LAW ON NATURAL RESOURCES (LNR) – SYLLABUS

Atty. Jose Y. Dalisay III1 / November 2016

PART ONE

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (1987 Constitution)

 Article II, Section 16: Right to a balanced and healthful ecology
 Article XII, Section 2: The Regalian Doctrine
 Article XII, Section 3: Lands of the public domain
 Article XII, Section 5: Ancestral lands and ancestral domains
 Article XII, Sections 7-8: Alienage of lands

REGALIAN DOCTRINE:
Cruz vs Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, et al. (G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000). Also read
the Separate Opinion of Justice Reynato Puno; focus on his discussion of the concepts of native title
and ancestral domains/lands.
Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources vs Mayor Jose S. Yap, et al. (G.R. No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008)

NATIVE TITLE (Sec. 3[l] of R.A. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act): lands never owned by the
State. -- Mateo Cariño vs Insular Government (41 Phil. 935 [Feb. 23, 1909])

ABSENT POSITIVE PROOF, LAND IS PRESUMED TO BE INALIENABLE PUBLIC DOMAIN:

Pacifico M. Valiao vs Republic (G.R. No. 170757, November 28, 2011): public lands not shown to have been
reclassified by the State as alienable agricultural land remain part of the inalienable public
domain. Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of private
appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept of owner no matter how
long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. The burden of proof in overcoming the
presumption of State ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying for
registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the land subject of the application is alienable
or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be established that the land
subject of the application (or claim) is alienable or disposable.

RECLAIMED LANDS:
Francisco I. Chavez vs Public Estates Authority & Amari Coastal Bay Development Corp. (G.R. No. 133250,
May 6, 2003, and reconsideration on July 9, 2002): foreshore and submerged areas belong to the
public domain and are inalienable unless reclaimed, classified as alienable lands open to disposition
and further declared no longer needed for public service. The fact that alienable lands of the public
domain were transferred to the PEA and issued land patents or certificates of title in PEA’s name did
not automatically make such lands private.
Republic vs City of Paranaque. (G.R. No. 191109, July 18, 2012): The reclaimed lands are still part of the
public domain, owned by the State and, therefore, exempt from payment of real estate taxes. The
subject lands are reclaimed lands, specifically portions of the foreshore and offshore areas of Manila
Bay.

FOREST LANDS:
City Government of Baguio vs Atty. Brain Masweng, Regional Officer, NCIP-CAR, et al. (G.R. No. 180206,
Feb. 4, 2009): the courts have no jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest lands. See also: The
Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. vs Atty. Brain Masweng, et al. (G.R. No. 180882, Feb. 27, 2013).
These cases also discuss ancestral domains/lands.
Republic vs Celestina Naguiat (G.R. No. 134209, Jan. 24, 2006): declassification of forest and mineral lands,
as the case may be, and their conversion into alienable and disposable lands need an express and
positive act from the government.
Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources, et al. vs Mayor Jose S. Yap, et al. (G.R. No. 167707, Oct. 8,
2008): Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the
public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are considered public forest

1 Legal Consultant, Asian Development Bank Study Team on the Implementation Capacity Assessment of the Philippine
Environment Safeguards System (ICAPESS), per ADB Authorization dated April 24, 2012. Also Editorial Consultant, DENR Public
Affairs Office, November 2005 to the present.

Page 1 of 4
 under PD No. 705. The DENR and the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority certify
that Boracay Island is an unclassified land of the public domain.

ARE MANGROVE SWAMPS ALSO FOREST LANDS?

Director of Forestry vs Ruperto A. Villareal (G.R. No. L-32266, Feb. 27, 1989)

THE STATE OWNS THE MINERALS UNDER TITLED AGRICULTURAL LANDS:

Maxima Nieto de Comilang vs Abdon Delenela, et al. (G.R. No. L-18897, March 31, 1964): the provisions
of the Mining Law expressly declare that the ownership of land for other purposes does not include
the minerals, and that mineral rights are not included in agricultural land patents.
Republic vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-43938, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 228): rights over the land are
indivisible and the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be
categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the instant case,
the land which was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and
completely mineral — once the mining claims were perfected. // Once minerals are discovered in the
land, whatever the use to which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be discontinued by the
State to enable it to extract the minerals in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. The land is thus
converted to mineral land and may not be used by any private party, including the registered owner
thereof, for any other purpose that will impede the mining operations to be undertaken therein. For
the loss sustained by such owner, he is of course entitled to just compensation under the Mining Laws
or in appropriate expropriation proceedings.

MAY AN ALIEN OWN LAND IN THE PHILIPPINES?

Republic vs Register of Deeds of Roxas City, Elizabeth Lee and Pacita Yu-Lee (G.R. No. 158230, July 16,
2008): If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to
a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is
rendered valid.
In re: Petition for Separation of Property. Elena Buenaventura Muller vs Helmut Muller (G.R. No. 149615,
Aug. 29, 2006)
Philip Matthews vs Benjamin A. Taylor and Joselyn C. Taylor (G.R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009)
Willem Beumer vs Avelina Amores (G.R. No. 195670, Dec. 3, 2012)

MAY ALIENS OWN REAL ESTATE IN THE FORM OF CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN THE PHILIPPINES?
Jacobus Bernhard Hulst vs PR Builders, Inc. (G.R. No. 156364, Sept. 25, 2008)

CONSTITUTIONALITY
THE MINING LAW OF 1995: La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc., et al. vs Victor O. Ramos, et al. (G.R.
No. 127882, Jan. 27, 2004), the Supreme Court en banc declared seven provisions of the Mining Law of
1995 (R.A. No. 7942) unconstitutional. Less than a year later, on Dec. 1, 2004, the Supreme Court
promulgated a resolution reversing its earlier decision. Read both of these two decisions.

IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS: ARE FORESTRY LICENSES, PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS CONTRACTS THAT
MAY NOT BE IMPAIRED?
 Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DENR vs Pagadian City Timber Co., Inc. (G.R. No.
159308, Sept. 16, 2008)
 Heherson Alvarez vs PICOP Resources, Inc. (G.R. No. 162243, Dec. 3, 2009)

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: PUTTING METRO MANILA’S GARBAGE IN A WATERSHED RESERVATION --
Province of Rizal, et al. vs Executive Secretary, et al. (G.R. No. 129546, Dec. 13, 2005).

ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL PROJECTS / PROJECTS IN ENVIRONMENTALLY-CRITICAL AREAS: PUBLIC

CONSULTATION & OTHER REQUIREMENTS --
 Bangus Fry Fisherfolk, et al. vs Hon. Enrico Lanzanas, et al. (G.R. No. 131442, July 10, 2003)
 Boracay Foundation vs Province of Aklan, et al. (G.R. No. 196870, June 26, 2012)
 Special People Inc., Foundation vs Nestor M. Canda, et al. (G.R. No. 160932, Jan. 14, 2013)
 Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait, et al. vs Secretary Angelo Reyes,
et al. (G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015)

Page 2 of 4
MINING RIGHTS vs FORESTRY RIGHTS: PICOP vs Base Metals Mineral Resources Corp. and the Mines
Adjudication Board (G.R. No. 163509, Dec. 6, 2006)

POACHING: Sea Lion Fishing Corp. vs People, G.R. No. 172678, March 23, 2011. Violation of RA 8550 (Phil.
Fisheries Code of 1998)

PART TWO

JURISDICTION
DENR SECRETARY: Director of Lands vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 79684, Feb. 19, 1991)

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES:

 Leonardo A. Paat, et al. vs Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 111107, Jan. 10, 1997).
 Felipe Calub and Ricardo Valencia, DENR Catbalogan, Samar vs Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No.
115634, April 27, 2000)

MINING POLLUTION: Republic vs Marcopper Mining Corp. (G.R. No. 137174, July 10, 2000)

WHEN IS A CASE ONE FOR POLLUTION? Shell Phils. Exploration B.V. vs Efren Jalos, et al. (G.R. No. 179918,
Sept. 8, 2010)

POLLUTION OF LAGUNA LAKE: WHICH HAS JURISDICTION – THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION BOARD OF
THE DENR, OR THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY? -- Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. vs LLDA (G.R.
No. 165299, Dec. 18, 2009)

A MAYOR MAY NOT SET ASIDE OR REVERSE THE DENR’S FINDING ON POLLUTION:
 Technology Developers, Inc. vs Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 94759, Jan. 21, 1991)
 Laguna Lake Dev’t Authority vs Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 110120, March 16, 1994)

SALVAGED FOREST PRODUCTS: LGU SHARES REGULATORY POWER WITH DENR:

Leovegildo R. Ruzol vs Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013.

MAY THE LTFRB OR DOTC BE ORDERED TO COMPEL VEHICLE OWNERS TO USE COMPRESSED NATURAL
GAS, FOR CLEANER AIR? Hilarion M. Henares, Jr., Victor C. Agustin, et al. vs LTFRB and DOTC (G.R. No.
158290, Oct. 23, 2006)

SMALL-SCALE MINING PERMITS. League of Provinces of the Phils. vs DENR (G.R. No. 175368, April 11,
2013): the DENR Secretary has the power of review in the resolution of disputes, under Section 24 of RA
7076 (People's Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991) and Section 22 of its IRR.

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER: Boracay Foundation, vs Province of Aklan, et al. (G.R. No. 196870, June
26, 2012)

WRIT OF KALIKASAN:
 Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et al. vs Scott H. Swift in his capacity as commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet
(G.R. No. 206510, Sept. 16, 2014)
 Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje vs Hon. Teodoro A. Casiño, et al. (G.R. No. 207257, Feb. 3, 2015)
 West Tower Condominium Corp. vs First Philippine Industrial Corp. (G.R. No. 194239, June 16, 2015)
 LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs Agham Party List (G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016)

WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS:

 MMDA, et al. vs Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (G.R. Nos. 171947-48, Dec. 18, 2008)
 Maricris D. Dolot, chairman of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Sorsogon, vs Hon. Ramon Paje, et
al. (G.R. No. 199199, Aug. 27, 2013)

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
 Oposa vs Factoran, Jr. (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792)
 Tribal Coalition of Mindanao vs Taganito Mining Corp. (G.R. No. 196835, June 28, 2011)

Page 3 of 4
 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc., et al. vs Greenpeace
Southeast Asia (Phils.), et al., G.R. No. 209271, Dec. 8, 2015 >> also July 26, 2016 (motions for
reconsideration granted)

-end-

Page 4 of 4