Digested Cases in Natural Resources PDF

5/28/2018 Digested Cases in Natural Resources PDF

1/12

G.R. No. 110223. April 8, 1997

Army And Navy Club Of Manila, Inc.vs. Honorable Court Of Appeals

Facts:

The City of Manila is the owner of a parcel of land located at South Boulevard cornerManila Bay, Manila.

The Army and Navy Club of Manila is occupying the above-described land and the Armyand Navy Club Building by virtue of a Contract of Lease

In violation of the agreement between the parties, the club has failed and/or refused toconstruct a modern multi-storied hotel

The club also reneged on its rental obligation notwithstanding the Citys demand to pay,for its use and occupancy of the Citysproperty

Furthermore, the defendant also violated its undertaking to pay the taxes due on the landand improvement

As a result, the City rescinded their Contract of Lease and demanded the Club to vacate The MTC rendered judgment in favor of the City of Manila and ordered it to vacate and

surrender the premises and to pay all with legal interest thereon, its rental arrearages

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed in toto the summary judgment of theMetropolitan Trial Court.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals wherein the latter dismissed. Petitioner filed the instant petition

Issues:

1) whether the respondent courts gravely erred in upholding the ouster of hereinpetitioner from the disputed premises which is a clear transgression of the formaldeclaration of the site of herein petitioner as a historical landmark

2) whether the property, subject matter of this case, is of public domain and therefore,the contract of lease executed by the city of manila in favor of petitioner is void

Held:

1) No, The country's artistic and historic wealth is a proper subject for the exercise of policepower which the State may regulate. This is a function of the legislature and once

regulation comes in, due process also comes into play. Petitioner is merely a lessee of the

property. By virtue of the lease contract, petitioner had obligations to fulfill. Petitionercan not just hide behind some recognition bestowed upon it in order to escape from its

obligation or remain in possession. It violated the terms and conditions of the lease

contract. Thus, petitioner's eviction from the premises is inevitable.


2/12

2) No, after herein petitioner has dealt with the private respondent as the owner of the leasedpremises and obtained benefits from said acknowledgment of such ownership for almost

half a century, herein petitioner cannot be permitted to assume an inconsistent position by

denying said private respondent's ownership of the leased premises when the situation

calls for it.

G.R. No. L-31688. December 17, 1990

Director Of Lands, Director Of Forestry And Republic Of The Philippines,vs. Hon. Juan P.

Aquino Et. Al

Facts:

Abra Industrial Corporation filed in the then Court of First Instance of Abra anapplication for registration in its name parcels of land

During the hearing, nobody appeared to oppose the application except the Dir. of lands. Hence, the court issued an order of default against the whole world except the Directorof Lands.

the provincial fiscal, appearing for the Director of Lands, submitted evidence supportingthe opposition filed by the Solicitor General to the effect that AIC had no registerable

title and that the highly mineralized parcels of land applied for were within the Central

Cordillera Forest Reserve which had not yet been released as alienable and disposable

land pursuant to the Public Land Law.

The lower court favorably acted on the application and ordered the registration of theparcels of land alleging that although said land was within the forest zone, the opposition

of the Director of Lands was not well-taken because the Bureau of Forestry, thru the

District Forester of Abra, offered no objection to exclude the same area from the forest

reserve

Issue:

Whether the lower court erred in granting the application for registration of the parcels of

land notwithstanding its finding that they are within the forest zone.

Held:

Yes, forest lands or forest reserves are incapable of private appropriation and

possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private properties. This

ruling is premised on the regalian doctrine. Its decision to order the registration of an

inalienable land in favor of AIC under the misconception that it is imperative for the

Director of Forestry to object to its exclusion from the forest reserve even in the face of

its finding that indeed a sizable portion of the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve is

involved, cannot be allowed to stay unreversed. It betrays an inherent infirmity which

must be corrected.


