshouldinclude,amongotherthings,themethodandprocedureforthephaseoutandtheeventualclosure withineighteenmonthsfromeffecti withineighteenmonthsfromeffectivityoftheActincaseofexisti vityoftheActincaseofexistingopendumpsand/orsa ngopendumpsand/orsanitarylandfillsloc nitarylandfillslocated ated within within an aquife aquifer, r, ground groundwat water er reserv reservoir oir or waters watershed hed area. area. This This writes writes finis to any remain remaining ing aspira aspiratio tions ns respondentsmayhaveofreopeningtheSanMateoSite.HavingdeclaredProclamationNo.635illegal,weseeno compelling compellingneedtotackletheremainingissuesraisedinthe needtotackletheremainingissue needtotackletherema iningissue sraisedinthe petitionandthepart petitionandthepartiesrespectivememoranda. iesrespectivememoranda. iesrespect ivememoranda. MoreDetailedTimeline: 17November1988:respondentSecr 17November1988:respondentSecretariesoftheDPWHan etariesoftheDPWHandDENRandtheGover dDENRandtheGovernoroftheMetropol noroftheMetropolitanManila itanManila Commission(MMC)enteredinto Commission (MMC)enteredintoaMemorandumofAgreement(MOA)whichprovidesa Commission(MMC)enteredintoaMemorandumofAgreement(MOA)whichprovidesa aMemorandumofAgreement(MOA)whichprovidesa mongothersthattheDPWH mongothersthatthe mongothersthattheDPWH DPWH shallcommencetheconstruction/developmentofsaiddumpsite. ofSanMateotovariousconcerned ofSanMateotovariousconcernedgov’tofficerspointingout variousconcernedgov’tofficers gov’tofficerspointingoutthat pointingoutthat that 8and10February1989:the SangguniangBayan ofSanMateoto it had recent recently ly passed passed a Resolu Resolutio tion n bannin banning g the creati creation on of dumpsi dumpsites tes for Metro Metro Manila Manila garbag garbage e within within its jurisdiction,askingthattheir jurisdiction,askingthattheirsidebeheard,andthatthe jurisdiction,askingthattheirsidebe sidebeheard,andthatthe heard,andthattheaddresseessuspendandtem heard,andthattheaddresseessuspendandtemporarilyhold addresseessuspendandtemporaril addresseessuspendan dtemporarilyholdinabeyan porarilyholdinabeyance yholdinabeyance inabeyance ce all andanypartofyouroperationswithrespecttotheSanMateoLandfillDumpsite.Noactionwastakenonthese letters.

ItturnsoutthatthelandsubjectoftheMOAof17November1988 Itturnsoutthatthelandsubjectofthe MOAof17November1988andownedbytheDENRwaspart andownedbytheDENRwaspartoftheMarikina oftheMarikina WatershedReservationArea.Thus,theMemorandumstatesthat: 3.5SaidDumpingSiteisobserved 3.5SaidDumpingSiteisobserved tobeconfined withinthesaidWatersh withinthesaidWatershedReserva edReservation tion,bearinginthe ,bearinginthe northeasternpartofLungsodSilanganTownsiteReservation.SuchillegalDumpingSiteoperationinside(the) northeasternpartofLungsodSilanganTownsiteReservation.Such illegalDumpingSiteoperationinside(the) Water Watershe shed d Reserv Reservati ation on is in violat violation ion of P.D. P.D. 705, 705, otherw otherwise ise known known as the Revise Revised d Forest Forestry ry Code, Code, as amended... Recommendations: 5.1TheMMCDumpingSiteInsideMarikinaWatershedReservation,particularlyatBrgy.PintongBocaue,San Mateo,RizalandatBo.Pinugay,Baras/Antipolo, Mateo,RizalandatBo .Pinugay,Baras/Antipolo,Rizalwhicharetheprese Rizalwhicharethepresentgarbagezonesmustt ntgarbagezonesmusttotallybe otallybe stoppedanddiscouragedwithoutanypoliticalinterventionanddelayinordertosaveourhealthyecosystems foundtherein,toavoidmuchdestruction,uselesseffortsandlost(sic)ofmillionsofpublicfundsoverthe landinquestion ; 19February1990:theDENREnvironmentalManagementBureau,throughUndersecretaryforEnvironmentand ResearchCelsoR.Roque,grantedtheMetroManilaAuthority(MMA[formerlyMMC])anEnvironmentalCompliance Certificate(ECC)fortheoperationofatwo-and-a-half-hectaregarbagedumpsite.


09March1990:respondent 09March1990:respondentLagunaLakeDevelop LagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthorit mentAuthority(LLDA),throu y(LLDA),throughitsActingGener ghitsActingGeneralManager,sent alManager,sent alettertotheMMA,whichprovidesLLDA’sobjectiontothedumpsitelocatedinthewatershedasitisin compatible withtheirupgradingthequalityofthewaterinthelake. withtheirupgradingthequalityofthewaterin thelake. 31July1990:lessthan6monthsafterthe 31July1990: lessthan6monthsaftertheissuanceoftheECC,UndersecretaryRoquesuspendedtheECCin issuanceoftheECC,UndersecretaryRoquesuspendedtheECCinaletter aletter addressed addressedto to therespondent therespondentSecretar Secretaryof yof DPWH statingthatgroun statingthatgroundslumpin dslumpinganderosionhaveresult ganderosionhaveresultedfrom edfrom improperdevelopmentofthedumpsite. 16November1993:DENRSecretar 16November1993:DENRSecretaryAngelC.AlcalasentMMAChairma yAngelC.AlcalasentMMAChairmanIsmaelA.Mathay,Jr.alette nIsmaelA.Mathay,Jr.aletterstatingthat rstatingthat afteraseriesofinvestigationsbyfieldofficialsoftheDENR,theagencyrealizedthattheMOAenteredintoon17 November November1988isa 1988isa verycostlyerrorbeca verycostlyerrorbecausetheareaagree usetheareaagreedtobe dtobe agarbagedumpsite agarbagedumpsiteis is insidetheMarikin insidetheMarikina a WatershedReservation.Hethenstronglyrecommendedthatallfacilitiesandinfrastructureinthega WatershedReservation.Hethenstronglyrecommendedthatall facilitiesandinfrastructureinthegarba faciliti esandinfrastructureinthegarba rbagedumpsite gedumpsite inPintongBocauebedismantled,andthegarba inPintongBocauebedism antled,andthegarbagedisposaloperationsb gedisposaloperationsbetransferredtoan etransferredtoanotherareaoutsideth otherareaoutsidethe e MarikinaWatersh MarikinaWatershed ed Reservati Reservation on to protect protect thehealth andgeneral welfare welfare of theresidents theresidents of SanMateo in particularandtheresidentsofMetroManilaingeneral. particularandtheresidentsofMetroManila ingeneral. 06June1995:petitionerVillacorte,ChairmanofthePBMC, 06June1995:petitionerVillacorte,ChairmanofthePBMC,wrotePresidentRamos,throughtheExecutiveSecretary, wrotePresidentRamos,throughtheExecutiveSecretary, informingthePresidentoftheissuesinvolved,thatthedumpsiteislocatednearthr informingthePresiden toftheissuesinvolved,thatthedumpsiteislocatednearthreepublicelementaryschools, eepublicelementaryschools, theclosestofwhichisonlyfiftymetersaway,andthatitslocationviolatesthemunicipalzoningordinanceofSan Mateoand,intruth,theHo Mateoand,intruth,theHousingandLandU usingandLandUseRegulatoryBo seRegulatoryBoardhaddenied ardhaddeniedthethenMMAcha thethenMMAchairmansapplica irmansapplication tion foralocationalclearanceonthisground. 21August1995:the SangguniangBayan ofSanMateoissuedaResolutionexpressingastrongobjectiontothe plannedexpansionofthelandfilloperationinPintongBocaueandrequestingPresidentRamostodisapprovethe draftPresidentialProclamationsegregating71.6HectaresfromMarikinaWatershedReservationforthelandfillsite inPintongBocaue,San inPintongBocaue,SanMateo,Rizal. Mateo,Rizal. Despitethevariousobjectionsandrecommendationsraisedbythegovernmentagenciesaforementioned,theOffice Despitethevariousobjectionsandrecommendationsraisedby thegovernmentagenciesaforementioned,theOffice ofthePresident,throughEx ofthePresident,throughExecutiveSecretar ecutiveSecretaryRubenTorres,si yRubenTorres,signedandissuedPr gnedandissuedProclamationNo. oclamationNo.635on28Au 635on28August gust 1995,ExcludingfromtheMarikinaWatershedReservationCertainParcelsofLandEmbracedThereinforUseas SanitaryLandfillSitesandSimilarWasteDisposalUndertheAdministrationoftheMetropolitanManilaDevelopment Authority. 06September 06September 1995: 1995: DirectorWilfri DirectorWilfrido do S. Pollisco Pollisco of theProtected theProtected Areas andWildlife andWildlife Bureau Bureau wrote wrote theDENR Secretarytoexpressthebur Secretarytoexpressthebureausstandagainst eausstandagainstthedumpsit thedumpsiteatPintongBoca eatPintongBocaue,andthati ue,andthatitisourview. tisourview...thatthe ..thatthe merepresenceofagarbagedumpsiteinsideawatershedreservationisdefinitelynotcompatiblewiththevery purposeandobjectivesforwhichthereservationwasestablished. 24November1995:thepetitionersMunicipalityofSanMateoandtheresidentsofPintongBocaue,representedby 24November1995:thepetitionersMunicipalityof SanMateoandtheresidentsofPintongBocaue,representedby formerSenatorJovitoSalonga,sentalettertoPresidentRamosrequestinghimtoreconsiderProclamationNo.635. formerSenatorJovitoSalonga,senta lettertoPresidentRamosrequestinghimtoreconsiderProclamationNo.635. Receivingnoreply,theysentanotherletteron02January1996 Receivingnoreply,theysentanotherletteron02 January1996reiteratingthei January1996reiteratingtheirprevious reiteratingtheirpreviousrequest. rpreviousrequest. request. 22July1996:thepetitionersfiledbeforetheCourtofAppealsacivilactionfor 22July1996:thepetitionersfiledbeforetheCourtofAppealsacivil actionfor certiorari,prohibitionand ,prohibitionand mandamus mandamus withapplicationforatemporaryrestrainingorder/writofpreliminaryinjunction.Thehearingontheprayerfor preliminaryinjunctionwasheldon14August1996. 13June1997:theCAdeniedthepetitionfor 13June1997:theCA deniedthepetitionfor certiorari ,prohibitionandmandamuswithapplicationfora temporary ,prohibitionandmandamuswithapplicationforatemporary certiorari,prohibitionandmandamuswithapplicationfora restrainingorder/writofpreliminaryinjunctionforlackofcauseofaction. Hence,thispetitionforreviewon certiorari oftheabovedecision.


05January1998:whiletheappealwaspending,thepetiti 05January1998:whiletheappealwaspending,thepetitioners onersfileda fileda MotionforTemporar MotionforTemporaryRestrain yRestrainingOrder, ingOrder, pointingoutthattheeffectsofthe ElNio phenomenonwouldbeaggravatedbytherelentlessdestructionofthe MarikinaWatershedReservation. 28January1999:thepetitionersfiledaMotionforEa 28January1999:thepetitionersfileda thepetitionersfiledaMotionfor MotionforEa Ea rlyResolution,calling rlyResolution,callingattentiontot attentiontothecontinuedexpansiono hecontinuedexpansionof f thedumpsitebytheMMDA.ThisresultedtoMMDAofficials,headedbythenChairmanJejomarBinay,agreeingto abandonthedumpsiteafter6monthsoron20July1999. 13July1999:thepetitionersfiledan 13July1999:thepetitionersfiledanUrgentSecondMo UrgentSecondMotionforE tionforEarly arly Resolutioninanticipationofviolencebetween Resolutioninanticipationofviolencebetween theconflictingpartiesasthedateofthescheduledclosure theconflictingparties theconflictingpartiesasthedate asthedateofthescheduledclosureofthedumpsite ofthescheduledclosureofthedumpsiteneared. ofthedumpsiteneared. neared. 19July1999:thenPresidentJosephE.EstradaissuedaMemorandumorderingtheclosureofthedumpsiteon31 December2000. 20July1999,thePresident 20July1999,thePresidentialCommi ialCommitteeonFlags tteeonFlagshipProgra hipProgramsandProjec msandProjectsandtheMMDAenter tsandtheMMDAenteredintoaMOA edintoaMOA withtheProvincialGovernmentof withtheProvincialGovernmentofRizal,theMunicipalityofSanMateo, withtheProvincialGovernmentofRizal, Rizal,theMunicipalityofSanMateo,a theMunicipalityofSanMateo, theMunicipalityofSanMateo,a a ndtheCityofAntipolo,whereinthelatter ndtheCityofAntipolo,wherein ndtheCityofAntipolo,whereinthelatter thelatter agreedtofurtherextendtheuseo agreedtofurtherextendtheuseofthedumpsite fthedumpsiteuntilitsp fthedumpsiteuntilitspermanentclosureon31December untilitsp untilitspermanentclosureon31December2000. ermanentclosureon31December2000. 2000. 11January2001:PresidentEstradadirectedDILGSecretaryAlfredoLimandMMDAChairmanBinaytoreopenthe SanMateodumpsiteinviewoftheemergencysituationofuncollectedgarbageinMetroManila,resultinginacritical andimminenthealthandsanitationepidemic. Claimingtheaboveevent Claimingtheaboveeventsconstit sconstitutedaclearandprese utedaclearandpresentdangerofviol ntdangerofviolenceerupti enceeruptingintheaffected ngintheaffectedareas,the areas,the petitionersfiledanUrgentPetitionforRestrainingOrderon19January2001. 26January2001:RepublicActNo.9003,otherwiseknownasTheEcologicalSolidWasteManagementActof2000, wassignedintolawbyPresidentEstrada. CHAMvPIZARRO ACNo ACNo5499 5499 5499 August16, Augu August st 16,2005 2005 FACTS:

