LTD Cases 12-21

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

1/180

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

DR. DIOSCORO CARBONILLA,

Petitioner,

- versus -

MARCELO ABIERA and MARICRIS

ABIERA PAREDES, SUBSTITUTED

B !ER !EIRS,

Respondents.

".R. No. #$$%&$

Present:

CARPIO,J.,

Chairperson,

NACHURA,

PERA!A,

A"A#, $nd

%EN#O&A,JJ.

Pro'ul($ted:

)ul* +, +

/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

DECISION

NAC!URA,J.'

Ass$iled in this petition for revie0 $re the #ecision12of the Court of

Appe$ls 3CA4 d$ted 5epte'ber 6, + $nd the Resolution d$ted April 7, +7,

0hich dis'issed petitioners co'pl$int for e8ect'ent $($inst respondents.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn1

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

2/180

!he c$se $rose fro' the follo0in( $ntecedents:

Petitioner, #r. #ioscoro C$rbonill$, filed $ co'pl$int for e8ect'ent $($inst

respondents, %$rcelo Abier$ $nd %$ricris Abier$ P$redes, 0ith the %unicip$l !ri$l

Court in Cities 3%!CC4, %$$sin Cit*. !he co'pl$int $lle(ed th$t petitioner is there(istered o0ner of $ p$rcel of l$nd, loc$ted inBarangayC$nturin(, %$$sin Cit*,

identified $s ot No. 76-"-P-9-"-+-" P5#-6-6;+-#, %$$sin C$d$stre. !he

l$nd is purportedl* covered b* $ certific$te of title, $nd decl$red for $ssess'ent

$nd t$/$tion purposes in petitioners n$'e. Petitioner further cl$i'ed th$t he is $lso

the o0ner of the residenti$l buildin( st$ndin( on the l$nd, 0hich buildin( he

$c

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

3/180

Pl$s$b$s under !# No. 7, before the 5econd =orld =$r. !his !# 0$s l$ter

c$ncelled b* !# No. 679; in 6, !# No. 99 in ;6, $nd !# No. 6+ in

9. Respondents $verred th$t the buildin( 0$s previousl* $ ($r$(e-li?e structure

but, in 77, Alfredo Abier$ $nd !eodoric$ C$pistr$no rep$ired $nd re'odeled it,

for 0hich re$son, the* obt$ined $ buildin( per'it on April , 77 fro' the then%unicip$lit* of %$$sin. Din$ll*, respondents contended th$t the c$se should be

dis'issed for f$ilure to i'ple$d $s defend$nts respondent %$rcelos siblin(s, 0ho

$re co-heirs of the sub8ect properties. 192Respondents presented copies of the t0o

!#s in the n$'e of Dr$ncisco Pl$s$b$s $nd the "uildin( Per'it d$ted April ,

77.

!he %!CC decided the c$se in f$vor of respondents. It opined th$t

petitioners cl$i' of o0nership over the sub8ect p$rcel of l$nd 0$s not successfull*rebutted b* respondents@ hence, petitioners o0nership of the s$'e 0$s dee'ed

est$blished.12Ho0ever, 0ith respect to the buildin(, the court decl$red respondents

$s h$vin( the better ri(ht to its '$teri$l possession in li(ht of petitioners f$ilure to

refute respondents cl$i' th$t their predecessors h$d been in prior possession of the

buildin( since $nd th$t the* h$ve continued such possession up to the present.1;2 In so rulin(, the court $pplied Art. ; 12of the Civil Code 0hich $llo0s the

possessor in (ood f$ith to ret$in the propert* until he is rei'bursed for necess$r*

e/penses. !hus, in its decision d$ted %$rch ;, +, the %!CC pronounced:

=HEREDORE, fore(oin( pre'ises considered $nd the coll$ted

evidences $t h$nd 1h$ve2 preponder$ntl* est$blished, )U#B%EN! is

hereb* rendered in f$vor of the defend$nts #ECARINB the defend$nts

to h$ve the better ri(hts of 3'$teri$l4 possession to the $ss$iled buildin(

$nd dee'ed $s possessors in (ood f$ith $nd $re le($ll* entitled to its

possession $nd occup$nc*.

!he pl$intiff 8udici$ll* $ffir'ed $s the l$nd o0ner is en8oined to

respect the ri(hts of the defend$nts pursu$nt to the provisions of Art.

;, Ch$pter III, Ne0 Civil Code of the Philippines1, 02ithout pre8udiceto the provisions of Arts. ;7 $nd ;6, Ne0 Civil Code of

the Philippines. No pronounce'ent $s to costs $s defend$nts

predecessors-in-interest $re dee'ed possessors $nd builders in (ood

f$ith.

5O OR#ERE#.172
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn7

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

4/180

Petitioner elev$ted the c$se to the Re(ion$l !ri$l Court 3R!C4. On )ul* +,

+, the R!C reversed the %!CC decision. !he R!C $(reed 0ith the %!CC th$t

the l$nd is o0ned b* petitioner. !he t0o courts differed, ho0ever, in their

conclusion 0ith respect to the buildin(. !he R!C pl$ced the burden uponrespondents to prove their cl$i' th$t the* built it prior to petitioners $c

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

5/180

one-*e$r period for filin( the forcible entr* c$se h$d $lre$d* l$psed. !he

dispositive portion of the CA #ecision d$ted 5epte'ber 6, + re$ds:=HEREDORE, pre'ises considered, the $ss$iled decision pro'ul($ted

on )ul* +, + of "r$nch +; of the Re(ion$l !ri$l Court

3R!C4, %$$sin Cit*, 5outhern e*te in Civil C$se No. R-996+ is hereb*decl$red NU $nd GOI# for f$ilure of the pl$intiff 3herein respondent4

to prove th$t the c$se $t b$r is for unl$0ful det$iner or forcible entr*.

Accordin(l*, the inst$nt c$se is hereb* #I5%I55E#.

/ / / /

5O OR#ERE#.12

Petitioner sou(ht reconsider$tion of the #ecision, but the CA denied

petitioners 'otion for l$c? of 'erit.12Hence, petitioner c$'e to this Court throu(h

$ petition for revie0 on certiorari.

