NATURAL RESOURCES CASE DIGEST POOL PART 1
Cario v. Insular Government
FACTS: On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cario went to the
Court of Land Registration (CLR) to petition his inscription
as the owner of a 146 hectare land hes been possessing
in the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo only presented
possessory information and no other documentation. The
State opposed the petition averring that the land is part of
the US military reservation. The CLR ruled in favor of
Mateo. The State appealed. Mateo lost. Mateo averred
that a grant should be given to him by reason of
immemorial use and occupation as in the previous
cases Cansino vs Valdez and Tiglao vs Government; and
that the right of the State over said land has prescribed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the
land by virtue of his possession of it for some time.
HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run against
the government. The government is still the absolute
owner of the land (regalian doctrine). Further, Mateos
possession of the land has not been of such a character
as to require the presumption of a grant. No one has lived
upon it for many years. It was never used for anything but
pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions
thereof, and since the insurrection against Spain it has
apparently not been used by Cario for any purpose.
While the State has always recognized the right of the
occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a
sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he
must make that proof before the proper administrative
officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did
the State remained the absolute owner.
Chavez v. Pea and Amari
Fact:
In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered into
a contract to reclaim areas of Manila Bay with the
Construction and Development Corportion of the
Philippines (CDCP).
PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President
Marcos under P.D. 1084, tasked with developing and
leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were transferred to
the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila
Cavite Road and Reclamation Project (MCRRP). CDCP
and PEA entered into an agreement that all future projects
under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA.
By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No.
3517 transferring lands to PEA. It was followed by the
transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the
Register of Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the
three reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM
ISLANDS.
Subsquently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement
(JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-Philippine corporation to
develop the Freedom Islands. Along with another 250
hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would
later transfer said lands to AMARI. This caused a stir
especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the agreement,
claiming that such lands were part of public domain
(famously known as the mother of all scams).
Peitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer praying
for mandamus, a writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO
against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to AMARI and
from implementing the JVA. Following these events,
under President Estradas admin, PEA and AMARI
entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chaves claim that
the contract is null and void.
Issue:
w/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to be
reclaimed as part of the stipulations in the (Amended) JVA
between AMARI and PEA violate Sec. 3 Art. XII of the
1987 Constitution
w/n: the court is the proper forum for raising the issue of
whether the amended joint venture agreement is grossly
disadvantageous to the government.
Held:
On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the
constitution:
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the
Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the
name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain.
PEA may lease these lands to private 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 ownership limitations in the 1987
Constitution and existing laws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay
remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain
until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to
disposition and declared no longer needed for public
service. The government can make such classification
and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as
agricultural lands of the public domain, which are the only
natural resources the government can alienate. In their
present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas
are inalienable and outside the commerce of man.
3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a
private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of
the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any
kind of alienable land of the public domain.
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to
AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of still
submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for
being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural
resources other than agricultural lands of the public
domain.
PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the
government can classify the reclaimed lands as alienable
or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed
for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed
alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI will be void
in view of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987Constitution
which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any
kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Chavez v. NHA
FACTS:
On August 5, 2004, former Solicitor General Francisco
Chavez, filed an instant petition raising constitutional
issues on the JVA entered by National Housing Authority
and R-II Builders, Inc.
On March 1, 1988, then-President Cory Aquino issued
Memorandum order No. (MO) 161 approving and
directing implementation of the Comprehensive and
Integrated Metropolitan Manila Waste Management