AdisbarmentcasewasfiledbythepetitioneragainstAtty.EdilbertoD.Pizarro(respondent)for

commissionoffalsehoodandmisrepresentationsinviolationofalawyer’soath.Accordingtothecomplainant, Cañete,Alipioandnowdeceased Cañete,Alipioandnowdeceased nowdeceased Navarro Navar Navarr ro o offeredforsaletohimaparcel offeredforsaleto offeredforsaletohimaparceloflandwithan oflandwithanareaofapproximately areaofapproximately forty(40)hectares.Hehavingexpressed forty(40)hectares.Hehavingexpressedinterestintheo interestintheoffer,Cañeteand ffer,CañeteandNavarroarranged Navarroarrangeda ameetingbetweenhim meetingbetweenhim andrespondentwherehecategoricallyrepresentedtohimthatthepropertybeingofferedforsalewasalienable anddisposable.Respondentinfactpresentedtohim1)Real anddisposable.Respondentinfact anddisposable.Respondentinfactpresentedtohim1)RealPro presentedtohim1)RealPro Pro pertyTaxOrderofPayment;2)aDeedofAbsolute pertyTaxOrderofPayment;2) pertyTaxOrderofPayment;2)aDeedofAbsolute Salepurportedlyexecutedbytheallegedpreviousactualoccupantoftheproperty, Salepurportedlyexecutedbytheallegedpreviousact ualoccupantoftheproperty,3)SpecialPowero 3)SpecialPowerofAttorneyby fAttorneyby hisallegedco-owners hisallegedco-ownersauthorizinghimtosellthe hisallegedco-ownersauthorizinghim authorizinghimtoselltheproperty.Respondent toselltheproperty. toselltheproperty.Respondentthen property.Respondentthenexecuteda RespondentthenexecutedaD thenexecutedaDeedof executedaDeedofAbsoluteSaleover Deedof eedofAbsoluteSaleover AbsoluteSaleover thepropertyinhisfavors thepropertyinhisfavorstatingthatthe tatingthatthepropertyispresently propertyispresentlyinthepossession inthepossessionofthesellers. ofthesellers.Thesellersagree Thesellersagreewith with thebuyerthattheyaretheabsoluteownersof thebuyerthattheyaretheabsoluteownersoftherightsover thebuyerthattheyare theabsoluteownersoftherights theabsoluteownersoftherightsoverthesaidproperty;thattheyhave therightsoverthesaid overthesaidproperty;thattheyhavetheperfectrightt thesaidproperty;thattheyhavetheperfectrightto theperfectrightto o conveythesame;thattheyacquiredtheirrightsoverthe conveythesame;thattheyacquiredtheirrightsoverthesaidpropertyby conveythesame;thatthey acquiredtheirrightsoverthesaidpropertybyabsolutedeedofsale. saidpropertybyabsolutedeedofsale. Afterpayment,hesubsequentlytookpossessionofthepropertyandinstalledabarbedwirefenceatits frontportion.Soonafter,however,aforestguardapproachedhimandinformedhimthatthepropertycouldnotbe fencedasit fencedasit waspartoftheBataanNati waspartoftheBataanNationalPark. onalPark.Uponinvestigat Uponinvestigation,hediscover ion,hediscoveredthattheproperty edthatthepropertyis is notan alienableordisposableland alienableordisposablelandsusceptibleof alienableordisposablelandsusceptibleofprivateownership.HethussecuredaCertificationfrom susceptibleofprivateownership. privateownership.Hethus Hethussecureda securedaCertificationfr Certificationfrom omCENRstatingthat CENRstatingthat CENRstatingthat thesaidlandsfallwithintheBataanNaturalPark andunderthePublicLandLaw,landswithinthiscategoryarenot andunderthePublicLandLaw,landswithinthiscategoryarenot subjectfordisposition.Upon subjectfordisposition.Uponhisrequest, hisrequest,thePENR thePENRissueda issuedaCertificationstating Certificationstatingthat that thosenamedbyrespondentas thosenamedbyrespondent thosenamedbyrespondentas as priorownersofrightsoverthepropertyfromwhichrespondentandhisallegedco-ownersacquiredtheiralleged


rightswerenotamongthoseinventoriedasoccupants.PertinentportionsoftheReportandRecommendationof theTheIBPCommission theTheIBPCommissiononBarDisciplin onBarDiscipline(CBD)rea e(CBD)read: d: ...[I]tisevidentth ...[I]tisevidentthatasearlyas atasearlyasof( of( sic)1992,theImplementingRulesandRegulationsofNIPASACTprohibitedthe )1992,the ImplementingRulesandRegulationsofNIPASACTprohibitedthe illegalsellingofrightsorpossessionoftheareasoccupiedwithintheBataanNaturalPark;afactsupposedtobe knownbytherespondentb knownbytherespondentbeingaresiden eingaresidentofBalanga,Bataanan tofBalanga,Bataanandwasinthepractice dwasinthepracticeofhisprofessio ofhisprofessionalsoinsaid nalsoinsaid area. ISSUE:

Whetherornottherespondentshallbeheldliable

RULING: Inthecaseatbar,complainantpresentedcertificationsfromtheDENRthatthepropertyispartofthepublic

domainandnotdispos domainandnotdisposableasitisw ableasitiswithinthe ableasitiswithintheBataanNationalPark.Ind ithinthe ithintheBataanNationalPark.Indeed,byvirtu BataanNationalPark.Indeed, BataanNationalPark.Indeed,byvirtueof eed,byvirtueof byvirtueof eof ProclamationNo.24 ProclamationNo. ProclamationNo.24issued 24 issued onDecember1,1945,allpropertiesofthepublicdomainthereindesignatedaspartoftheBataanNationalPark werewithdrawnfromsale,settlementorotherdisposition,subjecttoprivaterights.Ontheotherhand, werewithdrawnfromsale,settlementorotherdisposition, subjecttoprivaterights.Ontheotherhand,respondent respondent hasutterlyfailedtosub hasutterlyfailedtosubstantiatehisd stantiatehisdocumented ocumentedclaimof ocumentedclaimofhavingirrevocablerightsan claimof claimofhavingirrevocablerightsandinterests havingirrevocablerightsand havingirrevocablerightsandinterestso dinterestsoverthe interestsoverthepr overtheproperty vertheproperty property operty which which he could could have have convey conveyed ed to compla complaina inant. nt. E.g., he he could could have have presen presented ted any docum document ent issued iss issue ued ued d by the governmentconferringuponhimandhisallegedco-owners,orevenuponhisallegedpredecessors-in-interest,with anysuch right or interest interest, , buthe presente presented d none. none. He merely merely presente presented d a Deed of AbsoluteSale AbsoluteSale purporte purportedly dly executedbypriorowners,amonthshyoftheexecutionoftheDeedofAbsoluteSaleinfavorofcomplainant. Thetaxdeclarationandreceiptwhichrespondentpresenteddonothelphiscauseanyasneithertaxreceiptsnor realtytaxdeclarationsaresufficientevidenceoftherightofpossessionoverrealtyunlesssupportedbyother effect eff effec effectiv ective tive ive e proof. pro proof of.Resp of. .Respon Resp Respon onden onde dent dent ntt must mus must mustt thus th thu us us be be ffaul fa ault au ulte lted ted ed d ffor fo or frau fraudu dule lent ntly ly indu inducin duci cing cing ng g comp compla lain inan ant t to purc pu purchase, rcha hase se,, forP3,372,533.00, forP3,372,533.00,non-existent"irrevocablerights,interestandparticipation"overaninalienableproperty. non-existent"irrevocable non-existent"irrevocablerights, rights,interestan interestandparticipation dparticipation"over "overaninalienab aninalienablepropert leproperty. y. PICOPV.BASEMETALS G.R.No. G.R.No.163509 163509 163509 December6, Decemb December er6,2006 2006 FACTS:

In1987,theCentral MindanaoMinin MindanaoMiningandDevelopm gandDevelopmentCorpo entCorporatio ration(CMMCIforbrevity) n(CMMCIforbrevity) enteredintoa enteredintoa Mines Mines OperatingAgreementwithBanahawMiningandDevelopmentCorporationwherebythelatteragreedtoactas OperatingAgreementwithBanahawMiningand DevelopmentCorporationwherebythelatteragreedtoactasMine Mine Operator Operator for the explorati exploration, on, developm development, ent, and eventual eventual commercial commercial operation operation of CMMCI's CMMCI's 18 mining mining claims locatedinAgusandelSur.PursuanttothetermsoftheAgreement,BanahawMiningfiledapplicationsforMining LeaseContractsovertheminingclaimsw LeaseContractsovertheminingclaimswiththeBureau iththeBureauofMines.OnApril29,1988,B ofMines.OnApril29,1988,BanahawMiningwasissu anahawMiningwasissueda eda MinesTemporaryPermitauthorizingittoextractanddisposeofpreciousmineralsfoundwithinitsminingclaims. SinceaportionofBanahawMining'sminingclaimswaslocatedinpetitionerPICOP SinceaportionofBanahawMinin g'sminingclaimswaslocatedinpetitionerPICOP'sloggingconcession 'sloggingconcessioninAgusan inAgusan delSur,BanahawMinin delSur,BanahawMiningandpetitio gandpetitionerPICOP nerPICOPentered enteredintoa intoa MOAwherebypetitio MOAwherebypetitionerPICOP nerPICOPallowedBanah allowedBanahaw aw Mininganaccesstoitsminingclaims. Mininganaccesstoitsmining claims. In1991,BanahawMiningconverteditsminingclaimstoapplicationsforMineralProductionSharingAgreements (MPSAforbrevity).WhiletheMPSAwe (MPSAforbrevity).WhiletheMPSAwerepending,B repending,BanahawMining,on anahawMining,onDecember18,1996,d December18,1996,decidedtosell/ass ecidedtosell/assign ign its rights rights and intere interests sts over over 37 mining mining claims claims in favor favor of privat private e respon responde dent nt Base Base Metals Metals Minera Mineral l Resou Resource rcess Corporat Corporation.Thetransfer ion.Thetransfer included included those those coveredby coveredby itsminingoperatingagreeme itsminingoperatingagreementwith ntwith CMMCI. CMMCI. Upon being being informedofthedevelopment,CMMCI,asclaimowner,immediatelyapprovedtheassignmentmadebyBanahaw Mininginfavorofprivate Mininginfavorofprivateresponden respondentBaseMetals, tBaseMetals,therebyr therebyrecognizingpr ecognizingprivaterespond ivaterespondentBaseMe entBaseMetalsasthe talsasthenew new operatorofitsclaims.OnMarch10,1997,privaterespondentBaseMetalsamendedBanahawMining'spending MPSAapplicationswiththeB MPSAapplicationswiththeBureauofM ureauofMinestosub inestosubstituteitself stituteitselfasapplicantand asapplicantandto to submitadditionaldocuments tosubmitaddition submitadditionaldocumentsin aldocumentsin in supportoftheapplication.AreaclearancesfromtheDENRRegionalDirectorandSuperintendentoftheAgusan MarshandWildlifeSanctuaryweresub MarshandWildlifeSanctuaryweresubmitted,asrequ mitted,asrequired.OnNovembe ired.OnNovember18,1997,petitioner r18,1997,petitionerPICOPfiledwiththe PICOPfiledwiththe


MinesGeo-SciencesBureau(MGB),anOppositiontoprivaterespondentBaseMetals'applicationbecauseit MinesGeo-SciencesBureau(MGB),an OppositiontoprivaterespondentBaseMetals'applicationbecauseitviolated violated thenon-impairment thenon-impairmentclauseand thenon-impairmentclauseandwillbe clauseandwillbeprejudicialtoh willbeprejudicialtohereinpe prejudicialtohereinp prejudicialtohereinpetitioner. ereinpetitioner. etitioner. titioner. ThePanelArbitratorinitiallyruledforpetitioner,butuponappealtotheMinesAdjudication ThePanelArbitratorinitiallyruledforpetitioner,butupo nappealtotheMinesAdjudicationBoard,judgmentwas Board,judgmentwas infavorofrespondent,CAaffirmedstatingthatthePresidentialWarrantyofSeptember25,1968issuedbythen PresidentFerdinandE.MarcosmerelyconfirmedthetimberlicensegrantedtoPICOPandwarrantedthelatter's peacefulandadequatepossessionandenjoymentofitsconcessionareas.Itwasonly peacefulandadequatepossessionandenjoymentof itsconcessionareas.Itwasonlygivenupontherequestofthe givenupontherequestofthe BoardofInvestmentstoestablishtheboundariesofPICOP'stimberlicenseagreement.ThePresidentialWarranty didnotconvertPICOP'stimberlicenseintoacontractbecauseitdidnotcreateanyobligationonthepartofthe governmentinfavorof governmentinfavorofPICOP.Thus, PICOP.Thus,thenon thenon-impairmentclause -impairmentclausefindsno findsnoapplication. application. W/Ntheconcessionareaofpetitionerisclosedtominingactivitiesandthattheconversionoftheagreement theconversionoftheagreement Issue:W/Ntheconcessionareaofpetitionerisclosedtominingactivitiesandthat intoMPSAwillruncountertothenon-impairmentclauseoftheConstitution intoMPSAwillruncountertothe non-impairmentclauseoftheConstitution Held:NO,aTimberlicenseagreementisno NO,aTimberlicenseagreementisnotacontract,butame tacontract,butamereprivilege.Wes reprivilege.Weshouldstateatth houldstateatthisjuncturethat isjuncturethat thepolicyofmultipleland thepolicyofmultiplelanduseisen thepolicyofmultiplelanduseisenshrinedinourlawstowardstheendthatthecountry'snatural useisenshrinedin shrinedinourlawstow ourlawstowardsthee ardstheendthatth ndthatthecountry's ecountry'snatural natural resourcesmaybe resourcesmayb resourcesmaybe e rationallyexplored,developed,utilizedandconserved.Inlikemanner,RA7942,recognizingtheequiponderance betweenminingandtimberrig betweenminingandtimberrights,givesaminingco hts,givesaminingcontractortherigh ntractortherighttoenteratimbe ttoenteratimberconcessionand rconcessionandcuttimber cuttimber thereinprovidedthatthesu thereinprovidedthatthesurfaceownerorco rfaceownerorconcessionairesh ncessionaireshallbeproperlycomp allbeproperlycompensatedforan ensatedforanydamagedonet ydamagedoneto o thepropertyasacon thepropertyasaconsequence sequenceofminingop ofminingoperations.Firstly, erations.Firstly,assumingth assumingthat at theareacoveredbyBase theareacove theareacoveredbyBaseMetals'MPSA redbyBaseMetals' Metals' MPSA is a govern governmen ment t reserv reservati ation, on, defin defined ed as proclai proclaimed med reserv reserved ed lands lands for specif specific ic purpo purposes ses other other than than minera minerall reservations,suchdoesnotnecessarilypreclud reservations,suchdoesnotnecessarilyprecludeminingactivitiesinthearea.Sec.15(b) eminingactivitiesinthearea.Sec.15(b)ofDAO96-40providesthat ofDAO96-40providesthat governmentreservationsmaybeopenedforminingapplicationsuponpriorwrittenclearancebythegovernment agencyhavingjurisdictionoversuch agencyhavingjurisdictionoversuchreservation.Sec.6o reservation.Sec.6ofRA7942alsoprovidesth fRA7942alsoprovidesthatminingoperat atminingoperationsinreserved ionsinreserved landsotherthanmineralreservationsmaybeundertakenbytheDENR,subjecttocertainlimitations.Secondly, RA7942doesnotdisallowminingapplicationsinallforestreservesbutonlytho RA7942doesnotdisallowminingapp licationsinallforestreservesbutonlythoseproclaimedaswatershed seproclaimedaswatershedforest forest reserves reserves.Thereisnoevidence .Thereisnoevidencein in thiscasethattheareacovered thiscasethattheareacoveredby by BaseMetals'MPSAhasbeen BaseMetals'MPSAhasbeenproclaime proclaimedas das watershedforestreserves.DENRMemorandumOrderNo.03-98,whichprovidestheguidelinesintheissuanceof areastatusandclearanceorconsentforminingapplicationspursuanttoRA7942,providesthattimberorforest lands,militaryandothergovernmentreservations,forestreservations,forestreservesotherthancriticalwatershed forestreserves,andexistingDENRProjectAreaswithintimberorforestlands,reservationsandreserves,among others,areopentomining others,areopentominingapplicatio applicationssubje nssubjecttoareastatusandcleara cttoareastatusandclearance. nce.Lastly,PICOPfailed Lastly,PICOPfailedto to presentany presentany evidencethattheareacoveredbytheMPSAisaprotectedwildernessareadesignatedasaninitialcomponentof theNIPASpursuanttoalaw,presidentialdecree,Presidentialproclamationorexecutiveorderasrequired. theNIPASpursuanttoa law,presidentialdecree,Presidentialproclamationorexecutiveorderasrequired. SpecialPeopleFoundationInc.v.Canda G.R.No.160932,January14,2013 Facts:Thepetitionerwasaproponen Thepetitionerwasaproponentofawater-reso tofawater-resourcedevelopm urcedevelopmentandutilizationp entandutilizationprojectinBarangayJimiliarojectinBarangayJimiliaanintheMunicipalityofLoboc,Boho anintheMunicipalityofLoboc,Boholthatwouldinvolvet lthatwouldinvolvethetappingand hetappingandpurifyingofwate purifyingofwaterfromtheLobo rfromtheLobocRiver, cRiver, andthedistributio andthedistributionof nof thepurifiedwatertotheresiden thepurifiedwatertotheresidentsof tsof Lobocand Lobocand sixother municipali municipalities. ties. The petitione petitionerr applie applied d for a Certif Certifica icate te of Non-Co Non-Cover verage age (CNC) (CNC) with with the Envir Environm onmen ental tal Manage Managemen ment t Bureau Bureau (EMB) (EMB) of the Departme DepartmentofEnvironm ntofEnvironmentandNatural entandNatural Resource Resources(DENR), s(DENR), seekingtobe seekingtobe exemptfromtherequire exemptfromtherequirement mentof of the Envir Environm onmen ental tal Compli Complianc ance e Certif Certifica icate te (ECC) (ECC) under under Sectio Section n 4 of Presid Presiden entia tial l Decree Decree No. 1586. 1586. The petiti petitione onerr appealedCanda’sfindingsclaimingthatitshouldalsobeissueda appealedCanda’sfindingsclaimingthatitshouldalso beissuedaCNCbecausetheprojectwasno CNCbecausetheprojectwasnodifferentfromthe differentfromthe Loboc-LoaywaterworksprojectoftheDepartmentofPublicWorksandHighways(DPWH)thathadrecentlybeen issuedaCNC.However,uponsubmissionoftherequirements,itresolvedthatthepetitionerisnotexemptfromthe coverageoftheEnvironmentalCompliance.Subsequently,apetitionformandamuswasfiledbutdeniedbytheRTC coverageoftheEnvironmentalCompliance.Subsequently,apetitionfor mandamuswasfiledbutdeniedbytheRTC Issue:Whetherornotmandamusisproper? Held:Mandamuswasanimproperremedyforpetitioner.SCdismissthepresentrecoursebecausethepetitioner failedtoexhausttheavailableadministrat failedtoexhausttheavailableadministrativeremedies,and iveremedies,andbecauseitfailedto becauseitfailedtoshowthatitwasleg showthatitwaslegallyentitledto allyentitledto CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