3/12

G.R. No.59603 April 29, 1987

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Hon. Ceferino E. Dulay, Lapu-Lapu City, And San

Antonio Development Corporation

Facts:

The President of the Philippines, issued Proclamation No. 1811, reserving a certain parcelof land of the public domain situated in the City of Lapu-Lapu, Island of Mactan for the

establishment of an export processing zone by petitioner Export Processing Zone

Authority (EPZA).

The petitioner, therefore, offered to purchase the parcels of land from the respondent butthe parties failed to reach an agreement regarding the sale of the property.

Petitioner filed with the then Court of First Instance of Cebu a complaint forexpropriation with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession against the private

respondent

The respondent judge issued the order of condemnation declaring the petitioner as havingthe lawful right to take the properties sought to be condemned, upon the payment of justcompensation

The three commissioners submitted their consolidated report recommending specificamount as the fair and reasonable value of just compensation for the properties.

The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order of February 19, 1981 andObjection to Commissioner's Report on the grounds that P.D No. 1533 has superseded

Sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court

The trial court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration The petitioner filed this present petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary

restraining order, enjoining the trial court from enforcing the order and from further

proceeding with the hearing of the expropriation case

Issue:

Is the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in P.D. No. 1533

valid and constitutional?

Held:

No, Indeed, where this Court simply follows PD 1533, thereby limiting the determination

of just compensation on the value declared by the owner or administrator or as determined by the

Assessor, whichever is lower, it may result in the deprivation of the landowners right of due

process to enable it to prove its claim to just compensation, as mandated by the Constitution.


4/12

G.R. No. 127296. January 22, 1998

Edubigis Gordula, et al.vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Republic Of The

Philippines

Facts:

Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 573 withdrawing fromsale and settlement and setting aside as permanent forest reserves, subject to private

rights, certain parcels of the public domain for use as watershed area.

The parcel of land subject of the case at bar is, by petitioners' explicit admission, withinParcel No. 9, the Caliraya-Lumot River Forest Reserve.

Edubigis Gordula, filed with the Bureau of Lands, an Application for a Free Patent overthe land.

Gordula's Application for Free Patent was approved. Gordula sold the land to petitioner Celso V. Fernandez, Jr. Fernandez, Jr. executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the land in favor of petitioner Celso

A. Fernandez

He in turn, sold the lots to petitioner Nora Ellen Estrellado The Manager of the Cavinti reservoir complex, asked petitioner Fernandez to remove all

the improvements made in the Estrellado lots.

In view of Fernandez's refusal, the Napocor assigned two (2) security guards over the lotwhich ordered the construction workers to leave their posts and barred their return

without permission from the Napocor.

Fernandez wrote to the President of the Napocor threatening to file a multi-milliondamage suit if the guards were not removed within fifteen (15) days.

Republic, through the Napocor, filed against petitioners a Complaint for Annulment ofFree Patent and Cancellation of Titles and Reversion with Writ of Preliminary Injunction

Issue:

Whether the Free Patent and Original Certificate of Title and all derivative titles issued to the

Appellees are null and void

Held:

Yes, it is well-settled rule that forest land is incapable of registration, and its inclusion in a titlenullifies that title. The mistake or error of officials or agents in this regard cannot be invoked

against the government.


5/12

G.R. No. L-21064 February 18, 1970

J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc.vs. The Land Tenure Administration, The Solicitor General and

The Auditor General

Facts:

On August 3, 1959, Republic Act No. 2616 took effect without executive approval. It istherein provided: "The expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City jointly owned

by the J. M. Tuason and Company, Inc., Gregorio Araneta and Company, Inc., and

Florencio Deudor, et al., is hereby authorized."

November 15, 1960, respondent Land Tenure Administration was directed by the thenExecutive Secretary to institute the proceeding for the expropriation of the Tatalon

Estate.

J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed before the lower court a special action for prohibition withpreliminary injunction against respondents praying that the above act be declared

unconstitutional, seeking in the meanwhile a preliminary injunction to restrain

respondents from instituting such expropriation proceeding, thereafter to be madepermanent after trial.