On 5epte'ber 9, +7, respondents counsel infor'ed this Court th$t

respondent, %$ricris Abier$ P$redes, died on )une +;, + of $sph*/i$ due to

h$n(in(, $nd 'oved th$t the l$tters heirs be $llo0ed to substitute for the dece$sed.1+2In the Resolution192d$ted Nove'ber , +7, the Court (r$nted the 'otion.

Petitioner $r(ues th$t he h$s sufficientl* est$blished his o0nership of thesub8ect properties@ conse

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

6/180

=ithout $ doubt, the re(istered o0ner of re$l propert* is entitled to its

possession. Ho0ever, the o0ner c$nnot si'pl* 0rest possession thereof fro'

0hoever is in $ctu$l occup$tion of the propert*. !o recover possession, he 'ust

resort to the proper 8udici$l re'ed* $nd, once he chooses 0h$t $ction to file, he isre

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

7/180

sub8ect properties. A b$re $lle($tion of toler$nce 0ill not suffice. Pl$intiff 'ust, $t

le$st, sho0 overt $cts indic$tive of his or his predecessors per'ission to occup* the

sub8ect propert*. !hus, 0e 'ust $(ree 0ith the CA 0hen it s$id:

A c$reful scrutin* of the records reve$led th$t herein respondent'iser$bl* f$iled to prove his cl$i' th$t petitioners possession of the

sub8ect buildin( 0$s b* 'ere toler$nce $s $lle(ed in the

co'pl$int. Toleran(e'ust be 1present2 ri(ht fro' the st$rt of possession

sou(ht to be recovered to be 0ithin the purvie0 of unl$0ful det$iner.

%ere toler$nce $l0$*s c$rries 0ith it per'ission $nd not 'erel* silence

or in$ction for silence or in$ction is ne(li(ence, not toler$nce.162

In $ddition, pl$intiff 'ust $lso sho0 th$t the supposed $cts of toler$nce h$ve

been present ri(ht fro' the ver* st$rt of the possessionfro' entr* to the

propert*. Other0ise, if the possession 0$s unl$0ful fro' the st$rt, $n $ction for

unl$0ful det$iner 0ould be $n i'proper re'ed*.12Not$bl*, no 'ention 0$s '$de

in the co'pl$int of ho0 entr* b* respondents 0$s effected or ho0 $nd 0hen

dispossession st$rted. Neither 0$s there $n* evidence sho0in( such det$ils.

In $n* event, petitioner h$s so'e other recourse. He '$* pursue recoverin(

possession of his propert* b* filin( $n accion puliciana, 0hich is $ plen$r* $ction

intended to recover the better ri(ht to possess@ or $n accion reivindicatoria, $ suit

to recover o0nership of re$l propert*. =e stress, ho0ever, th$t the pronounce'entin this c$se $s to the o0nership of the l$nd should be re($rded $s 'erel*

provision$l $nd, therefore, 0ould not b$r or pre8udice $n $ction bet0een the s$'e

p$rties involvin( title to the l$nd.1+2

)!ERE*ORE, pre'ises considered, the petition is DENIED. !he CA

#ecision d$ted 5epte'ber 6, + $nd Resolution d$ted April 7, +7

$reA**IRMED.

*IRST DIVISION

RAMON ARANDA,

Petitioner,

".R. No. #$+&

Present:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/177637.htm#_ftn20

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

8/180

- versus -

CORONA, C.J.,

Chairperson,

EONAR#O-#E CA5!RO,

"ER5A%IN,

GIARA%A, )R., $nd

PERE&,JJ.

REPUBLIC O* T!E P!ILIPPINES,

Respondent.

Pro'ul($ted:

Au(ust +, +

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DECISION

VILLARAMA, R.,J.'

On $ppe$l is the #ecision/#0d$ted )ul* +, +; $nd Resolution/+0d$ted April ,

+ of the Court of Appe$ls 3CA4 in CA-B.R. CG No. 797 0hich reversed $nd

set $side the #ecision/&0d$ted )$nu$r* 9, + of the Re(ion$l !ri$l Court 3R!C4

of !$n$u$n, "$t$n($s, "r$nch in $nd Re(. C$se No. !-99; 3RA Record No. N-

74.

5ub8ect of $ petition for ori(in$l re(istr$tion before the R!C is $ p$rcel of l$nd

situ$ted in 5$n Andres, %$lv$r, "$t$n($s 0ith $n $re$ of ,9 s

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

9/180

bet0een the vendor $nd $pplic$nt corpor$tion c$nnot push throu(h $nd

conse

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

10/180

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

11/180

such possession is under $ ona fide cl$i' of o0nership since )une +, ; or

e$rlier.

Under the Re($li$n doctrine 0hich is e'bodied in 5ection +, Article II of

the 67 Constitution,

$ll l$nds of the public do'$in belon( to the 5t$te, 0hich isthe source of $n* $sserted ri(ht to o0nership of l$nd. All l$nds not $ppe$rin( to be

cle$rl* 0ithin priv$te o0nership $re presu'ed to belon( to the 5t$te. Unless public

l$nd is sho0n to h$ve been recl$ssified or $lien$ted to $ priv$te person b* the

5t$te, it re'$ins p$rt of the in$lien$ble public do'$in. !o overco'e this

presu'ption, incontrovertible evidence 'ust be est$blished th$t the l$nd sub8ect of

the $pplic$tion is $lien$ble or dispos$ble./#20

!o prove th$t the l$nd sub8ect of $n $pplic$tion for re(istr$tion is $lien$ble,

$n $pplic$nt 'ust est$blish the e/istence of $ positive $ct of the (overn'ent such

$s $ presidenti$l procl$'$tion or $n e/ecutive order@ $n $d'inistr$tive $ction@

investi($tion reports of "ure$u of $nds investi($tors@ $nd $ le(isl$tive $ct or $

st$tute./#%0 !he $pplic$nt '$* $lso secure $ certific$tion fro' the Bovern'ent th$t

the l$nds $pplied for $re $lien$ble $nd dispos$ble./#$0

In this c$se, the Assist$nt Re(ion$l E/ecutive #irector Dor Oper$tions-%$inl$nd

Provinces of the #ep$rt'ent of Environ'ent $nd N$tur$l Resources 3#ENR4, in

co'pli$nce 0ith the directive of the tri$l court, issued $ certific$tion st$tin( th$tthe sub8ect propert* f$lls 0ithin the Alien$ble $nd #ispos$ble $nd, Pro8ect No.