demandtheperformanceoftheactbytherespondents.Itisaxiomatic,tobeginwith,thatapartywhoseeksthe interventionofacourtoflawuponanadministrativeconcernshouldfirstavailhimselfo interventionofacourt interventionofacourtoflawuponan oflawuponanadministrativeconcernshouldfirstavailhimselfofalltheremediesafforded administrativeconcernshouldfirstavailhimselfofalltheremediesafforded falltheremediesafforded byadministrativeproces byadministrativeprocesses.Therecordsshowthatthe ses.Therecordsshowthatthe petitionerfailedtoexhaustthe petitionerfailedtoexhaustthe availableadministr availableadministrative ative remedies.Akeyprincipletobeobservedindealingwithpetitionsform remedies.Akeyprincipletobeobserved indealingwithpetitionsformandamusisthatsuchextraor andamusisthatsuchextraordinaryremedy dinaryremedy liestocompeltheperformanceofdutiesthatarepurelyministerialinnature,notthosethatarediscretionary.A purelyministeria purelyministerialactordutyis lactordutyis onethatanofficerortribunalperfor onethatanofficerortribunalperformsina msina givenstateoffacts,ina givenstateoffacts,ina prescribed prescribed manner,inobediencetothemandateofalegalauthority,withoutregardtoortheexerciseofitsownjudgment upontheproprietyorimproprietyoftheactdone.Thedutyisministerialonlywhenitsdischargerequiresneither theexerciseofof theexerciseofofficialdiscretionor theexerciseofofficial ficialdiscretionorjudgment.The discretionorjudgment.The discretionorjudgment.Thepetitioner'sdisregard petitioner'sdisregardofthe oftheforegoingfundamental foregoingfundamentalrequisitesfor requisitesfor mandamusrendereditspetitionintheRTCuntenableanddevoidofmerit. mandamusrendereditspetitionintheRTCuntenableand devoidofmerit. LAGUNALAKEDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS G.R.Nos.120865-71 December7,1995

FACTS: TheLagunaLakeDevelopm TheLagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthor entAuthority(LLD ity(LLDA)wascreat A)wascreatedthrough edthroughRANo.4850inordertoexecu RANo.4850inordertoexecutethepolicy tethepolicy towardsenvironmentalprotectionand towardsenvironmental protectionandsustainabledevelopmentso sustainabledevelopmentsoas asto to acceleratethedevelopmentandbalanced acceleratethedevelopmentandbalanced growthoftheLagunaLakeareaandthesurrounding growthoftheLagunaLakeareaandthesurroundingprovincesandtowns. growthoftheLagunaLake areaandthesurroundingprovincesandtowns. provincesandtowns. PDNo.813amendedcertainsectionsofRA4850sincewaterqualitystudieshaveshownthatthelakewilldeteriorate furtherifstepsarenottakentocheckthesame.EO927furtherdefinedandenlargedthefunctionsandpowersof theLLDAandenumerated theLLDAandenumeratedthetowns, theLLDAandenumeratedthetowns,cities thetowns,cities cities andprovincesencompassedby andprovincesencompassedbytheterm“Lagunade encompassedbytheterm theterm“LagunadeBayRegion”. theterm“LagunadeBayRegion”. BayRegion”. Upon Upon implem implementa entatio tion n of RA 716 7160 0 (Local (Local Governm Government ent Code Code of 199 1991), 1), the municip municipali alities ties assume assumed d exclusi exclusive ve jurisdictio juris jurisdiction diction n & authority author authorityto authorityto ity to issue issuefishing fishing fishing privilegeswithin privileges privilegeswithin theirmunicipal theirmunicipal municipal waters waters waters since sinceSec.149 Sec.149 Sec.149 thereofprovides: thereof thereof provides: “Municipalcorporationsshallhavetheauthoritytograntfisherypr ivilegesinthemunicipalwatersandimposerental feesorchargestherefore…” Bigfishpenoperatorstookadvantageoftheoccasiontoestablishfishpens&fishcagestotheconsternationofthe LLDA.Theimplementationofseparateindependentpoliciesinfishcages&fish LLDA.Theimplementationofseparateindependentpoliciesin fishcages&fishpenoperationandtheindiscriminate penoperationandtheindiscriminate grantoffishpenpermitsbythelakeshoremunicipalitieshavesaturatedthelakewithfishpens,therebyaggravating thecurrentenvironmentalproblemsandecological thecurrentenvironmental problemsandecologicalstressof stressofLagunaLak LagunaLake. e. The LLDA LLDA then then served served notice notice to the general general public public that that (1) fishpe fishpens, ns, cages cages & other other aqua-cu aqua-cultu lture re struct structure uress unregisteredwiththeLLDAasofMarch31,1993aredeclaredillegal;(2)thosedeclaredillegalshallbesubjectto demolitionbythePres demolitionbythePresidentia identialTaskForce lTaskForceforIllegalFish forIllegalFishpenandIllegalFis penandIllegalFishing;and(3)own hing;and(3)ownersofthos ersofthosedeclared edeclared illegalshallbecriminallychargedwithviolationofSec.39-AofRA illegalshallbecriminallychargedwithviolationo fSec.39-AofRA4850asamendedbyPD81 4850asamendedbyPD813. 3. Amonthlater,theLLDAsentnoticesadvisingtheownersoftheillegallyconstructedfishpens,fishcagesandother aqua-c aqua-cult ulture ure struct structures ures advisi advising ng them them to disman dismantle tle their their respect respective ive struct structure ures s otherw otherwise ise demoli demolitio tion n shall shall be effected. ISSUES: 1. Whichagencyofthegovernment Which Whichag agenc ency yof of the thegovernment– government–theLLDAorthe –theLLDAorthetownsandmunicipalitiescomprisingtheregion theLLDAorthetownsandmunicipalitiescomprisingtheregion –should –should exercisejurisdic exercisejurisdictionovertheLaguna tionovertheLagunaLakeanditsenvironsinsofa Lakeanditsenvironsinsofarastheissuanceofpermits rastheissuanceofpermitsforfishery forfishery privilegesisconcerned? 2. Whetheror Whetherornot WhetherornottheLLDAisaquasi-judicialagency. nottheL theLLDA LDAisa isaquasiquasi-judicia judicialagen lagency. cy. HELD: 1.Sec.4(k)ofthecharter 1.Sec.4(k)ofthecharteroftheLLDA, oftheLLDA,RA4850, RA4850,theprovisionsof theprovisionsofPD theprovisionsofPD813,andSec.2ofEO PD PD813,andSec.2ofEONo.927,specificallyprovide 813,andSec.2ofEONo.927,specificallyprovide No.927,specificallyprovide thattheLLDAshallhaveexclusivejurisdictiontoissuepermitsfortheuseofallsurfacewaterforanyprojectsor activitiesinoraffectingthesaidregion.Ontheotherhand,RA7160hasgranted activitiesinoraffectingthesaidregion.Onthe otherhand,RA7160hasgrantedtothemunicipalitiestheexclusive tothemunicipalitiestheexclusive authoritytograntfisheryprivilegesonmunicipalwaters.TheprovisionsofRA7160donotnecessarilyrepealthe lawscreatingtheLLDAandgranting lawscreatingtheLLDAandgrantingthe lawscreatingtheLLDAandgrantingthe thelatterwaterrights latterwaterrightsauthorityoverLagunadeBayandthela latterwaterrightsauthorityoverL authorityoverLagunadeBay agunadeBayandthelakeregion. keregion. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

Wherethereisa Wherethereisa conflictbetwe conflictbetweena ena generallaw generallaw andaspecialstatute,lattershoul andaspecialstatute,lattershouldprevailsinceitevincesthe dprevailsinceitevincesthe legislativeintentmor legisla tiveintentmoreclearly legislativeintentmoreclearlythanthegeneralstatute.Thespeciallawistobetak eclearlythanthegeneralstat thanthegeneralstatute.Thespecia ute.Thespeciallawistobetak llawistobetak enasanexceptiontothegener enasanexceptiontothegeneral al lawintheabsenceofspecialcircumstancesforcingacontraryconclusion.Impliedrepealsarenotfavoredand,as muchaspossible,effectmustbegiventoallenactmentsofthelegislature.Aspeciallawcannotberepealed, amendedoralteredbyasubsequentgeneral amendedoraltere dbyasubsequentgeneralla amendedoralteredbyasubsequentgeneralla la wbymereimplic wbymereimplication. ation. ThepowerofLGUstoissuefishingprivilegeswasgrantedforrevenuepurpo ThepowerofLGUstoissuefishingprivilegeswasgranted forrevenuepurposes.Ontheotherhand,th ses.Ontheotherhand,thepowerof epowerof theLLDAtograntpermitsforfishpens,fishcages,andotheraqua-culturestructuresisforthepurposeofeffectively regulating&monitoringactivitiesinth regulating&monitoringactivitiesintheLagunadeBayre eLagunadeBayregionandforlakeco gionandforlakecontrolandmanage ntrolandmanagement.Itpartakeso ment.Itpartakesof f thenatureofpolicepowerwhichisthemostpervasive,leastlimitableandmostdemandingofallstatepowers includingthepoweroftaxation.Accordingly,thecharteroftheLLDAwhichembodiesavalidexerciseofpolice power includingthepoweroftaxation.Accordingly,thecharteroftheLLDAwhichembodiesavalidexerciseofpolicepower shouldprevailoverthe shouldprevailovertheLGCof1991o LGCof1991onmattersaff nmattersaffectingLagun ectingLagunadeBay. adeBay. 2.TheLLDAhasexpresspowersas 2.TheLLDAhasexpresspowersasaregulatoryandq aregulatoryandquasi-judicialbodyinre uasi-judicialbodyinrespecttopollution specttopollutioncaseswithautho caseswithauthority rity toissuea“ceaseanddesistorder”andonmattersaffectingtheconstructionofillegalfishpens,fishcagesandother aqua-culturestructuresinLagunadeBay. Sec.149ofRA7160hasnotrepealedtheprovisionsofthecharteroftheLLDA,RA4850,asamended.Thus,theLLDA Sec.149ofRA7160hasnot repealedtheprovisionsofthecharteroftheLLDA,RA4850,asamended.Thus,theLLDA hastheexclusivejurisdictiontoissue hastheexclusivejurisdictiontoissuepermitsforen permitsforenjoymentoffishe joymentoffisheryprivilegesinLagun ryprivilegesinLagunadeBaytothee adeBaytotheexclusion xclusion ofmunicipalitiessituatedthereinandtheauthoritytoexercisesuchpowersasarebyitscha ofmunicipalitiessituatedthereinandtheauthoritytoexercisesuchpowersas arebyitscha arebyitscha rtervestedonit. rtervestedon rtervestedonit. it. EDUARDOF.HERNANDEZ,etal,petitioners EDUARDOF.HERNANDEZ,etal, petitioners petitioners v.NATIONALPOWERCORPORATION,respondent v.NATIONALP v.NATIONALPO OWERCORPORATION,respondent G.R.No.145328March23,2006 Ponente:CHICO-NAZARIO,J.