November 18, 1960, the lower court granted the prayer for the preliminary injunctionupon the filing of a P20,000.00 bond.

. After trial, the lower court promulgated its decision on January 10, 1963 holding thatRepublic Act No. 2616 as amended is unconstitutional and granting the writ of

prohibition prayed for.

Issue:

Whether Republic Act No. 2616 is unconstitutional

Held:

No, the particular grant of authority to Congress authorizing the expropriation of land is a clear

manifestation of such a policy that finds expression in our fundamental law. The historical

background as made clear during the deliberation for the Constitutional Convention, and the

cardinal postulate underlying constitutional construction that its provisions are not to be

interpreted to preclude their being responsive to future needs, the fundamental law being

intended to govern the life of a nation as it unfolds through the ages, the challenged statute can

survive the test of validity.


6/12

G.R. No. 96541. August 24, 1993

DEAN JOSE JOYA, et. Al. vs.PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD

GOVERNMENT (PCGG), et.al

Facts:

Chairman of PCGG, wrote then President Corazon C. Aquino, requesting her forauthority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement concerning the scheduled sale of

eighty-two (82) Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware seized from Malacaang

and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila alleged to be part of the ill-gotten wealth of the

late President Marcos, his relatives and cronies.

President Aquino authorized Chairman COA submitted to President Aquino the audit findings and observations on the

Consignment Agreement to wit: (a) the authority of Caparas to enter into the

Consignment Agreement was of doubtful legality; (b) the contract was highly

disadvantageous to the government; (c) PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal

by auction in the U.S.; and, (d) the assets subject of auction were historical relics and hadcultural significance, hence, their disposal was prohibited by law.

PCGG wrote President Aquino defending the Consignment Agreement and refuting theallegations of COA Chairman Domingo.

On the same date, Director of National Museum issued a certification that the itemssubject of the Consignment Agreement did not fall within the classification of protected

cultural properties and did not specifically qualify as part of the Filipino cultural heritage

Issues:

1) Whether the Old Masters Paintings and antique silverware are embraced in the phrase"cultural treasure of the nation"2) Whether the paintings and silverware are properties of public dominion which can bedisposed of through the joint concurrence of the President and Congress

Held:

1) No, TheCourt takes note of the certification issued by the Director of the Museum thatthe Italian paintings and silverware subject of this petition do not constitute protected

cultural properties and are not among those listed in the Cultural Properties Register of

the National Museum.

2) No, the confiscation of these properties by the Aquino administration however should notbe understood to mean that the ownership of these paintings has automatically passed onto the government without complying with constitutional and statutory requirements of

due process and just compensation. If these properties were already acquired by the

government, any constitutional or statutory defect in their acquisition and their

subsequent disposition must be raised only by the proper parties - the true owners thereof

- whose authority to recover emanates from their proprietary rights which are protected

by statutes and the Constitution.


7/12

G.R. No. 84647. May 23, 1991

Maria Alicia Leuterio vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Benito Leuterio

Facts:

Pablo Leuterio died leaving a large estate consisting of several parcels of land His widow, Ana Maglanque -- who had been one of his domestic servants and later hismistress, and whom he had married a few months before his death, -- took possession of

his estate and administered it.

Patrocinio Apostol, a niece of Pablo Leuterio, filed a petition in the Court of FirstInstance for her appointment as guardian of Maria Alicia Leuterio, then 16 years of age,

alleged to be the legitimated daughter of said Pablo Leuterio.

Benito Leuterio, a brother of Pablo Leuterio of the full blood, instituted proceedings forthe settlement of the decedent's intestate estate praying for his appointment as

administrator.