++-A of ip$, "$t$n($s per C %$p 76 certified on %$rch +, +6. /#30Ho0ever,

in the Certific$tion/#40d$ted )$nu$r* , + issued b* the #ENR CENR Officer

of "$t$n($s Cit*, P$ncr$sio %. Alc$nt$r$, 0hich 0$s sub'itted in evidence b* the

petitioner, it st$tes th$t:

!his is to certif* th$t b$sed on pro8ection fro' the technic$l

reference '$p of this Office, ot No. 979, Ap--669, situ$ted $t

"$r$n($* 5$n Andres, %$lv$r, "$t$n($s cont$inin( $n $re$ of NINE!HOU5AN# ONE HUN#RE# !HREE AN# DOR! 5EGEN

3,9.74 5>UARE %E!ER5 $nd sho0n $t the reverse side hereof h$s

been verified to be 0ithin the AIENA"E AN# #I5PO5A"E &ONE

under Pro6e(t No. &4, Land Cla77i8i(ation Map No. &%5# (erti8ied on

++ De(em9er #44$e/cept for t0ent* 'eters strip of l$nd $lon( the cree?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/172331.htm#_ftn20

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

12/180

boundin( on the northe$stern portion 0hich is to be '$int$ined $s

stre$'b$n? protection.

/ / / / 3E'ph$sis supplied.4

Petitioner h$s not e/pl$ined the discrep$ncies in the d$tes of

cl$ssific$tion/+50'entioned in the fore(oin( (overn'ent

certific$tions. Conse

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

13/180

the concept of o0ner $s conte'pl$ted b* l$0. %ere c$su$l cultiv$tion of the l$nd

does not $'ount to e/clusive $nd notorious possession th$t 0ould (ive rise to

o0nership./++05pecific $cts of do'inion 'ust be cle$rl* sho0n b* the $pplic$nt.

=e h$ve held th$t $ person 0ho see?s the re(istr$tion of title to $ piece of l$nd onthe b$sis of possession b* hi'self $nd his predecessors-in-interest 'ust prove his

cl$i' b* cle$r $nd convincin( evidence, i.e., he 'ust prove his title $nd should not

rel* on the $bsence or 0e$?ness of the evidence of the oppositors. /+&0Durther'ore,

the court h$s the bounden dut*, even in the $bsence of $n* opposition, to re

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

14/180

'( F")*+

+n Novem"er -, /01, the government, through the Commissioner of Pu"li 2ighways, signed aontrat with the Constrution and (evelopment Corporation of the Philippines #$C(CP$ for "revity%to relaim ertain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. The ontrat also inluded theonstrution of Phases * and ** of the Manila'Cavite Coastal )oad. C(CP o"ligated itself to arry out

all the wor!s in onsideration of fifty perent of the total relaimed land.

+n 3e"ruary 4, /00, then President 3erdinand E. Maros issued Presidential (eree No. -54reating PEA. P( No. -54 tas!ed PEA $to relaim land, inluding foreshore and su"merged areas,$and $to develop, improve, a6uire, 7 7 7 lease and sell any and all !inds of lands.$+n the samedate, then President Maros issued Presidential (eree No. -58 transferring to PEA the $landsrelaimed in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay$under the Manila'Cavite Coastal )oadand )elamation Projet #MCC))P%.

+n (eem"er /, /5, then President Maros issued a memorandum direting PEA to amend itsontrat with C(CP, so that $9A:ll future wor!s in MCC))P 7 7 7 shall "e funded and owned "yPEA.$ Aordingly, PEA and C(CP e7euted a Memorandum of Agreement dated (eem"er /,

/5, whih stated;

$#i% C(CP shall underta!e all relamation, onstrution, and suh other wor!s in theMCC))P as may "e agreed upon "y the parties, to "e paid aording to progress of wor!son a unit prie

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

15/180

entered into the DA through negotiation without pu"li "idding.4+n April 5, //8, the Board of(iretors of PEA, in its )esolution No. 48, onfirmed the DA.8+n une 5, //8, then President3idel D. )amos, through then E7eutive =eretary )u"en Torres, approved the DA.

+n Novem"er /, //, then =enate President Ernesto Maeda delivered a privilege speeh in the=enate and denouned the DA as the $grandmother of all sams.$ As a result, the =enate

Committee on Fovernment Corporations and Pu"li Enterprises, and the Committee onAounta"ility of Pu"li +ffiers and *nvestigations, onduted a joint investigation. The =enateCommittees reported the results of their investigation in =enate Committee )eport No. 8- dated=eptem"er , //0.0Among the onlusions of their report are; #% the relaimed lands PEA see!sto transfer to AMA)* under the DA are lands of the pu"li domain whih the government has notlassified as aliena"le lands and therefore PEA annot alienate these landsG #% the ertifiates oftitle overing the 3reedom *slands are thus void, and #1% the DA itself is illegal.

+n (eem"er 8, //0, then President 3idel D. )amos issued Presidential Administrative +rder No.18 reating a >egal Tas! 3ore to ondut a study on the legality of the DA in view of =enateCommittee )eport No. 8-. The mem"ers of the >egal Tas! 3ore were the =eretary ofustie,5the Chief Presidential >egal Counsel,/and the Fovernment Corporate Counsel.-The >egal

Tas! 3ore upheld the legality of the DA, ontrary to the onlusions reahed "y the =enateCommittees.

+n April 4 and 8, //5, the Philippine Daily Inquirerand Todaypu"lished reports that there were on'going renegotiations "etween PEA and AMA)* under an order issued "y then President 3idel D.)amos. Aording to these reports, PEA (iretor Nestor Halaw, PEA Chairman Arsenio Iulo andretired Navy +ffier =ergio Cru omposed the negotiating panel of PEA.