Plan. During this time, Smokey Mountain, a wasteland in
Tondo, Manila, are being made residence of many
Filipinos living in a subhuman state.
As presented in MO 161, NHA prepared feasibility studies
to turn the dumpsite into low-cost housing project, thus,
Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project
(SMDRP), came into place. RA 6957 (Build-Operate-
Transfer Law) was passed on July 1990 declaring the
importance of private sectors as contractors in
government projects. Thereafter, Aquino proclaimed MO
415 applying RA 6957 to SMDRP, among others. The
same MO also established EXECOM and TECHCOM in
the execution and evaluation of the plan, respectively, to
be assisted by the Public Estates Authority (PEA).
Notices of public bidding to become NHAs venture
partner for SMDRP were published in newspapers in
1992, from which R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) won the bidding
process. Then-President Ramos authorized NHA to enter
into a Joint Venture Agreement with RBI.
Under the JVA, the project involves the clearing of
Smokey Mountain for eventual development into a low
cost housing complex and industrial/commercial site. RBI
is expected to fully finance the development of Smokey
Mountain and reclaim 40 hectares of the land at the
Manila Bay Area. The latter together with the commercial
area to be built on Smokey Mountain will be owned by RBI
as enabling components. If the project is revoked or
terminated by the Government through no fault of RBI or
by mutual agreement, the Government shall compensate
RBI for its actual expenses incurred in the Project plus a
reasonable rate of return not exceeding that stated in the
feasibility study and in the contract as of the date of such
revocation, cancellation, or termination on a schedule to
be agreed upon by both parties.
To summarize, the SMDRP shall consist of Phase I and
Phase II. Phase I of the project involves clearing,
levelling-off the dumpsite, and construction of temporary
housing units for the current residents on the cleared and
levelled site. Phase II involves the construction of a
fenced incineration area for the on-site disposal of the
garbage at the dumpsite.
Due to the recommendations done by the DENR after
evaluations done, the JVA was amended and restated
(now ARJVA) to accommodate the design changes and
additional work to be done to successfully implement the
project. The original 3,500 units of temporary housing
were decreased to 2,992. The reclaimed land as enabling
component was increased from 40 hectares to 79
hectares, which was supported by the issuance of
Proclamation No. 465 by President Ramos. The revision
also provided for the 119-hectare land as an enabling
component for Phase II of the project.
Subsequently, the Clean Air Act was passed by the
legislature which made the establishment of an
incinerator illegal, making the off-site dumpsite at Smokey
Mountain necessary. On August 1, 1998, the project was
suspended, to be later reconstituted by President Estrada
in MO No. 33.
On August 27, 2003, the NHA and RBI executed a
Memorandum of Agreement whereby both parties agreed
to terminate the JVA and subsequent
agreements. During this time, NHA reported that 34
temporary housing structures and 21 permanent housing
structures had been turned over by RBI.
NATURAL RESOURCES CASE DIGEST POOL PART 1
ISSUES:
1. Whether respondents NHA and RBI have been
granted the power and authority to reclaim lands
of the public domain as this power is vested
exclusively in PEA as claimed by petitioner
2. Whether respondents NHA and RBI were given
the power and authority by DENR to reclaim
foreshore and submerged lands
3. Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed
foreshore and submerged lands considered as
alienable and outside the commerce of man
4. Whether respondent RBI can acquire reclaimed
lands when there was no declaration that said
lands are no longer needed for public use
5. Whether there is a law authorizing sale of
reclaimed lands
6. Whether the transfer of reclaimed lands to RBI
was done by public bidding
7. Whether RBI, being a private corporation, is
barred by the Constitution to acquire lands of
public domain
8. Whether respondents can be compelled to
disclose all information related to the SMDRP
9. Whether the operative fact doctrine applies to the
instant position
HELD:
1. Executive Order 525 reads that the PEA shall be
primarily responsible for integrating, directing,
and coordinating all reclamation projects for and
on behalf of the National Government. This does
not mean that it shall be responsible for all. The
requisites for a valid and legal reclamation project
are approval by the President (which were
provided for by MOs), favourable
recommendation of PEA (which were seen as a
part of its recommendations to the EXECOM),
and undertaken either by PEA or entity under
contract of PEA or by the National Government
Agency (NHA is a government agency whose
authority to reclaim lands under consultation with
PEA is derived under PD 727 and RA 7279).
2. Notwithstanding the need for DENR permission,
the DENR is deemed to have granted the
authority to reclaim in the Smokey Mountain
Project for the DENR is one of the members of
the EXECOM which provides reviews for the
project. ECCs and Special Patent Orders were
given by the DENR which are exercises of its
power of supervision over the
project. Furthermore, it was the President via the
abovementioned MOs that originally authorized
the reclamation. It must be noted that the
reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed
first in the Philippine President.
3. The reclaimed lands were classified alienable
and disposable via MO 415 issued by President
Aquino and Proclamation Nos. 39 and 465 by
President Ramos.
4. Despite not having an explicit declaration, the
lands have been deemed to be no longer needed
for public use as stated in Proclamation No. 39
that these are to be disposed to qualified
beneficiaries. Furthermore, these lands have
already been necessarily reclassified as alienable
and disposable lands under the BOT law.
5. Letter I of Sec. 6 of PD 757 clearly states that the
NHA can acquire property rights and interests
and encumber or otherwise dispose of them as it
may deem appropriate.
 NATURAL RESOURCES CASE DIGEST POOL PART 1

6. There is no doubt that respondent NHA A forested area classified as forest land of the public
conducted a public bidding of the right to become domain does not lose such classification simply because
its joint venture partner in the Smokey Mountain loggers or settlers have stripped it of its forest cover.
Project. It was noted that notices were published Parcels of land classified as forest land may actually be
in national newspapers. The bidding proper was covered with grass or planted to crops by kaingin
done by the Bids and Awards Committee on May cultivators or other farmers. "Forest lands" do not have to
18, 1992.
be on mountains or in out of the way places. The
7. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states
classification is merely descriptive of its legal nature or
that a contractor can be paid a portion as
percentage of the reclaimed land subject to the status and does not have to be descriptive of what the
constitutional requirement that only Filipino land actually looks like.
citizens or corporation with at least 60% Filipino
equity can acquire the same. In addition, when
the lands were transferred to the NHA, these
were considered Patrimonial lands of the state,
by which it has the power to sell the same to any
qualified person.
8. This relief must be granted. It is the right of the
Filipino people to information on matters of public
concerned as stated in Article II, Sec. 28, and
Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
9. When the petitioner filed the case, the JVA had
already been terminated by virtue of MOA
between RBI and NHA. The properties and rights
in question after the passage of around 10 years
from the start of the projects implementation
cannot be disturbed or questioned. The
petitioner, being the Solicitor General at the time
SMDRP was formulated, had ample opportunity
to question the said project, but did not do
so. The moment to challenge has passed.

Republic vs Naguiat

FACTS:

Celestina Naguiat filed an application for registration of

title to four parcels of land located in Panan, Botolan,
Zambales. The applicant alleges that she is the owner of
the said parcels of land having acquired them by purchase
from its previous owners and their predecessors-in-
interest who have been in possession thereof for more
than thirty (30) years; and that to the best of her
knowledge, said lots suffer no mortgage or encumbrance
of whatever kind nor is there any person having any
interest, legal or equitable, or in possession thereof.

Petitioner Republic opposed on the ground that neither

the applicant nor her predecessors-in interest have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of the lands in question since 12 June
1945 or prior thereto, considering the fact that she has not
established that the lands in question have been
declassified from forest or timber zone to alienable and
disposable property.

ISSUE:

Did the areas in question cease to have the status of

forest or other inalienable lands of the public domain?

HELD:

No, the said areas are still classified as forest land.The

issue of whether or not respondent and her predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, exclusive and continuous
possession of the parcels of land in question is of little
moment. For, unclassified land cannot be acquired by
adverse occupation or possession; occupation thereof in
the concept of owner, however long, cannot ripen into
private ownership and be registered as title.