Leuterio's petition pertinently alleged that Pablo Leuterio had died without leaving a will;that he was survived, not only by said Benito Leuterio, but also by seven others

The petition was opposed by Ana Maglanque and Maria Alicia Leuterio (the latter beingrepresented by the above named Patrocinio Apostol). After hearing, the Probate Court

appointed Ana Maglanque administratrix of Pablo Leuterio's estate.

Issue:

Whether Maria Alicia Leuterio is the only forced heir of Pablo Leuterio and therefore entitled to

succeed to the latters entire estate

Held:

No, that the evidence failed to prove either the existence of "an incontrovertible paper written by

the parent expressly recognizing his paternity," or the "giving (to) such child (of) the status of a

natural child of the father" conformably with Article 135 of the Civil Code of 1889. Hence,

there was no factual basis on which to rest a declaration of involuntary recognition by Pablo

Leuterio of Maria Alicia as his natural daughter.


8/12

G.R. No. 122156. February 3, 1997

Manila Prince Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, Manila Hotel Corporation,

Committee on Privatization and Office of The Government Corporate Counsel

Facts:

GSIS pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine Government decided to sellthrough public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent

MHC.

Petitioner came to this Court on prohibition and mandamus The Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting

and consummating the sale to the Malaysian firm.

Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submitsthat the Manila Hotel has been Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the shares of the

It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimonyand its business also unquestionably part of the national economy petitioner should be

preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the Malaysian firm.

Issue:

Whether the 51% shares form part of the national economy and patrimony covered by the

protective mantle of the Constitution.

Held:

Yes, The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is not just any commodity to be soldto the highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. The Manila Hotel has played and

continues to play a significant role as an authentic repository of twentieth century Philippine

history and culture. In this sense, it has become truly a reflection of the Filipino soul - a place

with a history of grandeur; a most historical setting that has played a part in the shaping of a

country.


9/12

G.R. No. 106440. January 29, 1996

ALEJANDRO MANOSCA, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENJAMIN V.

PELAYO, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 168, HON. GRADUACION

A. REYES CLARAVAL, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 71, and

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Facts:

Petitioners inherited a piece of land When the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have been the birthsite of Felix Y.

Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution declaring the land to be a

national historical landmark.

Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, instituted a complaint forexpropriation before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for and in behalf of the NHI

alleging that the described parcel of land which is the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo,

founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo, as a National Historical Landmark.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intendedexpropriation was not for a public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute

an application of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of

Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29(2), Article VI,

of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue:

Whether the public use requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted

expropriation by the Republic of a 492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by the National

Historical Institute (NHI) as a national historical landmark.

Held:

Yes, The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution

of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his

founding and leadership of theIglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be

derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a

peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that

only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily

diminish the essence and character of public use.


10/12

G.R. Nos. 115786-87. February 5, 1996

Philippine Ports Authority and Manila Floating Silo Corporation vs. The Honorable Court

of Appeals, et. al.

Facts:

PPA and Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. (OTSI) entered into a management contractwhereby the former granted the latter the exclusive right to manage and operate

stevedoring services at the South Harbor.

PPA also granted the Marina Port Services, Inc. (MPSI) the exclusive management andoperation of arrastre and container terminal handling services in all piers, slips and

wharves at the South Harbor Terminal, Port of Manila.

Around two weeks later PPA entered into a contract with petitioner MAFSICOR wherebyit granted MAFSICOR the right, privilege, responsibility and authority to provide,

operate and manage floating bulk terminal facilities for bulk cargoes bound for South

Harbor, Port of Manila,

Barely four months later, PPA and MPSI entered into an agreement wherein the formerauthorized the latter to construct a land-based bulk grain and compatible storage terminal

in Mariveles, Bataan.

Alleging that the PPA-MAFSICOR contract is in complete derogation of MPSIs rightsunder their contract, MPSI filed a petition against PPA and MAFSICOR for declaratory

relief, final injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary

prohibitory injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Judge Veridiano II, issued a temporary restraining order directing the defendants, theiragents and privies to maintain the status quo and enjoining MAFSICOR from bringing in

the floating bulk terminal.