+n April 1, //5, Antonio M. Julueta filed "efore the Court a Petition for Prohibition with Applicationfor the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctiondo!eted as F.). No.1//4 see!ing to nullify the DA. The Court dismissed the petition $for unwarranted disregard of

judiial hierarhy, without prejudie to the refiling of the ase "efore the proper ourt.$

+n April 0, //5, petitioner 3ran! *. Chave #$Petitioner$ for "revity% as a ta7payer, filed theinstant Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for the Issuance of a rit of Preliminary Injunction andTemporary Restraining Order. Petitioner ontends the government stands to lose "illions of pesos inthe sale "y PEA of the relaimed lands to AMA)*. Petitioner prays that PEA pu"lily dislose theterms of any renegotiation of the DA, invo!ing =etion 5, Artile **, and =etion 0, Artile ***, of the/50 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of pu"li onern. Petitionerassails the sale to AMA)* of lands of the pu"li domain as a "latant violation of =etion 1, Artile K**of the /50 Constitution prohi"iting the sale of aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain to privateorporations. 3inally, petitioner asserts that he see!s to enjoin the loss of "illions of pesos inproperties of the =tate that are of pu"li dominion.

After several motions for e7tension of time,1PEA and AMA)* filed their Comments on +to"er /,

//5 and une 8, //5, respetively. Meanwhile, on (eem"er 5, //5, petitioner filed an+mni"us Motion; #a% to re6uire PEA to su"mit the terms of the renegotiated PEA'AMA)* ontratG#"% for issuane of a temporary restraining orderG and #% to set the ase for hearing on oralargument. Petitioner filed a )eiterative Motion for *ssuane of a T)+ dated May , ///, whih theCourt denied in a )esolution dated une , ///.

*n a )esolution dated Marh 1, ///, the Court gave due ourse to the petition and re6uired theparties to file their respetive memoranda.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

16/180

+n Marh 1-, ///, PEA and AMA)* signed the Amended oint Denture Agreement #$AmendedDA,$ for "revity%. +n May 5, ///, the +ffie of the President under the administration of thenPresident oseph E. Estrada approved the Amended DA.

(ue to the approval of the Amended DA "y the +ffie of the President, petitioner now prays that on$onstitutional and statutory grounds the renegotiated ontrat "e delared null and void.$4

'( I++u(+

The issues raised "y petitioner, PEA8and AMA)*are as follows;

*. ?2ET2E) T2E P)*NC*PA> )E>*E3= P)AIE( 3+) *N T2E PET*T*+N A)E M++T AN(ACA(EM*C BECA@=E +3 =@B=EL@ENT EDENT=G

**. ?2ET2E) T2E PET*T*+N ME)*T= (*=M*==A> 3+) 3A*>*NF T+ +B=E)DE T2EP)*NC*P>E F+DE)N*NF T2E 2*E)A)C2I +3 C+@)T=G

***. ?2ET2E) T2E PET*T*+N ME)*T= (*=M*==A> 3+) N+N'EK2A@=T*+N +3

A(M*N*=T)AT*DE )EME(*E=G

*D. ?2ET2E) PET*T*+NE) 2A= !O"#$ $TA%DIT+ B)*NF T2*= =@*TG

D. ?2ET2E) T2E C+N=T*T@T*+NA> )*F2T T+ *N3+)MAT*+N *NC>@(E= +33*C*A>*N3+)MAT*+N +N +N'F+*NF NEF+T*AT*+N= BE3+)E A 3*NA> AF)EEMENTG

D*. ?2ET2E) T2E =T*P@>AT*+N= *N T2E AMEN(E( +*NT DENT@)E AF)EEMENT3+) T2E T)AN=3E) T+ AMA)* +3 CE)TA*N >AN(=, )EC>A*ME( AN( =T*>> T+ BE)EC>A*ME(, D*+>ATE T2E /50 C+N=T*T@T*+NG AN(

D**. ?2ET2E) T2E C+@)T *= T2E P)+PE) 3+)@M 3+) )A*=*NF T2E *==@E +3

?2ET2E) T2E AMEN(E( +*NT DENT@)E AF)EEMENT *= F)+==>I(*=A(DANTAFE+@= T+ T2E F+DE)NMENT.

'( Cou*-+ Rul#/

First issue: whether the principal reliefs prayed for in the petition are moot and academicbecause of subsequent events.

The petition prays that PEA pu"lily dislose the $terms and onditions of the on'going negotiationsfor a new agreement.$ The petition also prays that the Court enjoin PEA from $privately entering into,perfeting andi!ewise, petitioner&s prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended DA is now moot"eause PEA and AMA)* have already signed the Amended DA on Marh 1-, ///. Moreover, the+ffie of the President has approved the Amended DA on May 5, ///.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

17/180

Petitioner ounters that PEA and AMA)* annot avoid the onstitutional issue "y simply fast'tra!ingthe signing and approval of the Amended DA "efore the Court ould at on the issue. Presidentialapproval does not resolve the onstitutional issue or remove it from the am"it of judiial review.

?e rule that the signing of the Amended DA "y PEA and AMA)* and its approval "y the Presidentannot operate to moot the petition and divest the Court of its jurisdition. PEA and AMA)* have still

to implement the Amended DA. The prayer to enjoin the signing of the Amended DA ononstitutional grounds neessarily inludes preventing its implementation if in the meantime PEAand AMA)* have signed one in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner&s prinipal "asis in assailingthe renegotiation of the DA is its violation of =etion 1, Artile K** of the Constitution, whih prohi"itsthe government from alienating lands of the pu"li domain to private orporations. *f the AmendedDA indeed violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to enjoin its implementation, and ifalready implemented, to annul the effets of suh unonstitutional ontrat.