DOCTRINE: AlthoughPresidentialDecre AlthoughPresidentialDecreeNo.1818p eNo.1818prohibitsanyco rohibitsanycourtfromissu urtfromissuinginjunction inginjunctionsincases inginjunctionsincasesinvolvinginfrastructure sincases sincasesinvolvinginfrastructure involvinginfrastructure projects,theprohibitionextendsonlytotheissuanceofinjunctionsorrestrainingordersagainstadministrativeacts in contro controver versie sies s involv involving ing facts facts or the exerci exercise se of discre discretio tion n in techn technica ical l cases. cases. On issues issues clearl clearly y outsi outside de this this dimensionandinvolvingquestionsoflaw,thisCourtdeclaredthatcourtscouldnotbepreventedfromexercising theirpowertorestrain theirpowertorestrainorprohibit orprohibitadministrativeacts administrativeacts.Insuch .Insuchcases,letthe cases,letthehammerfallan hammerfallandletitfall dletitfallhard. hard. Apreliminaryinjunctionisanordergrantedatanystageofanactionpriortojudgmentoffinalorder,requiringa party,court, party,court,agency,orpers agency,orpersontorefrai ontorefrainfromaparticu nfromaparticularactoracts.Itisapreserva laractoracts.Itisapreservativereme tiveremedytoensur dytoensurethe ethe protectionofaparty’ssubstantiverightsorintere substantiverightsorinterestspendingthefinaljudg stspendingthefinaljudgmentintheprincipalaction.Apleafor mentintheprincipalaction.Apleafor aninjunctivewritliesupontheexistenceofaclaimedemergencyorextraordinary aninjunctivewritliesupontheexistenceof aclaimedemergencyorextraordinarysituationwhichshouldbeavoided situationwhichshouldbeavoided forotherwise,theou forotherwise,theoutcomeofa tcomeofalitigationwould litigationwouldbeuseles beuselessasfarast sasfarasthepartyapp hepartyapplyingforthe lyingforthewritiscon writisconcerned. cerned. FACTS: Sometimein1996,NAPOCORbegantheconstructionof29decagon Sometimein1996,NAPOCORbeganth econstructionof29decagon-shapedsteelpole -shapedsteelpolesortowerswithaheightof sortowerswithaheightof 53.4meterstosupportoverheadhightensioncablesinconnectionwithits230KilovoltSucat-Araneta-Balintawak Power Power Transm Transmiss ission ion Projec Project. t. Said Said trans transmis missio sion n line line passes passes throug through h the Sergio Sergio Osmeña Osmeña, , Sr. Highwa Highway y (South (South Superhig Superhighway) hway), , the perimete perimeter r of Fort Bonifacio, Bonifacio, and Dasmariñas Dasmariñas Village Village proximate proximate to Tamarind Tamarind Road, Road, where where petitioners’homesare. Alarmedbythesightof Alarmedbythesightof thetoweringsteeltowe Alarmedbythesightof thetoweringsteeltowers,petitione rs,petitionersscoured rsscouredtheintern theinternetonthe etonthepossiblead possibleadverse verse effects effects thatsuchastructurecouldcausetotheirhealthand thatsuchastructurecouldcausetotheirhealthandwell-being.Petitionersgotholdofpublishedarticlesandstudies well-being.Petitionersgotholdofpublishedarticlesandstudies linkingtheincidenceofafecundofillnessestoexposuretoelectromagneticfields.Theseillnessesrangefromcancer linkingtheincidenceofafecundof illnessestoexposuretoelectromagneticfields.Theseillnessesrangefromcancer toleukemia.TheyairedthisgrowingconcerntotheNAPOCOR,whichconductedaseriesofmeetingswiththem. toleukemia.Theyairedthisgrowingconcerntothe NAPOCOR,whichconductedaseriesofmeetingswiththem. Negotiationsbetweenpetition NegotiationsbetweenpetitionersandtheNAPOC ersandtheNAPOCORreachedanimp ORreachedanimpassé,withpetitione assé,withpetitionersvyingforthere rsvyingfortherelocation location of thetransmission thetransmission lines to Fort Bonifacio Bonifacio on onehand, andthe NAPOCOR NAPOCOR insisting insisting on a 12-metereasement 12-metereasement widening widening, widening,ontheother.Thus,petitioners,on9March2000filedaComplaint , onthe other.Thus,petition other.Thus,petitioners, ers, on9 March 2000fileda Complaint Complaint forDamages forDamageswithPrayerforthe withPrayerfor the IssuanceofaTemporaryRestrainingOrderand/oraWritofPreliminaryInjunctionagainstNAPOCOR.Harpingon CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

thehazardouseffects thehazardouseffectsofexposuretoelectro ofexposuretoelectromagnet magneticradiatio icradiationtothehealthandsafetytothemselve ntothehealthandsafetytothemselvesandtheir sandtheir families,petitioners,throughthe families,petitioners,throughtheinstantcase, instantcase,soughtwhat soughtwhatthey theyhadfailedtoachievethroughamicablemeanswith hadfailedtoachievethro hadfailedtoachievethroughamicablemeans ughamicablemeanswith NAPOCORandprayed,interalia,fordamagesandtherelocationofthetransmissionlinestoLawtonAvenue,Fort Bonifacio. On13March2000,Judg On13March2000,JudgeFrancis On13March2000,JudgeFranciscoB.Ibayissuedanorder eFranciscoB.Ibay coB.Ibayissuedanorde issuedanorderr inCivilCaseNo.00-352,whichtemporarilyrestrained inCivilCaseNo.00-35 inCivilCaseNo.00-352,whichte 2,whichtempora mporarilyrest rilyrestrained rained therespondentfromenergizingandtransmittinghighvoltageelectriccurrentthroughthes therespondentfromenergizingandtransm therespondentfromenergizingandtransmittinghighvoltageelectriccurrentthroughthesaidproject. ittinghighvoltageelectriccurrentthroughthesaidproject. aidproject.Byorderof Byorderof 15March2000,thetrialcourtextendedtherestrainingorder 15March2000,thetrialcourtextendedtherestrainingorderfor18moredays for18moredays.. NAPOCORfiledaPetitionforCertiorariwithPrayerforTemporaryRestrainingOrderandPreliminary NAPOCORfiledaPetitionfor CertiorariwithPrayerfo CertiorariwithPrayerforTemporary rTemporaryRestrainingOrder RestrainingOrderandPreliminaryInjunctionwith andPreliminaryInjunctionwith Injunctionwith the Court Court of Appeals Appeals assaili assailing ng the above above order order by the trial trial court. court. Alludin Alluding g to Presid President ential ial Decree Decree No. 181 1818 8 (1981), "Prohi "Pro "Prrohi "P ohibit hibi biting biti ting ing ng Cour Court Courts urts tss from from fro fr om m Issu Issuin ing g Rest Restra rain inin ing g Or Order Ord ders de ers rss or Prelim Prel P reli relimi imin mina inar nary ary ry y Inju Injunc ncti tion ons s in Cases Cas Case Cases es s Involv Inv Invo Involv olving lvin ing g InfrastructureandNaturalResourceDevelopmentProjectsof,andPublicUtilitiesOperatedby,theGovernment, " partic particular ularly ly Sec. Sec. 1, NAPOCO NAPOCOR R stalwa stalwartl rtly y sought sought the dismis dismissal sal of the case case on the ground ground of lack lack jurisd jurisdict iction ion.. PresidentialDecreeNo.1818provides: Section1.No Section1.No Courtin Courtin thePhilippines thePhilippinesshallhavejurisd shallhavejurisdictio ictiontoissueanyrestrai ntoissueanyrestrainingorde ningorder,prelim r,preliminary inary injunc injunctio tion n or prelim prelimina inary ry manda mandator tory y injunc injunctio tion n in any case, case, disput dispute, e, or contro controver versy sy involv involving ing an infrastructureproject,oramining,fishery,forestorothernaturalresourcedevelopmentprojectofthe government,oranypublicutilityoperatedbythegovernment,includingamongotherpublicutilitiesfor transpor transport t ofthe goods goods orcommodities, orcommodities, stevedori stevedoringand ngand arrastre arrastre contract contracts,to s,to prohibitany prohibitany person person or persons,entityor persons,entit yorgovernmentofficial governmentofficialfromproceeding fromproceeding fromproceedingwithor withorcontinuingthe withorcontinuingtheexecutionor executionorimplementation implementation ofanysuchproject,ortheoperationofsuchpublicutilityorpursuinganylawfulactivityne ofanysuchproject,ortheope rationofsuchpublicutilityorpursuinganylawfulactiv itynecessaryforsuch cessaryforsuch execution,implementationor execution,implementationoroperation. operation. Intheinterregnu Intheinterregnum,by m,by orderdated orderdated 3April2000, the trialcourt trialcourt ordered ordered theissuanc theissuance e ofa writof writof prelimi preliminar nary y injunction injunction against NAPOCOR.The NAPOCOR. NAPOCOR.The OR.The trial trial court cou court rt articul art articulated artic iculate ulated ated d that that an injunct injunction ion was necessary necess necessa necessary ary ry to stay stay respondent respo respon responden ndent dentt NAPOCOR’sactivationofitspowerlinesduetothepossiblehealthrisksposedtothepetitioners.Assertingits jurisdictio juris jurisdiction diction n overthe over the case,the case, thetrial trial court was wasof ofthe theview viewthat that PresidentialDecree Presidential PresidentialDecree No.1818 No. 1818and and jurisprudence jurisprudence jurisprudence proscribinginjunctionsagainstinfrastructure proscribinginjunctions proscribinginjunctionsagainstinfrastructureprojectsdonotfindapplicationinthecaseat againstinfrastructureproje projectsdonotfindapplicationinthecaseatbarbecauseofthehealth barbecauseofthehealth risksinvolved.Thetrial risksinvolved.Thetrialcourt,thus,enjoinedthe Thetrialcourt,thus, court,thus, court,thus,enjoinedtheNAPOCORfrom enjoinedtheNAPOCORfrom enjoinedtheNAPOCOR NAPOCORfromfurtherpreparing fromfurtherpreparing furtherpreparingandinstallinghigh andinstallinghighvoltage voltagecables cables tothesteelpylonserectednearpetitioners’homesandfromenergizingandtransmittinghighvoltageelectric current current through through saidcables whilethe caseis pendingfinal adjudication adjudication, , uponposting ofthe bondamounting toP5,000,000.00executedtotheeffectthatpetitionerswillpayallthedamagestheNAPOCORmaysustainby reasonoftheinjunctionif reasonoftheinjunctioniftheC reasonoftheinjunctioniftheC theC ourtshouldfinallydecidethatthe ourtshouldfinallydecidethatthepetitionersarenot petitionersarenotentitledthereto. entitledthereto. Withhealthriskslinkedtoexposureto electromagne Withhealthriskslinkedtoexposureto electromagneticradiatio ticradiationas nas theirbattlecry,petitioners theirbattlecry,petitioners,allresidentsof ,allresidentsof DasmariñasVillage,areclamoringforthereversalofthede cision dated3May2000oftheCourtofAppealsinCADasmariñasVillage,areclamoringforthereversalofthedecision dated3May 2000oftheCourtof AppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.57849aswellasthe G.R.SPNo.57849aswellastheresolutiondated27September2000, resolutiondated27September2000,denyingtheirmotionforreco denyingtheirmotionforreconsideration. nsideration. TheassaileddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsreversed Theassaileddecision TheassaileddecisionoftheC oftheCourtofAppealsreversedtheorderof ourtofAppealsreversedtheorder ourtofAppealsreversedtheorderoftheRegionalTrialCourtof theorderoftheRegional oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati, theRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,issuingawrit Makati,issuingawrit of prelim preliminar inary y injunct injunction ion agains against t respon responden dent t Nation National al Power Power Corpor Corporati ation on (NAPOC (NAPOCOR) OR) to stay stay the latter latter from from energizing energizing and transmittin transmitting g high voltage voltage electric electric current current through through its cableserected fromSucat, Parañaque Parañaque to AranetaAve.,QuezonCity. PetitionersclutchontheirstandthatPresidentialDecreeNo.1818couldnotbeconstruedtoapplytocasesof extremeurgencyasin extremeurgencyasinthepresentcase extremeurgencyasinthepresentcasewhennolessthan thepresentcasewhenno whennolessthantherightsof lessthantherightsofthepetitioners therightsofthepetitionerstohealthandsafetyhangson thepetitionerstohealth tohealthandsafety andsafetyhangson hangson thebalance. ISSUE:Whetherornotthetrialcourtmayissueatemporaryrestrainingorderandpreliminaryinjunctiontoenjoin theconstructionandoperationofthe29decagon-shapedsteelpolesortowersbytheNAPOCOR,notwithstanding PresidentialDecreeNo.1818. HELD:Yes,thepetitionshouldbegranted. CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