PPA and MAFSICOR filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition withprayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.

The Court of Appeals issued an Order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminaryinjunction to maintain thestatus quo

The Court of Appeals promulgated writ of preliminary injunction issued is madepermanent during the trial of the case in the court a quo.

Issue:

Whether the issuance of the said writ is contrary to the mandate of P. D. No. 1818

Held:

Yes, Indeed, even under the basic legal axiom of separation of powers which accords co-equal

status to the three branches of government, the courts may not tread into matters requiring the

exercise of discretion of a functionary or office in the executive and legislative branches, unless

it is clearly shown that the government official or office concerned abused his or its discretion.


11/12

G.R. No. 61565. August 20, 1990

Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Sofronio Sayo, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Nueva

Vizcaya, Branch I, and Ramon Tan Biana, Jr.

Facts:

Tan Biana, Jr. was the fifth legitimate child of the spouses Ramon Tan Biana and TiuMuy.

His birth was registered on the same day in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar ofSolano, Nueva Vizcaya, by the nurse who attended the parturition of Ramon's mother.

He claims that, in the process, the attending nurse erroneously reported to the Local CivilRegistrar that Ramon's citizenship, and the citizenship of his parents, as "Chinese"

instead of "Filipino".

Private respondent filed a petition before the then Court of First Instance seeking thecorrection of entries in the Civil Registry of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, relating to his

citizenship and the citizenship of his legitimate parents After the Solicitor General failed to appear in the hearing and make an opposition

through an answer, trial court ordered the Local Civil Registrar of Solano, Nueva

Vizcaya, to make in the entries and records the corrections sought by private respondent

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision ofthe trial court, however, it was denied.

In the instant Petition for Review, petitioner alleges that the trial court should not haveordered the correction of the relevant entries in the Local Civil Registry since they

involved substantial matters which should not have been decided in "a merely summary

proceeding" but rather in "an appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected

by the entries are notified or represented".

Private respondent counters that he does not seek a judicial declaration of his citizenshipbut rather merely a correction of an entry in the Local Civil Registrar's Office as to his

citizenship and that of his parents, considering that the citizenship of his parents had

already been passed upon by the Bureau of Immigration

Issue:

Whether the decision of the RTC is erroneous

Held:

No, if all the procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/orcancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the

Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as 'summary'.


12/12

G. R. No. L-48327 August 21, 1991

Republic of the Philippines, Director of Lands and Director of Forestry vs. Hon. Court of

Appeals, Paulina Paran, Elisa Paran Maitim and Sina Paran

Facts:

Private respondents are applicants for registration of a parcel of land situated in LaTrinidad, Benguet claiming to have acquired the land from their father Dayotao Paran by

actual, physical, exclusive and open possession thereof since time immemorial.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed on behalf of the Director of Lands an Oppositioncontending that: (1) private respondents have no registrable title; (2) the parcel of land

sought to be registered is part of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the

Philippines; and (3) the application for registration was filed after expiration of the period

provided for in R.A. No. 2061

The Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Baguio and Benguet an Opposition, inrepresentation of the Director of Forestry, stating that the parcel of land sought to beregistered is within the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve covered by Proclamation No.

217 dated 16 February 1929.

An Order was then issued denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Provincial Fiscal. The land registration court rendered a decision confirming their title Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration but such was denied Petitioners filed an instant petition for review

Issue:

Whether the land involved is part of the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve making the court

without jurisdiction to render decision

Held:

No, private respondents' application for judicial confirmation of their imperfect title was filed in

1970 and that the land registration court rendered its decision confirming their long-continued

possession of the lands here involved in 1974, that is, during the time when Section 48(c) was in

legal effect. Private respondents' imperfect title was, in other words, perfected or vested by the

completion of the required period of possession prior to the issuance of P.D. No. 1073.

Documents

Digested Cases in Natural Resources PDF