The Amended DA is not an ordinary ommerial ontrat "ut one whih see!s to transfer title andownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of anila !ay to asingle private corporation. *t now "eomes more ompelling for the Court to resolve the issue toinsure the government itself does not violate a provision of the Constitution intended to safeguard

the national patrimony. =upervening events, whether intended or aidental, annot prevent theCourt from rendering a deision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution. *n the instant ase, ifthe Amended DA runs ounter to the Constitution, the Court an still prevent the transfer of title andownership of aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain in the name of AMA)*. Even in ases wheresupervening events had made the ases moot, the Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal oronstitutional issues raised to formulate ontrolling priniples to guide the "enh, "ar, and thepu"li.0

Also, the instant petition is a ase of first impression. All previous deisions of the Court involving=etion 1, Artile K** of the /50 Constitution, or its ounterpart provision in the /01Constitution,5overed agricultural landssold to private orporations whih a6uired the lands fromprivate parties. The transferors of the private orporations laimed or ould laim the right to"udicialconfirmation of their imperfect titles/under #itle $$of Commonwealth At. 4 #$CA No. 4$ for

"revity%. *n the instant ase, AMA)* see!s to a6uire from PEA, a pu"li orporation, relaimedlands and su"merged areas for non%agriculturalpurposes "ypurchaseunder P( No. -54#harter of PEA% and #itle $$$of CA No. 4. Certain underta!ings "y AMA)* under the AmendedDA onstitute the onsideration for the purhase. Neither AMA)* nor PEA an laim judiialonfirmation of their titles "eause the lands overed "y the Amended DA are newly relaimed orstill to "e relaimed. udiial onfirmation of imperfet title re6uires open, ontinuous, e7lusive andnotorious oupation of agriultural lands of the pu"li domain for at least thirty years sine une ,/48 or earlier. Besides, the deadline for filing appliations for judiial onfirmation of imperfet titlee7pired on (eem"er 1, /50.-

>astly, there is a need to resolve immediately the onstitutional issue raised in this petition "eauseof the possi"le transfer at any time "y PEA to AMA)* of title and ownership to portions of the

relaimed lands. @nder the Amended DA, PEA is o"ligated to transfer to AMA)* the latter&s seventyperent proportionate share in the relaimed areas as the relamation progresses. The AmendedDA even allows AMA)* to mortgage at any time the entirerelaimed area to raise finaning for therelamation projet.

&econd issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for failing to observe the principlegoverning the hierarchy of courts.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

18/180

PEA and AMA)* laim petitioner ignored the judiial hierarhy "y see!ing relief diretly from theCourt. The priniple of hierarhy of ourts applies generally to ases involving fatual 6uestions. As itis not a trier of fats, the Court annot entertain ases involving fatual issues. The instant ase,however, raises onstitutional issues of transendental importane to the pu"li.The Court anresolve this ase without determining any fatual issue related to the ase. Also, the instant ase is apetition for mandamus whih falls under the original jurisdition of the Court under =etion 8, Artile

D*** of the Constitution. ?e resolve to e7erise primary jurisdition over the instant ase.

#hird issue: whether the petition merits dismissal for non%e'haustion of administrativeremedies.

PEA faults petitioner for see!ing judiial intervention in ompelling PEA to dislose pu"lily ertaininformation without first as!ing PEA the needed information. PEA laims petitioner&s diret resort tothe Court violates the priniple of e7haustion of administrative remedies. *t also violates the rule thatmandamus may issue only if there is no other plain, speedy and ade6uate remedy in the ordinaryourse of law.

PEA distinguishes the instant ase from Taada v. Tuvera1where the Court granted the petition for

mandamus even if the petitioners there did not initially demand from the +ffie of the President thepu"liation of the presidential derees. PEA points out that in Taada, the E7eutive (epartment hadan affirmative statutoryduty under Artile of the Civil Code4and =etion of Commonwealth AtNo. 158to pu"lish the presidential derees. There was, therefore, no need for the petitioners inTaada to ma!e an initial demand from the +ffie of the President. *n the instant ase, PEA laims ithas no affirmative statutory duty to dislose pu"lily information a"out its renegotiation of the DA.Thus, PEA asserts that the Court must apply the priniple of e7haustion of administrative remediesto the instant ase in view of the failure of petitioner here to demand initially from PEA the neededinformation.

The original DA sought to dispose to AMA)* pu"li lands held "y PEA, a government orporation.@nder =etion 0/ of the Fovernment Auditing Code,the disposition of government lands to privateparties re6uires pu"li "idding. ()* was under a positive legal duty to disclose to the public the

terms and conditions for the sale of its lands. The law o"ligated PEA to ma!e this pu"lidislosure even without demand from petitioner or from anyone. PEA failed to ma!e this pu"lidislosure "eause the original DA, li!e the Amended DA, was the result of a negotiated contract,not of a pu"li "idding. Considering that PEA had an affirmative statutory duty to ma!e the pu"lidislosure, and was even in "reah of this legal duty, petitioner had the right to see! diret judiialintervention.

Moreover, and this alone is determinative of this issue, the priniple of e7haustion of administrativeremedies does not apply when the issue involved is a purely legal or onstitutional 6uestion.0Theprinipal issue in the instant ase is the apaity of AMA)* to a6uire lands held "y PEA in view ofthe onstitutional "an prohi"iting the alienation of lands of the pu"li domain to private orporations.?e rule that the priniple of e7haustion of administrative remedies does not apply in the instant

ase.

Fourth issue: whether petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit

PEA argues that petitioner has no standing to institute mandamusproeedings to enfore hisonstitutional right to information without a showing that PEA refused to perform an affirmative dutyimposed on PEA "y the Constitution. PEA also laims that petitioner has not shown that he will sufferany onrete injury "eause of the signing or implementation of the Amended DA. Thus, there is noatual ontroversy re6uiring the e7erise of the power of judiial review.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

19/180

The petitioner has standing to "ring this ta7payer&s suit "eause the petition see!s to ompel PEA toomply with its onstitutional duties. There are two onstitutional issues involved here. 3irst is theright of itiens to information on matters of pu"li onern. =eond is the appliation of aonstitutional provision intended to insure the e6uita"le distri"ution of aliena"le lands of the pu"lidomain among 3ilipino itiens. The thrust of the first issue is to ompel PEA to dislose pu"lilyinformation on the sale of government lands worth "illions of pesos, information whih the

Constitution and statutory law mandate PEA to dislose. The thrust of the seond issue is to preventPEA from alienating hundreds of hetares of aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain in violation of theConstitution, ompelling PEA to omply with a onstitutional duty to the nation.