PresidentialDecreeNo.1818prohibitscourtsfromissuinginjunctionsagainstgovernmentinfrastructureprojects. In Garciav.Burgos,PresidentialDecreeNo.1818washeldt ,PresidentialDecreeNo.1818washeldtoprohibitcourtsfromissuinganinjunctionagainstany oprohibitcourtsfromissuinganinjunctionagainstany infrastructureprojectinordernottodisruptorhamperthepursuitofessentialgovernmentprojectsorfrustratethe infrastructureprojectinordernottodisruptor hamperthepursuitofessentialgovernmentprojectsorfrustratethe economicdevelopmenteffortofthenation. Whileitssoleprovis Whileitssoleprovisionwould Whileitssoleprovisionwouldappear ionwouldappeartoencompass appeartoencompassallcases toencompassall toencompassallcasesinvolving allcasesinvolvingthe casesinvolvingtheimplementation involvingtheimplementationof theimplementationofprojectsandcontra implementationof ofprojectsandcontracts projectsandcontracts cts oninfrastructure,naturalresourcedevelopment oninfrastructure,naturalresourcedevelopmentandpublicutilities,this andpublicutilities,thisrul rul e,however,isnotabsoluteasthereare e,however,isnotabsolutea e,however,isnotabsoluteasthereare actuallyinstances actuallyinstanceswhen when Presidential PresidentialDecreeNo.1818shouldnotfindapplication. DecreeNo.1818shouldnotfindapplication.In In aspateofcases,thisCourt declaredthatalthoughPresidentialDecreeNo.1818prohibitsanycourtfromissuinginjunctionsincasesinvolving infrastruct infrastructureprojects ureprojects,the ,the prohibition prohibition extendsonly extendsonly tothe issuanceof issuanceof injunctionsorrestrainin injunctionsorrestrainingordersagainst gordersagainst administrativeactsincontroversiesinvolvingfactsortheexerciseofdiscretionintechnicalcases.Onissuesclearly outsidethisdimensionandinvolvingquestionsoflaw,thisCourtdeclaredthatcourtscouldnotbepreventedf outsidethisdimensionandinvolvingquestions outsidethisdimensionandinvolvingquestionsoflaw,this oflaw,thisCourtdeclaredthatcourtscouldnotbepreventedfrom Courtdeclaredthatcourtscouldnotbepreventedfrom rom exercisingtheirpowertorestrain exercisingtheirpower torestrainorprohibitadministrat orprohibitadministrativeacts. iveacts. Inthecaseatbar,petitionerssoughttheissuanceofapreliminaryinjunctiononthegroundthattheNAPOCOR ProjectimpingedontheirrighttohealthasenshrinedinArticleII,Section15ofthe1987Constitution(rightto health). To boot, petitioners petitioners, , moreover, moreover, harp on responden respondent’s t’s failure to conduct conduct prior consultation consultation with them, them them,as them,as , asthe the communityaffectedbytheproject,instarkviolationofSection27oftheLocalGovernmentCodewhichprovides: "noprojectorprogramshallbeimplementedbygovernmentauthoritiesunlesstheconsultationsmentionedare compliedwith,andpriorapprovalofthe Sanggunianconcernedisobserved." Fromthe foregoing,whether foregoing,whether there is a violation violation of petitioner petitioners’ s’ constitutio constitutionally nally protected protected right to health health and whetherrespondentNAPOCORhadindeedviolatedtheLocalGovernmentCodeprovisiononpriorconsultationwith whetherrespondentNAPOCORhadindeedviolatedtheLocalGovernmentCodeprovision onpriorconsultationwith theaffectedcommunitiesareveritablequestions theaffectedcommunitiesareveritablequestionsoflawt oflawthatinvestedthetrial oflawthatinvestedthetrialcourtwithjurisdictionto hatinvestedthetrial hatinvestedthetrialcourtwithjurisdictiontoissuea courtwithjurisdictiontoissueaTRO issueaTRO TRO andsubsequently,apreliminaryinjunction.Assuch,thesequestionsoflawdivestthecasefromtheprotective mantleofPresidentialDecreeNo.1818. Here,thereisadequateevidenceonrecord Here,thereisadequateevidenceonrecordtojustifyt tojustifytheconclusionthat heconclusionthattheprojectof theprojectofNAPOCORprobably NAPOCORprobablyimperils imperils the healthandsafet healthandsafetyof yof thepetitio thepetitioner nersso sso astojustifytheissua astojustifytheissuance nce bythetrial courtofa courtofa writofprelim writofprelimina inary ry injunction.--Petitionersadducedinevidencecopiesofstudieslinkingtheincidenceofillnessessuchascancerand injunction.--Petitionersadducedinevidencecopiesof studieslinkingtheincidenceofillnessessuchascancerand leukemiatoexposuretoelectromagneticfields.Therecordsbearout,toboot,acopyofabrochureofNAPOCOR regardingitsQuezonPowerProject regardingitsQuezonPowerProjectfromwhichwill fromwhichwillbe be supplyingNAPOCORwith besupplyingNAPOCORwith supplyingNAPOCORwiththepowerwhich thepowerwhichwillpassthrough willpassthrough thetowerssubjectofthecontroversy.TheNAPOCORbrochureprovidesthatbecauseofthedangerconcomitant withhighvoltagepower, withhighvoltagepower,Philippinelawsmandate Philippinelawsmandatethat thatthepowerlinesshouldbe thepower thepowerlinesshouldbe thepowerlinesshouldbelocatedwithin linesshouldbelocatedwithin locatedwithinsafedistances locatedwithinsafedistances safedistancesfrom safedistancesfrom from from residences.AndtheQuezonPowerProjectmandatesaneasementof20meterstotherightand20meterstothe leftwhichfallsshortofthe12-metereasementthatNAPOCORwasproposingtoAfterall,forawritofpreliminary injunctiontobeissued,theRulesdonotrequirethattheactcomplainedofbeinviolationoftherightsofthe applicant.Indeed,whattheRulesrequireisthattheactcomplainedofbeprobablyinviolationoftherightsof applicant.UndertheRulesofCourt,probabilityisenoughbasisforinjunctiontoissueasaprovisionalremedy,which applicant.UndertheRulesofCourt,probabilityisenoughbasisforinjunctiontoissueas aprovisionalremedy,which isdifferentfrominjunctionasamainactionwhere isdifferentfrominjunction asamainactionwhereoneneedstoestablishabsolutecert oneneedstoestablishabsolutecertaintyasbasisfor aintyasbasisforafinaland afinaland permanentinjunction. Buendiav.CityofIligan GRNo.132209April29,2005 PerJ.Chico-Nazario Facts: On05October1992,petitionerBuendiafiledwiththeNWRBanapplicationfortheappropriationofwaterfroma springlocatedwithinhispr springlocatedwithinhispropertyin opertyinDitucalan,IliganCity. Ditucalan,IliganCity.Inthe Intheabsenceof absenceofproteststo proteststotheapplications theapplicationsbeingtimely beingtimely filed,theNWRB,afterevaluatingpetitioner'sapplications,issuedon25 filed,theNWRB,after evaluatingpetitioner'sapplications,issuedon25June1993,WaterPermits. June1993,WaterPermits.


On17November1993,almostfive(5)monthsafterpetitioner'sWaterPermitswereissued,respondentCityofIligan filedwiththeNWRBan"Oppositionand/orAppeal"contestingtheissuanceofsaidwaterpermitsto filedwiththeNWRBan "Oppositionand/orAppeal"contestingtheissuanceofsaidwaterpermitstopetitioner.The petitioner.The Oppositionand/orAppealsoughttoserveasboth Oppositionand/orAppealsoughttoserveasbothaprotestagainstpetitione aprotestagainstpetitioner'swaterpermitapplications,aswell r'swaterpermitapplications,aswell asanappealtotheNWRB'sgrantofthewaterpermitstopetitioner. On10March1994,theNWRBissuedanOrder On10March1 994,theNWRBissuedanOrderdismissingrespondent'sOpposi dismissingrespondent'sOppositionand/orAppeal.The"Opposition" tionand/orAppeal.The"Opposition" partwasdismissedforbeingfiledoutoftime,whilethe"Appeal"partwasdismissedasa partwasdismissedforbeingfiledoutof time,whilethe"Appeal"partwasdismissedasaconsequenceofthedenial consequenceofthedenial oftheoppositiontotheapplication,i.e.,intheabsenceofa oftheoppositiontotheapplication,i.e., intheabsenceofaverifiedprotesthavingbeenseasonablyfiled,nowater verifiedprotesthavingbeenseasonablyfiled,nowater rightscontroversyarose;hence,therewasnodecisionfromwhichrespondentmayappealfrom. rightscontroversyarose;hence,therewasnodecisionfrom whichrespondentmayappealfrom. Issue:WhetherBuendiahastherighttoappropriatethewater.(YES) Holding: Articles16and17ofthe Articles16and17oftheWaterCode WaterCodeofthe ofthePhilippinespro Philippinesprovide: vide: Art.16.Anypersonwho Art.16.Anypersonwhodesirestoo desirestoobtainawater btainawaterpermitshallf permitshallfileanapplication ileanapplicationwith with theCouncil[nowBoard]whoshallmake theCouncil[nowBoard]whoshallmakeknownsaidapplication knownsaidapplicationtothepublicfo tothepublicforany rany protests. Indeterminingwhethertograntordenyanapplication,theCouncil[nowBoard]shall considerthefollowing:protestsfiled,ifany;priorpermitsgranted;theavailabilityof water;thewatersupplyneededforbeneficialuse;p water;thewatersupplynee dedforbeneficialuse;possibleadverseeffects ossibleadverseeffects;land-use ;land-use economics;andotherrelevantfactors. Uponapprovalofanap Uponapprovalofanapplication,awater plication,awaterpermitshallb permitshallbeissued eissuedandrecorde andrecorded. d. Art.17.Therighttotheuseofwaterisdeemedacquiredas Art.17.Therighttotheuse ofwaterisdeemedacquiredasofthedateoffiling ofthedateoffilingoftheapplicationfora oftheapplicationforawaterpermit waterpermit incaseofapprovedpermits,orasofthedateofactualuseinacasewherenopermitisrequired. Froma Froma readingoftheabov readingoftheaboveprovisi eprovisions, ons,itis itis evidentthatafte evidentthatafteranapplicat ranapplicationtoobta iontoobtainawaterpermi inawaterpermithasbeen thasbeen madeknowntothepublic,anyinterestedpartymustfilehisprot madeknowntothepub lic,anyinterestedpartymustfilehisprotestthereto,inordertha estthereto,inorderthattheapplicationmaybe ttheapplicationmaybe properlyevaluated.Otherwise,aftertheapplicationforawaterpermithasbeenapproved,thegranteeofthepermit nowacquiresanexclusiverighttousethewatersource,reckonedfromthedateofthefilingoftheapplications. Thus,afterpetitioner'srighttothewaterpermithasbeenproperlyadjudicated,respondentmaynolongerbelatedly Thus,afterpetitioner'srighttothewaterpermithas beenproperlyadjudicated,respondentmaynolongerbelatedly questionsaidgrant.Byvirtueofre questionsaidgrant.Byvirtueofrespondent's spondent'sfailuretolodgeat failuretolodgeatimelyprotest,pet imelyprotest,petitionerhasalreadyacq itionerhasalreadyacquiredthe uiredthe righttoappropriatethewaterfromthespringinsidethelatter'sproperty. Inconclusion,thefailureofrespondentCityofIligantotimelyopposethewaterpermitapplications,andlateronto filethePetitionforCertiorariwithinareasonabletimehastheeffectofr filethePetitionforCertiorariwithina reasonabletimehastheeffectofrenderingthegrantofthewaterpermitsto enderingthegrantofthewaterpermitsto petitionerBuendiafinalandexecutory. REMMANENTERPRISESvs.COURTOFAPPEALS G.R.No.125018,April6,2000

Facts: PetitionerREMMANEnterprises,Inc.(REMMAN)andprivaterespondentCrispinLatareownersofadjoininglots. tress, while while REMMAN REMMAN devot devotes es its land land to its pigger piggery y Lat’s Lat’s land is agricul agricultur tural al and planted planted mostly mostly with fruit fruit tress, REMMAN’slandis1½metershigherin higherinelevationthan elevationthanthat elevationthanthatofrespondentLat. that thatofrespondentLat. ofrespondentLat. SometimeinJuly1984,Lat business. REMMAN’slandis1½meters SometimeinJuly1984,Lat noticedthatREMMAN’swastedisposallagoonwasalreadyoverflowingandinundatinghispl antati ant antation. ation. on. He Hemade made severalrepresentationswithREMMANbutthelatterfellonde severalrepresentationswit hREMMANbutthelatterfellondeafears. afears. OnMarch14,1985,aft OnMarch OnMarch14,1985,afteralmostonehectare 14,1985,afteralmost eralmostonehe onehectare ctare ofLat’splantationwasalreadyinundatedwithankle -deepwatercontainingpigmanure,asaresultofwhichtrees growingon growingon theflooded portionstartedto portionstartedto wither wither anddie, Latfiled a complaintfor complaintfor damages damages withpreliminary withpreliminary mandatoryinjunction mandatoryinjunctionagainstRE mandatoryinjunctionagainstREMMAN. againstREMMAN. MMAN. REMMANdeniedth REMMANde REMMANdeniedtheallegationsandarguedthatadditionalmeasu niedthealleg eallegationsandarguedthatadditionalmeasuressuch ressuch CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz–Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

astheconstructionofadditionallagoonswerealready astheconstructionofadditionallagoonswerealreadyadoptedtocontainthewast adoptedtocontainthewastewatercomingfrom ewatercomingfromitspiggery itspiggery topreventanydamagetotheadjoininge topreventanydamaget otheadjoiningestates. states. states. ThetrialcourtheldREMMANliablefor Thetrialcourt Thetrialcourthe heldREMMANliablefordamages. damages. damages. Inthispetition, Inthispetitio Inthispetition, n, REMMANcontendsthatitsnegligenceandliabilityfordamageswere REMMANcontendsthatits negligenceandliabilityfordamageswerenotsufficientlyestablished. notsufficientlyestablished. Italsoraisesthe defenseoffortuitousevent(heavyrains)whichcausedtheinundationof defenseoffortuitousevent(heavyrains)which causedtheinundationofLat’splantation,andthesupposednatural Lat’splantation,andthesupposednatural easementimposeduponLat’sproperty. Issu Is Issue: sue: e: WhetherornotREMMAN Whet Whethe hero ror rnotREMMANnegligent negligentandshould andshouldbeheld beheldliablefor liablefordamages? damages? Held: YES. REMMAN’snegligencewasclearly REMMAN’snegligencewasclearlyestablished. established. Lat’spropertywasprac Lat’spropertywaspracticallymade ticallymadeacatchbasinofpoll acatchbasinofpolluted uted waterandothernoxioussubstancesemptyingfromREMMAN’spiggerywhichcouldhavebeenpreventedhadit not beenforthenegligenceofappellantarisingfromits:(a)failuretomonitortheincreasesinthelevelof beenforthenegligenceofappellantarisingfr beenforthenegligenceofappellantarisingfromits:(a) omits:(a)failuretomonitortheincreasesinthelevelof failuretomonitortheincreasesinthelevelofwaterinthe waterinthe lagoonsbefore,duringandaftertheheavydownpours;(b)failuretoaugmenttheexistinglagoonspriortothe incident,notwithstandingthefactthatatthetimeoftheflooding,thepiggeryhadgrowntoacapacityof11,000 heads,andconsideringthatitwasreasonablyforeseeablethatthe heads,andconsideringthatit wasreasonablyforeseeablethattheexistingwastedisposalfacilitieswereno existingwastedisposalfacilitieswerenolonger longer adequatetoaccommodatetheincreasingvolumeofwastematters;and(c)therepeatedfailuretocomplywithits promisetoprivaterespondent.REMMAN’sassertionthatthedamages,ifany,wereduetoafortuitouseventisnot promisetoprivaterespondent.REMMAN’sassertionthatthedamages,ifany,weredueto afortuitouseventisnot welltaken. Eveniftheheavyrainsconst EveniftheheavyrainsconstitutedanactofGo itutedanactofGod,REMMANwasst itutedanactofGod,REMMANwasstillguiltyof d,REMMANwasstillgu illguiltyofnegligence. illguiltyofnegligence. negligence. Theeventwas notoccasioned notoccasionedexclusive exclusivelybyanactofGodorforcemaje lybyanactofGodorforcemajeure;ahumanfact ure;ahumanfactor or –negligenceorimprudence –had intervened. Theeffectthenoftheforcemajeureinquestionmaybedeemedtohave,evenifonlypartly,resulted Theeffectthenoftheforcemajeurein questionmaybedeemedtohave, evenifonlypartly,resulted fromtheparticipationofman. Thus,thewholeoccurrencewastherebyhumanized,asitwere,andremove Thus,thewholeoccurrencewastherebyhumanized,asitwere,andremovedfrom dfrom therulesapplicabletoactsofGod.AsregardsthecontendednaturaleasementimposeduponLat’sproperty,Article therulesapplicabletoactsofGod.Asregardsthecontended naturaleasementimposeduponLat’sproperty,Article 637providesthatlowerestatesareimposedtheobligationtoreceivethewaterswhichnaturallyandwithoutthe interventionofmandescend fromhigherestates. However,wherethewaterswhichflowfromahigherstateare interventionofmandescendfromhigherestates. However,wherethewaters whichflowfromahigh erstateare thosewhichareartificiallycollectedinman-madelagoons,anydamageoccasionedtherebyentitlestheownerof thelowerorservientestate thelowerorservientestatetocompensation. tocompensation. LOVINAVSMORENO GRNo. GRNo.L-17821 L-1782 L-17821 1 November29, Novemb November er29,1963 1963 Doctrine:TheSecretaryofPublicWorksandCommunicationsunrestrainedfinalandunappealableauthorityupon

issueswhetherastream issueswhetherastreamispublicandnavigable,whetherthe issueswhetherastreamispublic ispublicandnavigable,whetherthedamencroaches andnavigable,whetherthedam andnavigable,whether thedamencroachesuponsuchwatersand damencroachesupon encroachesuponsuchwatersandasconstitutive uponsuchwatersandasconstitutive asconstitutive asapublicnuisanceandwhetherthelawappliestothestateoffacts. FACTS:

NumerousresidentsofMacabebe,Pampangacomplained thatappelleesblockedthe“SapangBula thatappelleesblockedthe“SapangBulati”,anavigable ti”,anavigable riverinthesamemunicipalityandaskedthattheobstructionsbeorderedremoved,undertheprovisionsof riverinthesamemunicipalityand askedthattheobstructionsbeorderedremoved,undertheprovisionsofRA2056. RA2056. Afternoticeandhearingoftheparties,SecofPublicWorksandcommunicationsfoundtheconstructionstobea publicnuisanceinnavigablewatersandorderedthelandownerstoremove publicnuisanceinnavigablewatersandorderedtheland ownerstoremove5closuresofSalapangBulat 5closuresofSalapangBulati. i. Appelle App Appelles elles s conten con contend tend d that that RA 205 2056 6 isunconsti isuncon isuncons unconstit stitut tituti tution utiona ional onal al l as it invests invests in said said secret secretary retary ar ary y with wit with with h unrest unr unres estrai estr trai rainedfinal aine nedfinal ned d final final and unappealableaut unappealableauthority unappealableauthorityupon horityupon upon issueswhetherastreamispublicandnavigable,whetherthedamencr issueswhether issueswhetherast astreamispublicandnavigable,whetherthedamencroachesupon oachesupon suchwatersandasconstitutiveasapublicnuisanceandwhetherthelawappliestothestateoffacts,thereby constitutinganallegedunlawfuldelegationofjudicialpow constitutinganallegedunlawful delegationofjudicialpowerto delegationofjudicialpowertosaidsecretary. ertosaidsecretary. ertosaidsecretary. ISSUE:

WONthereisanunlawfuldelegationofjudicialpower.NONE WONthereisanunlawfuldelegationof judicialpower.NONE SCRULING:

RA 2056merely empowersthe empowersthe Secretaryto Secretaryto remove remove unauthorize unauthorized d obstructio obstructions ns or encroachment encroachments s uponpublic streams,constructionsthatnoprivatepersonwas streams,constructions thatnoprivatepersonwasanywayentitledtomakebecauset anywayentitledtomakebecausethebedifnavigablestreamsis hebedifnavigablestreamsis publicpropertyandownershipthereofis publicpropertyandownershipthereofisnotacquirableby publicpropertyandownershipthereofisnotacquirablebyadversepossession. notacquirablebyadversepossession.

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz –Galandines –Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

Itistruethattheexerciseofthesecretary’spowerundertheactne cessarilyinvolvesthedeterminationofsome questionsoffactbutthesefunctionswhetherjudicialorquasi-judicialaremerelyincidentaltotheexerciseofthe powergrantedbylawprovidedthatthepartyaffected powergrantedbylawprovidedthatthepartyaffectedisgivenopportunityt powergrantedbylawprovidedthat thepartyaffectedisgivenopportunitytobeheard. isgivenopportunitytobe obeheard. Themerefactthat Themerefactthatanofficeisrequiredby Themerefactthatan anofficeisrequiredbythelaw officeisrequiredbythe officeisrequiredbythelawtoinquiretheexistence thelaw lawtoinquiretheexistenceofcertain toinquiretheexistenceof toinquiretheexistenceofcertain ofcertainfactsand certainfactsandapplythelaw factsandapplythelawthereto factsandapplythelawthereto thereto inordertodeterminewhathisofficialconductshallbeandthefactthattheseacts inordertodeterminewhathisofficialconductshall beandthefactthattheseactsmayaffectprivaterightsdonot mayaffectprivaterightsdonot constituteanexerciseof constituteanexerciseofjudicialpowers. judicialpowers.Accordingly,a Accordingly,astatuemay statuemaygiveto givetonon-judicialo non-judicialofficersthepowertodeclare fficersthepowerto fficersthepowertodeclare declare theexistenceoffactswhichcallintooperationitsprovisionsandsimilarlymaygranttocommissionersandother subordinateofficerpowerto subordinateofficerpowertoascertainand ascertainanddetermineappropriate determineappropriatefactsa determineappropriatefactsasabasisfo factsasabasisforprocedure factsasabasisforprocedureintheenforcement rprocedurein intheenforcement ofparticularlaws. ItisnoteworthythatRA2056authorizesremovalofunauthorizeddikeseitheraspublicnuisancesorasprohibited constructionsonpublicnavigablenavigablestreamsandthoseofappelleesclearlyareinthe constructionsonpublicnavigablenavigables treamsandthoseofappelleesclearlyareinthelatterclass. latterclass. latterclass. Infine,it Infine,it isheldthatRA2P56foesnotconstituteunlawfuldelegationofjudicialpowerandsuchpowershouldberespected intheabsenceoflegality,erroroflaw,fraudorimpositionsolongasthesaid intheabsenceoflegality,erroroflaw, fraudorimpositionsolongasthesaidfindingsaresupportedwithsubstantial findingsaresupportedwithsubstantial evidencesubmittedtohim. TANJAYWATERDISTRICTVSGABATON GRNO. GRNO.L-63742 L-63 L-6374 742 2 17April 17A 17April1989 1989

FACTS TanjayWaterDistrictfiledintheRTCofNegrosOriental,DumagueteCity,anactionforinjuctionwithpreliminary mandatoryinjunctionanddamagers,againsttheMunicipalityofPamplonaanditsofficialstopreventthemfrom interferinginthemanagementoftheTanjayWaterworksSystem.Thejudgeofsaidcourtdismissedthecomplaint for for lack lack of juri jurisd sdic icti tion on over over the the subj subjec ect t matt matter er (wat (water er) ) and and over over the the part partie ies s (bot (both h bein being g gove govern rnme ment nt instrumentalities)byvirtueof instrumentalities)byvirtueofArt.88 instrumentalities)byvirtueofArt.88ofPD Art.88ofPD1067and ofPD1067andPD 1067andPD242.Hedeclaredthat 1067andPD242.Hedeclaredthatthepetitioner's PD242.Hedeclaredthatthe 242.Hedeclaredthatthepetitioner'srecourse thepetitioner'srecourseto petitioner'srecoursetothe recoursetothecourt tothecourt thecourt court wasprematurebecausethecontrov wasprematurebecausethecontroversyshould ersyshouldhave have beenventilatedfirstbeforetheNationa beenventilatedfirstbeforetheNationalWaterResource lWaterResourcess Coun Counci cil l purs pursua uant nt to Arts Arts. . 88 and 89 of PD No. No. 10 1067 67. . He furt furthe her r ruled ruled that that as the the part parties ies are are gove govern rnme ment nt instrumentalities,thedisputeshouldbeadministrativelys instrumentalities,thedispute shouldbeadministrativelysettledinaccordancewith ettledinaccordancewithPDNo. PDNo.242. 242. Inthesecondcase,JosefinoDatuinfiledacomplaintforillegaldismissalagainstTarlacWaterDistrictintheDOLE whichdecidedinitsfavor.How whichdecidedinitsfavor.However,upo ever,uponrespon nrespondent dent’sMRwhichwastreate ’sMRwhichwastreatedasanappeal,theNatio dasanappeal,theNationalLabor nalLabor RelationsCommission(NLRC)reversedthedecisionand dismissedthecomplaintfor“lackofjurisdiction”,holding thatastherespondentTarlacWaterDistrictisacorporationcreatedbyaspeciallaw(PDNo.198),itsofficersand employeesbelongtothecivilserviceand employeesbelongto thecivilserviceandtheirseparationfro theirseparationfromoff theirseparationfromofficeshouldbegovernedby moff mofficeshouldbegovernedby iceshouldbegovernedbyCivilServiceRulesand CivilServiceRulesand Regulations. ISSUE Whetherornotwaterdistrict WhetherornotwaterdistrictscreatedunderPDNo.198, screatedunderPDNo.198,as as amended,areprivatecorpo amended,areprivatecorporatio rationsorgovernme nsorgovernmentntownedorcontrolledcorporations HELD TheCourtruledinthecaseof HagonoyWaterDistrictvs.NLRC ,G.R.No.81490, ,G.R.No.81490,August31,1988,that ,G.R.No.81490,August31, August31,1988,thatwaterdistricts 1988,thatwaterdistricts waterdistricts arequasipubliccorporationswhoseemployeesbelongtothe arequasipubliccorporationsw hoseemployeesbelongtothecivilservice,hence,thedismissalof civilservice,hence,thedismissalofthoseemployees thoseemployees shallbegovernedbythecivilservicelaw,rulesandregulations.Thehiringandfiringofemployeesofgovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations ownedorcontrolledcorporationsaregovernedbythe aregovernedbytheCivilServiceLa aregovernedbytheCivilServiceLawandCivilServiceRulesand CivilServiceLa CivilServiceLawandCivilServiceRulesand wandCivilServiceRulesandRegulations. Regulations. ArticleXIBSection2(l) ArticleXIBSection2(l)ofthe ArticleXIBSection2(l)ofthe1 ofthe1 1 987Constitutionprovidesthat 987Constitutionprovidesthat"(t)hecivil "(t)hecivilserviceembraces serviceembracesallbranches,subdivisions, allbranches,subdivisions, instrumenta instrumentalities, lities, andagenciesofthe government, government, includinggovernment-ownedorcontrolledcorporationswith originalcharters ."InasmuchasPDNo.198,asamended,istheoriginalcharterofthepetitioner,TanjayWater District,andrespondentTarlacWaterDistrictandallwaterdistrictsinthecountry,theycomeunderthecoverage ofthecivilservicelaw,rulesandregulations.


GreenpeacevsEMBDENR CA-GR CA-GRSP SPNo. No.00013 00013 0013 May17, May May17,2013 2013

Facts: ThisisaPetitionforwritofcontinuingmanda ThisisaPetitionforwritofcontinuingmandamusandwritofkalikas musandwritofkalikasanwithprayerforissua anwithprayerforissuanceofatemporary nceofatemporary environmentalProtectionorder(TEPO). Insupportofthepetitionformandamus,petitioner Insupportofthepetitionformandamus,petitionersaverredthat,pursuantto saverredthat,pursuanttoPDNo.1586, saverredthat,pursuanttoPDNo.1586,inrelationtoPD1151, PDNo.1586, PDNo.1586,inrelationtoPD1151, inrelationtoPD1151, thePHEnvironmentalImpactStatementSystem(PEISS)wasestablishedwhichrequiredthesubmissionofanEIS beforeanyproposalor beforeanyproposalorprojectbyagovernmentagency beforeanyproposalorprojectby projectbyagovernmentagencyora agovernmentagencyor agovernmentagencyoraprivateentitythatsignificantly oraprivate aprivateentitythatsignificantlyaffectsthe privateentitythatsignificantlyaffectstheenvironment affectstheenvironment environment maybeimplemented.InlinewiththePEISS,DENRissued maybeimplemented.InlinewiththeP maybeimplemented.InlinewiththePEISS,DENRissuedDAONo.2003 EISS,DENRissuedDAONo.2003 DAONo.2003-30whichrequiresanyprojectthatposesa -30whichrequiresanyprojectthatposesa potentialenvironmentalrisktosecurefromitanECCwhichwouldcertifythattheproposedprojectwouldnotcause potentialenvironmentalrisktosecurefromitanECC whichwouldcertifythattheproposedprojectwouldnotcause asignificantnegativeimpa asignificantnegativeimpactontheenvironmen ctontheenvironment,citingDAONo.08-20 t,citingDAONo.08-2002oftheDENRwhichpresume 02oftheDENRwhichpresumesGMOas sGMOas harmfultoandsignificantlyaffectstheenvironment. harmfultoandsignificantlyaffectstheenvironment.Consequently,petitioners harmfultoandsignificantlyaffects theenvironment.Consequently,petitioners theenvironment.Consequently,petitionersmaintainedthat maintainedthatbttalong bttalongfieldtrials fieldtrials didnotcomplywiththePEISSLawinthattheproponentsofthesaidfieldtrialsdidnotsecureanECCfromtheDENR andprayedthatpublicrespondentsberestrainedfromconductingfieldtestsofbttalong,onvariouslocationsof thePHonthegroundsthatthesaidfieldtrialsviolateorthreatentoviolatetherightofFilipinocitizenstoabalanced thePHonthegroundsthatthesaidfieldtrialsviolateorthreatento violatetherightofFilipinocitizenstoabalanced andhealthfulecology. Issue:Whetherornottheconduct Issue:Whetherornottheconductofthebt ofthebttalongfiledtrials ofthebttalongfiledtrialshasviolatedtheconstitutional talongfiledtrials talongfiledtrialshasviolatedtheconstitutionalrightofthe hasviolatedtheconstitutionalrightof hasviolatedtheconstitutionalrightofthepeopleto rightofthepeopletoa thepeopletoa peopletoa a balancedandhealthfulecology. Held: TheCAheldthattheissuanceofawritofkalikasanisinorder. Thewritofkalikasanisaremedyavailabletoanaturalorjuridicalpersonorentityauthorizedbylaw,people ’s organizatio organization,non-govern n,non-governmentalorganiza mentalorganizationor tionor anypublic interest interest groupaccredited groupaccredited by orregisteredwithany governmentagencyonbehalfofpersonswhoseconstitutional governmentagencyonbehalfof personswhoseconstitutionalrighttoabalancedandhealthfulecology righttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyisviolated, isviolated, orthreatenedwithviolationbyanunlawfulactoromissionofapublicofficialoremployee,orprivateindividualor entity,involvingenvironmentaldamage entity,involvingenvironmentaldamageofsuch entity,involvingenvironmentaldamageofsuchmagnitudeasto ofsuchmagnitudeas magnitudeastoprejudicethelife, toprejudicethelife,health,or prejudicethelife,health,orpropertyofinhabitants health,orpropertyof propertyofinhabitants inhabitants intwoormorecities intwoormorecitiesorprovinces. orprovinces. The Rules Rules of Proced Procedure ure for Enviro Environme nmenta ntal l Cases, Cases, specif specifica icallyRule llyRule 20 of this this Rule, Rule, has set forth forth the so-call so-called ed “precautionaryprinciple”whichstatesasfollows:

Section1. Applicability. -Whenthereisalackoffullscientificcertaintyinestablishinga causallinkbetweenhumanactivityandenvironmentaleffect,thecourtshallapplythe precautionaryprincipleinresolvingthecasebeforeit. Theconstitutionalrightof Theconstitutionalrightofthepeople thepeopletoa toabalancedandhealthful balancedandhealthfulecologyshall ecologyshallbegiventhe begiventhe benefitofthedoubt.

