CASE: Chavez v.

Public Estates Authority

DOCTRINE: Article 420 of the Civil Code of 1950 incorporated the Regalian doctrine. Art. 341 provides “Property of
public dominion, when no longer devoted to public use or to the defense of the territory, shall become a part of
the private property of the State.”

Only individuals can own public lands alienated by the state. These has to be agricultural lands of public domain
no longer useful for the government. There has to be legislation, then bidding, if unsuccessful then negotiated
agreement. In all these stages, the right to freedom of information is upheld unless information is privileged.

FACTS: The petition seeks to compel the Public Estates Authority to disclose all facts on PEA's then on-going
renegotiations with Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The
petition further seeks to enjoin PEA from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving such reclamation.

President Marcos created the PEA to be the sole office in charge of reclamations and retention of ownership of
reclaimed land in the country in behalf of the State. President Cory Aquino upheld the office and granted it
authority over the Freedom Islands (land near present-day MOA) for its reclamation and management. President
Ramos approved an agreement where PEA and AMARI entered into a Joint Venture Agreement of the Freedom
Islands along Manila-Cavite coastal roads through negotiation without public bidding. The JVA seeks to transfer
title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of Manila Bay to a single private
corporation.

Senate President Ernesto Maceda delivered a privilege speech in the Senate and denounced the JVA as the
"grandmother of all scams." There were controversies dug up in the agreement issue. After years and negotiations
resulting to the amendment of the JVA, the administration of then President Joseph E. Estrada approved the
Amended JVA.

ISSUES:

1. WON the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academic because of subsequent
events.
2. WON the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principle governing the hierarchy of courts.
3. WON the petition merits dismissal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
4. WON petitioner has locus standi.
5. WON the constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before
a final agreement.
6. WON stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed,
violate the Constitution.

RULING:

1. No. We rule that the signing of the Amended JVA by PEA and AMARI and its approval by the President
cannot operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdiction. PEA and AMARI have still to
implement the Amended JVA. The prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended JVA on constitutional
grounds necessarily includes preventing its implementation if in the meantime PEA and AMARI have
signed one in violation of the Constitution.

AMARI seeks to acquire from PEA, a public corporation, reclaimed lands and submerged areas for non-
agricultural purposes by purchase under PD No. 1084 (charter of PEA) and Title III of CA No. 141. Neither
AMARI nor PEA can claim judicial confirmation of their titles because the lands covered by the Amended
JVA are newly reclaimed or still to be reclaimed. Judicial confirmation of imperfect title requires open,
 continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain for at least
thirty years since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Further, the deadline for filing applications for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title expired on December 31, 1987.

2. No. The case raises constitutional issues of transcendental importance to the public.

3. No. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue involved is a
purely legal or constitutional question.

4. Yes. The petitioner has standing to bring this taxpayer's suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to
comply with its constitutional duties. There are two constitutional issues involved here: the right of
citizens to information on matters of public concern, and, the application of a constitutional provision
intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino
citizens.

5. Yes. The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations before a
final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and
should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic secrets and
similar matters affecting national security and public order.

6. Yes. The Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The
Regalian Doctrine as adopted by the Constitution provides that ‘all natural resources are "owned by the
State," and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be
alienated.’ Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition is GRANTED. The Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation
are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing the Amended Joint Venture Agreement which is hereby declared
NULL and VOID ab initio