Moreover, the petition raises matters of transendental importane to the pu"li. *n +have, v.(+--,5the Court upheld the right of a itien to "ring a ta7payer&s suit on matters of transendentalimportane to the pu"li, thus '

$Besides, petitioner emphasies, the matter of reovering the ill'gotten wealth of theMaroses is an issue of &transendental importane to the pu"li.& 2e asserts that ordinaryta7payers have a right to initiate and proseute ations 6uestioning the validity of ats ororders of government agenies or instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of &paramount

pu"li interest,& and if they &immediately affet the soial, eonomi and moral well "eing ofthe people.&

Moreover, the mere fat that he is a itien satisfies the re6uirement of personal interest,when the proeeding involves the assertion of a pu"li right, suh as in this ase. 2e invo!esseveral deisions of this Court whih have set aside the proedural matter of locus standi,when the su"jet of the ase involved pu"li interest.

7 7 7

*n Ta&ada '( Tu'era, the Court asserted that when the issue onerns a pu"li right and theo"jet of mandamus is to o"tain the enforement of a pu"li duty, the people are regarded asthe real parties in interestG and "eause it is suffiient that petitioner is a itien and as suhis interested in the e7eution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal or speialinterest in the result of the ation. *n the aforesaid ase, the petitioners sought to enforetheir right to "e informed on matters of pu"li onern, a right then reognied in =etion ,

Artile *D of the /01 Constitution, in onnetion with the rule that laws in order to "e validand enforea"le must "e pu"lished in the +ffiial Faette or otherwise effetivelypromulgated. *n ruling for the petitioners& legal standing, the Court delared that the right theysought to "e enfored &is a pu"li right reognied "y no less than the fundamental law of theland.&

!egaspi '( "i'il $er'ice "ommission, while reiterating Taada, further delared that &when amandamus proeeding involves the assertion of a pu"li right, the re6uirement of personalinterest is satisfied "y the mere fat that petitioner is a itien and, therefore, part of the

general &pu"li& whih possesses the right.&

3urther, inAlbano '( Reyes, we said that while e7penditure of pu"li funds may not have"een involved under the 6uestioned ontrat for the development, management andoperation of the Manila *nternational Container Terminal, &pu"li interest 9was: definitelyinvolved onsidering the important role 9of the su"jet ontrat: . . . in the eonomidevelopment of the ountry and the magnitude of the finanial onsideration involved.& ?eonluded that, as a onse6uene, the dislosure provision in the Constitution wouldonstitute suffiient authority for upholding the petitioner&s standing.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

20/180

=imilarly, the instant petition is anhored on the right of the people to information and aessto offiial reords, douments and papers a right guaranteed under =etion 0, Artile *** ofthe /50 Constitution. Petitioner, a former soliitor general, is a 3ilipino itien. Beause ofthe satisfation of the two "asi re6uisites laid down "y deisional law to sustain petitioner&slegal standing, i.e. #% the enforement of a pu"li right #% espoused "y a 3ilipino itien, werule that the petition at "ar should "e allowed.$

?e rule that sine the instant petition, "rought "y a itien, involves the enforement of onstitutionalrights ' to information and to the e6uita"le diffusion of natural resoures ' matters of transendentalpu"li importane, the petitioner has the re6uisite locus standi.

Fifth issue: whether the constitutional right to information includes official information onon%going negotiations before a final agreement.

=etion 0, Artile *** of the Constitution e7plains the people&s right to information on matters of pu"lionern in this manner;

$=e. 0. The right of the people to information on matters of pu"li onern shall "e

reognied. *ccess to official records and to documents and papers pertaining toofficial acts transactions or decisions, as well as to government researh data used as"asis for poliy development, shall "e afforded the itien, su"jet to suh limitations as may"e provided "y law.$ #Emphasis supplied%

The =tate poliy of full transpareny in all transations involving pu"li interest reinfores thepeople&s right to information on matters of pu"li onern. This =tate poliy is e7pressed in =etion5, Artile ** of the Constitution, thus;

$=e. 5. =u"jet to reasona"le onditions presri"ed "y law, the =tate adopts andimplements apolicy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving publicinterest.$ #Emphasis supplied%

These twin provisions of the Constitution see! to promote transpareny in poliy'ma!ing and in theoperations of the government, as well as provide the people suffiient information to e7eriseeffetively other onstitutional rights. These twin provisions are essential to the e7erise of freedomof e7pression. *f the government does not dislose its offiial ats, transations and deisions toitiens, whatever itiens say, even if e7pressed without any restraint, will "e speulative andamount to nothing. These twin provisions are also essential to hold pu"li offiials $at all times 7 7 7aounta"le to the people,$/for unless itiens have the proper information, they annot hold pu"lioffiials aounta"le for anything. Armed with the right information, itiens an partiipate in pu"lidisussions leading to the formulation of government poliies and their effetive implementation. Aninformed itienry is essential to the e7istene and proper funtioning of any demoray. Ase7plained "y the Court in /almonte v. !elmonte Jr.1-

$An essential element of these freedoms is to !eep open a ontinuing dialogue or proess ofommuniation "etween the government and the people. *t is in the interest of the =tate thatthe hannels for free politial disussion "e maintained to the end that the government maypereive and "e responsive to the people&s will. Iet, this open dialogue an "e effetive onlyto the e7tent that the itienry is informed and thus a"le to formulate its will intelligently. +nlywhen the partiipants in the disussion are aware of the issues and have aess toinformation relating thereto an suh "ear fruit.$

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

21/180

PEA asserts, iting +have, v. (+--,1that in ases of on'going negotiations the right to informationis limited to $definite propositions of the government.$ PEA maintains the right does not inludeaess to $intra'ageny or inter'ageny reommendations or ommuniations during the stage whenommon assertions are still in the proess of "eing formulated or are in the &e7ploratory stage&.$