Standardsforapplication.-Inapplyingtheprecautionary Standardsforapplication. -Inapplyingtheprecautionaryprinciple,thefollowing applyingtheprecautionaryprinciple,the principle,thefollowing Section2.Standardsforapplication.-In factors,amongothers,maybeconsidered:(1)threatstohumanlifeorhealth;(2)inequity to presen present t or future future generat generation ions; s; or (3) prejudi prejudice ce to the environ environmen ment t withou without t legal legal considerationoftheenvironmentalrightso considerationoftheenvironmentalrightsofthoseaf fthoseaffected. fected. Theprecautionaryprincipleespeciallyfinds Theprecautionaryprincipleespeciallyfindsrelevancein Theprecautionaryprincipleespeciallyfindsrelevanceinthecaseatbenchinthat relevanceinthecase thecaseatbench atbenchinthatthepresent inthatthepresentcontroversy thepresentcontroversydealswith controversydealswith dealswith theageneticallymodifiedorganismthatwouldbeintroducedintoourecosystemandeventuallytothePhilippine marketforhumancons marketforhumanconsumptio umption.Inthislight,theCAfinds n.Inthislight,theCAfindsthattheissuance thattheissuanceofthewritofkalikas ofthewritofkalikasaniswarrant aniswarranted ed underthecircumstances,bearinginmindthatthefundamentallawofthisland,nolessthanthe1987Philippine Constitution,explicitlydeclaresasastatepolicyto “protectandadvancetherightofthepeopletoabalanceand healthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhythmandharmonyofnature healthfulecologyinaccordwiththerhy thmandharmonyofnature ””.

CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz – Galandines – Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

FELICIANOvs.GISON G.R.No.165641 G.R.No.165641 165641 August25,2010 August August25,2010

Thepresentpetitionarosefromthetaxcaseinitiatedby taxcaseinitiatedbyLMWDafteritfiledwitht LMWDafteritfiledwiththeDepartmentofFin heDepartmentofFinance ance FACTS: Thepresentpetitionarosefromthe (DOF)apetitionrequestingthatcertainwatersupplyequipmentandamotorvehicle,particularlyaToyotaHi-Lux pick-uptruck,beexemptedfromtax.ThesepropertiesweregiventoLMWDthroughagrantbytheJapanese Governmentfortherehabilitationof Governmentfortherehabilitationofitstyphoon Governmentfortherehabilitationofitstyphoon-damagedwatersupplysystem. itstyphoon -damagedwatersupplysystem. InanindorsementdatedJuly5,1995,theDOFgrantedthetaxexemptiononthewatersupplyequipmentbut assessedthecorrespondingtaxanddutyontheToyotaHi-Luxpick-uptruck.OnJune9,2000,LMWDmovedto reconsiderthedisa reconsiderthedisallowan llowanceofthetaxexempt ceofthetaxexemptiononthesubjec iononthesubjectvehicle. tvehicle.TheDOF,throug TheDOF,throughthenUnderse hthenUndersecretar cretary y CornelioC.Gison,deniedLMWDsrequestforreconsiderationbecausethetaxexemptionprivilegesofgovernment CornelioC.Gison,deniedLMWDsr equestforreconsiderationbecausethetaxexemptionprivilegesofgovernment agenciesandgovernmentownedandcontrolledcorporations(GOCCs)hadalreadybeenwithdrawnbyExecutive OrderNo.93.ThispromptedLMWD,throughits OrderNo.93.ThispromptedLMWD,throughitsGeneralManagerEngr.RanulfoC GeneralManagerEngr.RanulfoC.Feliciano,toappealto .Feliciano,toappealtotheCTA. theCTA. Afterconsideringtheevidencepresentedatthehearing,theCTAfoundLMWDtobeaGOCC Afterconsideringtheevidencepresentedatthehearing,theCTAfoundLMWDto beaGOCCwithanoriginalcharter. withanoriginalcharter. Forthisreason,theCTAresolvedtodismissLMWDsappealforlackofjurisdictiontotakecognizanceofthecase. TheCTAsresolutionwaswithoutprejudicetotherightofLMWDtorefilethecase,ifit TheCTAsresolutionwaswithoutprejudicetotherightofLMWD torefilethecase,if torefilethecase,ifitsodesires,in itsodesires,intheappropriate sodesires,intheappropriate theappropriate forum. Likewise, the CTA denied LMWDs motion to reconsider the dismissal of its appeal. LMWDfiledapetitionforreviewwiththeCAraisingtheissuesof LMWDfiledapetitionfor reviewwiththeCAraisingtheissuesof reviewwiththeCAraisingtheis suesof whethertheCTAdecidedthecaseinaccordwith whethertheCTAdecidedthecaseinaccordwith theevidencepresentedandtheapplicabl theevidencepresentedandtheapplicablelaw,andwhethertheLMWDisaGOCCwithoriginalchart elaw,andwhethertheLMWDisaGOCCwithoriginalcharter.TheCA er.TheCA foundthepetitiontobeunmeritor foundthepetitiontobeunmeritoriousandaffirmed iousandaffirmedtheCTAsrulingt theCTAsrulingthattheLMWD hattheLMWDisaGOCC hattheLMWDisaGOCCwithoriginalcharter, isaGOCC isaGOCCwithoriginalcharter, withoriginalcharter, andnotaprivatecorporationorentityasLMWDargued.Hence,thepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiled byLMWDwiththisCourt. LWMDarguedthatitisaprivatecorporationorentityan LWMDarguedthatitisapri vatecorporationorentityandnotaGOCC. dnotaGOCC. dnotaGOCC. FelicianoarguesthatPDNo.198which Felici Feliciano anoargue arguesthat sthatPDNo. PDNo.198which createdLWMDisag createdLWMDis createdLWMDisa agenerallawsimilar generallawsimilartotheCorporationLaw. enerallawsimilartotheCor totheCorporationLaw. porationLaw. ISSUE:

Whetheror Whetherornot notLMWD LMWDis isa aGOCC GOCCwith withoriginal originalcharter? charter?

TheConstitutionrecognizestwoclassesofcorporatio ofcorporations.Thefirst ns.Thefirstreferstopr referstoprivate ivate corporationscreated RULING: TheConstitutionrecognizestwoclasses underagenerallaw.Thesecondrefers underagenerallaw.Thesecondreferstogovernment-ownedorcontrolledcorporatio Thesecondreferstogo togo togovernment-ownedorcontrolledcorporationscreatedby vernment-ownedorcontrolledcorporations vernment-ownedorcontrolledcorporationscreatedbyspecial nscreatedbyspecial createdbyspecial special charters. TheConstitutionemphaticallyprohibitsthecreatio TheConstitutionemphaticallyprohibitsthecreationofprivate nofprivatecorporationsexcept corporationsexceptby by agenerallawapplicableto agenerallawapplicableto allcitizens.Thepurposeofthis allcitizens.Thepurposeofthisconstitutionalprovision constitutionalprovisionisto constitutionalprovisionistobanprivatecorporationscreatedby isto istobanprivatecorporationscreatedbyspecialcharters, banprivatecorporationscreatedbyspecialcharters, specialcharters, whichhistoricallygavecertainindividuals,familiesor whichhistoricallygave whichhistoricallygavecertainindividuals,familiesor certainindividuals,familiesor groupsspecialprivilegesdeniedtoothercitizens. groupsspecialprivilegesdeniedtoothercitizens. groupsspecialprivilegesdeniedt oothercitizens. TheConstitutionauthorizesCongresst TheConstitutionauthorizesCongresstocreategovernment-o ocreategovernment-ownedorcontro wnedorcontrolledcorporationst lledcorporationsthroughspecial hroughspecial charters.Sinceprivatecorporationscannot charters.Sinceprivate corporationscannothavespecialc corporationscannothavespecialch havespecialch havespecialcharters,itfollowsthatCo harters,itfo arters,itfollowsthat arters,itfollowsthatCongresscancreate llowsthatCongresscancreateco Congresscancreatecorporations ngresscancreatecorporations corporations rporations withspecialchartersonlyifsuchcorporationsare withspecialchartersonlyif suchcorporationsaregovernment-ownedorcontrolled. government-ownedorcontrolled. Obviously,LWDs[referringto localwaterdistricts]arenot localwaterdistricts]arenotprivatecorporations privatecorporationsbecausetheya becausetheya renotcreatedundertheCorporationCode. renotcreatedundertheCorporation renotcreatedundertheCorporationCode. Code. LWDsarenotregisteredwitht LWDsarenotregisteredwiththeSecuritiesandExc heSecuritiesandExchangeC hangeCommission.Section14oft ommission.Section ommission.Section14oft ommission.Section14oftheCorporationC 14oftheCorporationC heCorporationCodestates heCorporationCodestates odestates odestates that"[A]llcorporationsorganizedunder that"[A]llcorporationsorganizedunderthiscodeshall thiscodeshallfilewiththe thiscodeshallfilewiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommission filewiththe filewiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionarticlesof SecuritiesandExchangeCommissionarticlesof articlesof incorporationxxx." incorporationxxx."LWDshavenoarticlesofincorpor incorporationxxx."LWDshave LWDshavenoarticlesofincorporation,no noarticlesofincorporation,noincorporatorsand noarticlesofincorporation,noincorporatorsandnostockholders ation,no incorporatorsandnostockholdersormembers. nostockholdersormembers. ormembers. There arenostockholdersormemberstoelecttheboarddi arenostockholdersormemberstoelecttheboarddirectorsofLWDsasin rectorsofLWDsasin thecaseofallcorporations registeredwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCo registeredwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommission.The mmission.Thelocalmayoro localmayoror rtheprovincialgovernorappointsthe theprovincialgovernorappointsthe directorsofLWDsforafixedtermofoffice.



–

UNIVERSALROBINACORP.vLAGUNALAKEDEVELOPMEN UNIVERSALROBINACORP.vLAGUNA LAKEDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY TAUTHORITY GRNO GRNO191427 191427 MAY30, MAY 30,2011 2011 FACTS

Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority Authority (LLDA),respondent, (LLDA),respondent, through through itsPollutionControlDivisionMonitori itsPollutionControlDivisionMonitorin itsPollutionControlDivisionMonitoring ng g and boratoryanalysisofURC’s cornoilrefineryplants EnforcementSection,afterconductingonMarch14,2000alaboratoryanalysisofURC’s EnforcementSection,afterconductingonMarch14,2000ala wastewater,foundthatitfailed wastewater,foundthatitfailedtocomplywithgovernmentstandardspro thatitfailedtocomply tocomply tocomplywithgovernmentstandardsprovidedunderDepartmento withgovernmentstandardsprovidedunderDepartment withgovernmentstandards providedunderDepartmentofEnvironment videdunderDepartmentofEnvironment ofEnvironment fEnvironment andNaturalResources(DENR)AdministrativeOrders(DAOs)Nos.34and35,seriesof1990. Hearingsonpetitioner’s pollutioncasewerethereaftercommencedonMarch1,2001. DespitesubsequentcompliancemonitoringandinspectionsconductedbytheLLDA, Despitesubsequentcompliancemonitoringandinspectionsconductedby theLLDA, petitioner’swastewaterfailed petitioner’swastewaterfailed toconformtotheparameters toconformtotheparameterssetbytheaforementionedDAOs. totheparameterssetby setby setbytheaforementionedDAOs. theaforementionedDAOs. PetitionersoonrequestedforareductionofpenaltiesonAugust24,2007,attachingcopiesofitsDailyOperation Reports Reports and Certificatio Certificationto ication nto ntoshow show that that accrue accrued d daily daily penalti penalties es should should only only cove co cover cov ver er r a a peri pe period per riod iod od of of 560 560 560 days. day days. s. s. After Aft Afte After err conductinghearings,theLLDAissueditsOrdertoPayforatotalof1,247days,worthPHP1,247,000.00.Petitioner movedtoreconsider,prayingthat movedtoreconsider,prayingthatitbeordered itbeorderedtopay itbeorderedtopayonlyaccumulateddailypenaltiesinthes topay topayonlyaccumulateddailypenaltiesinthesumofFive onlyaccumulateddailypenaltiesinthesum onlyaccumulateddailypenalties inthesumofFiveHundred umofFiveHundred ofFiveHundred Hundred SixtyThousand(P56 SixtyThousand(P560,000 0,000)Pesosongrounds )PesosongroundsthattheLLDAerredin thattheLLDAerredin first thattheLLDAerredin first first,adoptingastraightcomputationofthe ,adoptingastraightcomputationofthe period periodsof sof violati violationbased onbased ontheflawed ontheflawed assump assumptio tionthatpetit nthatpetition ionerwas erwas operat operating ing ona dailybasis dailybasis −without −without excludi excluding, ng, among among others others, , the period period during during which which the LLDA LLDA Labora Laborator tory y underwe underwent nt rehabil rehabilita itatio tion n work work from from December1,2000toJune30,2001(covering212days);and second ,indisregardingtheDailyOperationReportsand second,indisregardingtheDailyOperationReportsand Certificationswhichpetitionersubmittedtoatt Certificationswhichpetitioner submittedtoattesttot esttotheactualnumberof heactualnumberof itsoperatingdays,i.e.,560days. itsoperatingdays,i.e.,560day itsoperatingdays,i.e.,560days. ISSUE Whethe Whether r or not LLDA LLDA erred erred in not credit crediting ing petitio petitioner ner for undert undertaki aking ng remedia remedial l measur measures es to rehabi rehabilita litate te its wastewatertreatmentfacility HELD No,thepetitionmustfail. No,thepetitionmustfail.Withoutbelaboringpetitioner Withoutbelaboringpetitioner ’sassertions,itmustbe sassertions,itmustbeunderscoredthatthe underscoredthattheprotectionof protectionof the environ environmen ment, t, includin including g bodies bodies of water, water, is no less less urgent urgent or vital vital than than the pressin pressing g concer concerns ns of privat private e enterprises,bigorsmall.Everyonemustdotheirsharetoconservethenational patrimony’smeagerresourcesfor patrimony’smeagerresourcesfor thebenefitofnotonlythis thebenefitofnotonlythisgeneration,butof generation,butofthoseto thosetofollow.The follow.Thelengthoftime lengthoftimealoneittook aloneittookpetitionertoupgrade petitionertoupgrade itsWTF(from2003to2007),amovearrivedatonlyunderthreatofcontinuingsanctions,militatesagainstany genuineconcernforthewell-beingofthecountry’’swaterways. genuineconcernforthewell-beingofthecountry LLDAVCA GRNo.110120 GRNo.110120 110120 March16,1994 March16, March16,1994 Romero,J Facts:

Task Task Force Force Camari Camarin n Dumpsit Dumpsite e of Our Lady Lady of Lourdes Lourdes Parish Parish, , Baranga Barangay y Camari Camarin, n, Calooc Caloocan an City, City, filed filed a letter letter-complaint complaint withtheLagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthorityseekingtostoptheoperationofthe8.6-hectareopen withthe LagunaLakeDevelopment Authorityseekingto Authorityseekingto stopthe operationof operationof the8.6-hectare the8.6-hectare open garbagedumpsite garbagedumpsiteinTalaEstate,Bar inTalaEstate,BarangayCam angayCamarin,Calo arin,CaloocanCityduetoits ocanCityduetoitsharmfuleffe harmfuleffectsonthehealth ctsonthehealthofthe ofthe residentsandthepossibilityofpollution residentsandthepossibilityofpollutionofthewatercontentofthe possibilityofpollutionofthe ofthe ofthewatercontentofthesurroundingarea. watercontentofthesurroundingarea. surroundingarea. Afteranonsiteinvestigation,monitoringandtestsamplingconductedbytheLLDAitwasfoundoutthatitwas harmfulandnopermitwasfirstobtainedfromECC,EMBofDENRasrequiredunderPD1586andclearancefrom LLDAasrequiredunderRA4850asamendedbyPD813 LLDAasrequiredunderRA48 LLDAasrequiredunderRA4850asamendedbyPD813a 50asamendedbyPD813a andEO927seriesof1993forsuchdumpingoperation. ndEO927seriesof1993forsuchdumpingoperatio ndEO927seriesof1993forsuchdumpingoperation. n. LLDA LLDA issuedCease issuedCease and Desist Desist Order Order to stop stop the dumpin dumping g operat operation ion. . City City Govern Governmen ment t of Caloo Caloocanstops canstops the operationbutlateronresumedafterthefailuretosettletheproblem.LLDAagainissuedanorderandissuedan AliasCeaseandDesistOrderenjoiningtheCityGovernmentof AliasCeaseandDesistOrder enjoiningtheCityGovernmentofCaloocanfromcontinuingits Caloocanfromcontinuingitsdumpingoperationsat dumpingoperationsat


theCamarinarea.LLDAwithPNPenforced theCamarinarea.LLDAwithPNPenforcedtheAliasCeaseand theAliasCeaseandDesistOrderbypr DesistOrderbyprohibitingtheen ohibitingtheentryofallgarbage tryofallgarbage dumptrucksintoTalaEstate,Camarin. Pendingresolution,CityGovernmentofCaloocanfiledinRTCCaloocanCityforanactionforthedeclarationofnullity oftheceaseanddesistorderwithprayerfortheissuanceofwritofinju oftheceaseanddesistorderwithprayerfor theissuanceofwritofinjunction.TROwasgrantedenjoiningtheLLDA nction.TROwasgrantedenjoiningtheLLDA forenforcingthece forenforcingtheceaseanddesistorder.CasewasraffledtoRTCBranch126whichat aseanddesistorde r.CasewasraffledtoRTCBranch12 r.Casewasraff ledtoRTCBranch12 6whichat thattimewaspresidedbythe thattimewas thattimewaspresidedbythe presidedbythe RTCBranch127Judge,thepairingJudgerecentlyretired. RTCBranch127J udge,thepairingJudgerecentlyretired. LLDAonitspartfiled LLDAonitspartfiledamot LLDAonitspartfileda amotionto motiontodismisson iontodismiss dismisson onthegroundthatunderRepublic thegroundthatunderRepublicActNo. thatunderRepublicActNo.3 ActNo. ActNo.3931,asamended 3931,asamendedbyPresidential 931,asamendedby by Presidential DecreeNo.984,otherwiseknownas DecreeNo.984,otherwiseknownasthePollutionCon thePollutionControlLaw,thecease trolLaw,theceaseanddesistorde anddesistorderissuedbyitwhich rissuedbyitwhichisthe isthe subjectmatterofthecomplaintisreviewablebothupon subjectmatterofthecomp laintisreviewablebothuponthelawandthefactsofthecasebytheCourtofApp thelawandthefactsofthecasebytheCourtofAppeals eals andnotbytheRegionalTrialCourt.TheMotionwasdeniedandinjunctionorderwasissuedagainstLLDA.Thus, LLDAfiledapetitionforcertiorari,prohibitionandinjunctionwithprayerforrestrainingorderwiththeSupreme Court. TheSupremeCourtremandedthecasetoCAandforthemeantimeTROwasissuedandcontinuinguntilliftedby thecourt.TheCityGove thecourt.TheCityGovernme rnmentofCalooc ntofCaloocanfiledaMRand/o anfiledaMRand/ortoquashreca rtoquashrecalltheTROallegi lltheTROallegingthatitwould ngthatitwouldbe be calamitousifthegovernme calamitousifthegovernmentfailstocolle ntfailstocollect350tonso ct350tonsofgarbage fgarbagedaily. daily. Afterthehearing,CApromulgatedthedecision: TheRegionalTrialCourthasnojurisdictiononappealtotry,hearanddecidetheactionforannulment hearanddecidetheactionforannulment “TheRegionalTrialCourthasnojurisdictiononappealtotry, ofLLDA'sceaseanddesistorder,includingtheissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorderandpreliminary ofLLDA'sceaseanddesistorder,includingtheissuanceofa temporaryrestrainingorderandpreliminary injunctioninrelationthereto,sinceappealthere injunctioninrelationthe reto,sinceappealtherefromiswithintheexclusiveandappe fromiswithintheexclusiveandappellatejurisdiction llatejurisdiction oftheCourtofApp oftheCourtofAppealsunder ealsunderSection9,p Section9,par.(3),of ar.(3),ofBatasPambansa BatasPambansaBlg.129 Blg.129 ””; and TheLagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthorityhasnopowerandauthoritytoissueaceasea powerandauthoritytoissueaceaseanddesistorder nddesistorder “TheLagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthorityhasno underitsenablinglaw,RepublicActNo.4850,asamendedbyP.D.No.813andExecutiveOrder underitsenablinglaw,RepublicActNo.4850,asamendedby P.D.No.813andExecutiveOrderNo.927, No.927, seriesof1983.” Hence,LLDAfiledapetitionforreviewoncertiorari withpray erofTRObeforetheSupremeCourt.Thecourtgranted Hence,LLDAfiledapetitionforreviewoncertiorariwithpray erofTRObeforethe erofTRObeforetheSupremeCourt.Thecourtgranted SupremeCourt.Thecourtgranted theTRO. Issue: DoestheLLDAhavethepowerandauthoritytoissuea"ceaseanddesist"orderunderRepublicActNo.4850andits DoestheLLDAhavethepowerandauthoritytoissuea "ceaseanddesist"orderunderRepublicActNo.4850andits amendatorylaws,onthebasisofth amendatorylaws,onthebasisofthefactspresente efactspresentedinthiscase,enjo dinthiscase,enjoiningthedump iningthedumpingofgarbage ingofgarbageinTalaEstate, inTalaEstate, BarangayCamarin,CaloocanCity. Ruling: YES.

TheceaseanddesistorderissuedbytheLLDArequiringtheCityGovernmentofCaloocantostopdumpingits garbageintheCamarino garbageintheCamarinopendump garbageintheCamarinopendumpsitefoundbythe pendumpsitefound sitefoundbytheLLDAtohavebeen bytheLLDAtohavebeendonein LLDAtohavebeendo LLDAtohavebeendoneinviolationofRepublicAct doneinviolation neinviolationofRepublicActNo.4850, violation ofRepublicActNo.4850, No.4850, asamended,andoth asamended,andotherrelevante asamended,andotherrelevantenvironmentlaws, errelevantenvironmentlaws nvironmentlaws,, cannotbestampedasan cannotbe cannotbestampedasanunauthorizedexercisebytheLLDAof stampedasanunauthorize unauthorizedexercise dexercisebytheLLDA bytheLLDAof of Byitsexpressterms,RepublicActNo.4850,as icActNo.4850,asamendedbyP.D.No.81 amendedbyP.D.No.813andExecutiv 3andExecutiveOrder eOrder injunctivepowers. Byitsexpressterms,Republ No.927,seriesof1983,authorizestheLLDAto" make,alterormodifyorderrequiringthediscontinuanceor polluti pollution.Section on.Section 4,par. (d)Explicitlyauthor (d)Explicitlyauthorizes izes theLLDA to makewhateverordermaybenecessaryinthe exerciseofitsjurisdiction. Itwouldbeamistaketodrawtherefromtheconclusionthatthereisadenialofthepowertoissuetheorderin questionwhenthepower"to make,alterormodifyordersrequiringthediscontinuanceofpollution"isexpressly andclearlybestowedupontheLLDAbyExecutiveOrderNo.927,seriesof1983. Whileitisafundamentalrulethat anadministrativeagencyhas anadministrativeagencyhasonlysuchpowersasareexpre onlysuchpowersasareexpresslygrantedtoitbylaw,itislikewise sslygrantedtoitbylaw,itislikewiseasettledrule asettledrule that that anadministra anadministrative tive agency agency hasalso such powersas powersas arenecessarily arenecessarily impliedin impliedin theexercise of itsexpress CaseDigestsinNatRes&LTDunderASGMarissaDelaCruz – Galandines – Galandines 2CAY2016-2017

Intheexercise,therefore,ofitsexpr re,ofitsexpresspower esspowersunderitschart sunderitscharterasaregulator erasaregulatoryandquasi-jud yandquasi-judicialbody icialbody powers. Intheexercise,therefo withrespecttopollutio withrespecttopollutioncasesintheLagunaLakeregion,theauthor ncasesintheLagunaLakeregion,theauthorityoftheLLDAtoissuea"ceaseanddesist ityoftheLLDAtoissuea"ceaseanddesist order"is,perforce,implied.Otherwise, order"is,perforce,implied.Otherwise,itmaywell itmaywellbe be reducedtoa"toothless"paperagency. reducedtoa"toothless"paper reducedtoa"toothless"paperagency. agency. Inthecaseof PollutionAdjudicationBoardv Inthecaseof Inthecaseof PollutionAdjudicationBoardv .,theCourtruledthatthePollutionAdjudication .,theCourtruledthatthePollution Adjudication PollutionAdjudicationBoardv..CourtofAppeals,etal CourtofAppeals,etal.,theCourtruledthatthePollution Board(PAB)hasthepowertoissuean ex-parte ex-parteceaseanddesistorderwhenthereis ceaseanddesistorderwhenthereis primafacie evidenceofan establishmentexceedingtheallowablestandardssetby establishmentexceedingtheallowable standardssetbytheanti-pollutionlaws theanti-pollutionlawsof ofthecountry. thecountry. ThecharterofLLDA,Republic ThecharterofLLDA,RepublicActNo.4850,asamended,instead ThecharterofLLDA,RepublicAct ActNo.4850,asamended,insteadof No.4850,asamended,insteado No.4850,asamended,insteadof of fconferringuponthe conferringupontheLLDAthemeansofdirectly conferringupontheLLDAthemeans LLDAthemeansofdirectly ofdirectly enforcingsuchorders,hasprovid enforci ngsuchorders,hasprovidedunderitsSection4( enforcingsuchorders,hasprovidedunderitsSection4( edunderitsSection4(d)thepowertoinstitute"necessarylegalproceedingagainst d)thepowertoinstitute"necessarylegalproce d)thepowertoinstitute"neces sarylegalproceeding edingagainst against anypersonwhoshallcommencetoimplementorcontinueimplementationofanyproject,planorprogramwithin theLagunadeBayregionwithoutpreviousclearancefromtheLLDA." theLagunadeBayregionwithoutpreviousclearancefromtheLLDA." Clearly,saidprovisi Clearly,saidprovisionwasdesignedtoinvesttheLLDAwithsufficientlybroadpowersintheregulationofal Clearl y,saidprovisionwasdesigne onwasdesigne dtoinvesttheLLDAwithsuffic dtoinvesttheLLDAwithsufficientl ientlybroadpowersintheregu ybroadpowersintheregulationofal lationofal lprojects lprojects initiatedintheLagunaLakeregion, initiatedintheLagunaLakeregion,whetherbyt whetherbythegovernment hegovernmentorthe ortheprivatesector, privatesector,insofaras insofarastheimplementation theimplementation oftheseprojectsis oftheseprojectsisconcerned.Itwasmeant projectsisconcerned.It concerned.It concerned.Itwasmeanttodeal wasmeanttodeal wasmeanttodealwithcases withcaseswhichmightpossiblyarisewhere withcaseswhich whichmightpossiblyarisewheredecisionsor whichmightpossiblyarisewhere mightpossiblyarisewheredecisionsor decisionsororders orders issuedpursuanttotheexerciseofsuchbroadpowersmaynotbeobeyed,resultinginthethwartingofitslaudabe objective.Tomeetsuchcontingencies, thenthewritsof mandamusandinjunctionwhicharebeyondthepower oftheLLDAtoissue,maybesoughtfromthepropercourts. Therefore,oftheceaseanddesist Therefore,oftheceaseanddesistorderbythe orderbytheLLDA, LLDA, asapracticalmatterof asapracticalmatterofprocedureunderthecir procedureunderthecircumstancesof cumstancesof thecase, isaproperexerciseofitspowerandauthorityunderitscharteranditsamendatorylaws.



–

Natres LTD digests

Recommend Documents