Also, AMA)* ontends that petitioner annot invo!e the right at the pre'deisional stage or "efore

the losing of the transation. To support its ontention, AMA)* ites the following disussion in the/5 Constitutional Commission;

%. Su"(. And when we say &transations& whih should "e distinguished from ontrats,agreements, or treaties or whatever, does the Fentleman refer to the steps leading to theonsummation of the ontrat, or does he refer to the ontrat itselfO

%. Ol( #he 0transactions0 used here $ suppose is generic and therefore it can coverboth steps leading to a contract and already a consummated contract r. (residing1fficer.

r. &uare,: #his contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the consummation

of the transaction.

r. 1ple: 2es sub"ect only to reasonable safeguards on the national interest.

r. &uare,:Than! you.$1#Emphasis supplied%

AMA)* argues there must first "e a onsummated ontrat "efore petitioner an invo!e the right.)e6uiring government offiials to reveal their deli"erations at the pre'deisional stage will degradethe 6uality of deision'ma!ing in government agenies. Fovernment offiials will hesitate to e7presstheir real sentiments during deli"erations if there is immediate pu"li dissemination of theirdisussions, putting them under all !inds of pressure "efore they deide.

?e must first distinguish "etween information the law on pu"li "idding re6uires PEA to dislosepu"lily, and information the onstitutional right to information re6uires PEA to release to the pu"li.Before the onsummation of the ontrat, PEA must, on its own and without demand from anyone,dislose to the pu"li matters relating to the disposition of its property. These inlude the sie,loation, tehnial desription and nature of the property "eing disposed of, the terms and onditionsof the disposition, the parties 6ualified to "id, the minimum prie and similar information. PEA mustprepare all these data and dislose them to the pu"li at the start of the disposition proess, long"efore the onsummation of the ontrat, "eause the Fovernment Auditing Code re6uirespublicbidding. *f PEA fails to ma!e this dislosure, any itien an demand from PEA this information atany time during the "idding proess.

*nformation, however, on on%going evaluation or reviewof "ids or proposals "eing underta!en "ythe "idding or review ommittee is not immediately aessi"le under the right to information. ?hilethe evaluation or review is still on'going, there are no $offiial ats, transations, or deisions$ on the"ids or proposals. 2owever, one the ommittee ma!es its official recommendation, there arisesa definite propositionon the part of the government. 3rom this moment, the pu"li&s right toinformation attahes, and any itien an aess all the non'proprietary information leading to suhdefinite proposition. *n +have, v. (+--,11the Court ruled as follows;

$Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we "elieve that it is inum"entupon the PCFF and its offiers, as well as other government representatives, to dislose

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

22/180

suffiient pu"li information on any proposed settlement they have deided to ta!e up withthe ostensi"le owners and holders of ill'gotten wealth. =uh information, though, mustpertain to definite propositions of the government, not neessarily to intra'ageny orinter'ageny reommendations or ommuniations during the stage when ommonassertions are still in the proess of "eing formulated or are in the $e7ploratory$ stage. Thereis need, of ourse, to o"serve the same restritions on dislosure of information in general,

as disussed earlier suh as on matters involving national seurity, diplomati or foreignrelations, intelligene and other lassified information.$ #Emphasis supplied%

Contrary to AMA)*&s ontention, the ommissioners of the /5 Constitutional Commissionunderstood that the right to information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to theconsummation of the transaction.Certainly, a onsummated ontrat is not a re6uirement for thee7erise of the right to information. +therwise, the people an never e7erise the right if no ontratis onsummated, and if one is onsummated, it may "e too late for the pu"li to e7pose its defets. )*wphi)(n+t

)e6uiring a onsummated ontrat will !eep the pu"li in the dar! until the ontrat, whih may "egrossly disadvantageous to the government or even illegal, "eomes a fait accompli. This negatesthe =tate poliy of full transpareny on matters of pu"li onern, a situation whih the framers of the

Constitution ould not have intended. =uh a re6uirement will prevent the itienry from partiipatingin the pu"li disussion of anyproposedontrat, effetively trunating a "asi right enshrined in theBill of )ights. ?e an allow neither an emasulation of a onstitutional right, nor a retreat "y the=tate of its avowed $poliy of full dislosure of all its transations involving pu"li interest.$

The right overs three ategories of information whih are $matters of pu"li onern,$ namely; #%offiial reordsG #% douments and papers pertaining to offiial ats, transations and deisionsG and#1% government researh data used in formulating poliies. The first ategory refers to any doumentthat is part of the pu"li reords in the ustody of government agenies or offiials. The seondategory refers to douments and papers reording, evidening, esta"lishing, onfirming, supporting,

justifying or e7plaining offiial ats, transations or deisions of government agenies or offiials.The third ategory refers to researh data, whether raw, ollated or proessed, owned "y thegovernment and used in formulating government poliies.

The information that petitioner may aess on the renegotiation of the DA inludes evaluationreports, reommendations, legal and e7pert opinions, minutes of meetings, terms of referene andother douments attahed to suh reports or minutes, all relating to the DA. 2owever, the right toinformation does not ompel PEA to prepare lists, a"strats, summaries and the li!e relating to therenegotiation of the DA.14The right only affords aess to reords, douments and papers, whihmeans the opportunity to inspet and opy them. +ne who e7erises the right must opy thereords, douments and papers at his e7pense. The e7erise of the right is also su"jet toreasona"le regulations to protet the integrity of the pu"li reords and to minimie disruption togovernment operations, li!e rules speifying when and how to ondut the inspetion and opying. 18

The right to information, however, does not e7tend to matters reognied as privileged information

under the separation of powers.1

The right does not also apply to information on military anddiplomati serets, information affeting national seurity, and information on investigations of rimes"y law enforement agenies "efore the proseution of the aused, whih ourts have longreognied as onfidential.10The right may also "e su"jet to other limitations that Congress mayimpose "y law.

There is no laim "y PEA that the information demanded "y petitioner is privileged informationrooted in the separation of powers. The information does not over Presidential onversations,orrespondenes, or disussions during losed'door Ca"inet meetings whih, li!e internal

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

23/180

deli"erations of the =upreme Court and other ollegiate ourts, or e7eutive sessions of either houseof Congress,15are reognied as onfidential. This !ind of information annot "e pried open "y a o'e6ual "ranh of government. A fran! e7hange of e7ploratory ideas and assessments, free from theglare of pu"liity and pressure "y interested parties, is essential to protet the independene ofdeision'ma!ing of those tas!ed to e7erise Presidential, >egislative and udiial power.1/This is notthe situation in the instant ase.

?e rule, therefore, that the onstitutional right to information inludes offiial information on on%going negotiations"efore a final ontrat. The information, however, must onstitute definitepropositions "y the government and should not over reognied e7eptions li!e privilegedinformation, military and diplomati serets and similar matters affeting national seurity and pu"liorder.4-Congress has also presri"ed other limitations on the right to information in severallegislations.4

&i'th issue: whether stipulations in the *mended J/* for the transfer to **4$ of landsreclaimed or to be reclaimed violate the +onstitution.

#he 4egalian octrine

The ownership of lands relaimed from foreshore and su"merged areas is rooted in the )egaliandotrine whih holds that the =tate owns all lands and waters of the pu"li domain. @pon the=panish on6uest of the Philippines, ownership of all $lands, territories and possessions$ in thePhilippines passed to the =panish Crown.4The Hing, as the sovereign ruler and representative of thepeople, a6uired and owned all lands and territories in the Philippines e7ept those he disposed of"y grant or sale to private individuals.

The /18, /01 and /50 Constitutions adopted the )egalian dotrine su"stituting, however, the=tate, in lieu of the Hing, as the owner of all lands and waters of the pu"li domain. The )egaliandotrine is the foundation of the time'honored priniple of land ownership that $all lands that were nota6uired from the Fovernment, either "y purhase or "y grant, "elong to the pu"li domain.$41Artile11/ of the Civil Code of 55/, whih is now Artile 4- of the Civil Code of /8-, inorporated the)egalian dotrine.

1wnership and isposition of 4eclaimed ands

The =panish >aw of ?aters of 5 was the first statutory law governing the ownership anddisposition of relaimed lands in the Philippines. +n May 5, /-0, the Philippine Commissionenated At No. 84 whih provided for the lease but not the sale of reclaimed lands of thegovernment to corporations and individuals. >ater, on Novem"er /, //, the Philippine>egislature approved At No. 504, the Pu"li >and At, whih authoried the lease but not thesale of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals. +n Novem"er 0,/1, the National Assem"ly passed Commonwealth At No. 4, also !nown as the Pu"li >and

At, whih authori,ed the lease but not the sale of reclaimed lands of the government to

corporations and individuals. CA No. 4 ontinues to this day as the general law governing thelassifiation and disposition of lands of the pu"li domain.

#he &panish aw of aters of 8966 and the +ivil +ode of 899

@nder the =panish >aw of ?aters of 5, the shores, "ays, oves, inlets and all waters within themaritime one of the =panish territory "elonged to the pu"li domain for pu"li use.44The =panish>aw of ?aters of 5 allowed the relamation of the sea under Artile 8, whih provided as follows;

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

24/180

$Artile 8. >ands relaimed from the sea in onse6uene of wor!s onstruted "y the =tate,or "y the provines, pue"los or private persons, with proper permission, shall "eome theproperty of the party onstruting suh wor!s, unless otherwise provided "y the terms of thegrant of authority.$

@nder the =panish >aw of ?aters, land relaimed from the sea "elonged to the party underta!ing

the relamation, provided the government issued the neessary permit and did not reserveownership of the relaimed land to the =tate.

Artile 11/ of the Civil Code of 55/ defined property of pu"li dominion as follows;

$Art. 11/. Property of pu"li dominion is

. That devoted to pu"li use, suh as roads, anals, rivers, torrents, ports and "ridgesonstruted "y the =tate, river"an!s, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar haraterG

. That "elonging e7lusively to the =tate whih, without "eing of general pu"li use, isemployed in some pu"li servie, or in the development of the national wealth, suh as

walls, fortresses, and other wor!s for the defense of the territory, and mines, until granted toprivate individuals.$

Property devoted to pu"li use referred to property open for use "y the pu"li. *n ontrast, propertydevoted to pu"li servie referred to property used for some speifi pu"li servie and open only tothose authoried to use the property.

Property of pu"li dominion referred not only to property devoted to pu"li use, "ut also to propertynot so used "ut employed to develop the national wealth. This lass of property onstitutedproperty of pu"li dominion although employed for some eonomi or ommerial ativity to inreasethe national wealth.

Artile 14 of the Civil Code of 55/ governed the re'lassifiation of property of pu"li dominion intoprivate property, to wit;

$Art. 14. Property of pu"li dominion, when no longer devoted to pu"li use or to thedefense of the territory, shall "eome a part of the private property of the =tate.$

This provision, however, was not self'e7euting. The legislature, or the e7eutive departmentpursuant to law, must delare the property no longer needed for pu"li use or territorial defense"efore the government ould lease or alienate the property to private parties.48

*ct ;o. 865< of the (hilippine +ommission

+n May 5, /-0, the Philippine Commission enated At No. 84 whih regulated the lease ofrelaimed and foreshore lands. The salient provisions of this law were as follows;

$=etion . The control and disposition of the foreshoreas defined in e7isting law, andthe title to all -overnment or public lands made or reclaimed by the -overnment bydredging or fillingor otherwise throughout the Philippine *slands, shall be retained by the-overnmentwithout prejudie to vested rights and without prejudie to rights oneded tothe City of Manila in the >uneta E7tension.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

25/180

=etion . #a% The =eretary of the *nterior shall ause all Fovernment or pu"li lands madeor relaimed "y the Fovernment "y dredging or filling or otherwise to "e divided into lots or"lo!s, with the neessary streets and alleyways loated thereon, and shall ause plats andplans of suh surveys to "e prepared and filed with the Bureau of >ands.

#"% @pon ompletion of suh plats and plans the -overnor%-eneral shall give notice to

the public that such parts of the lands so made or reclaimed as are not needed forpublic purposes will be leased for commercial and business purposes, 7 7 7.

7 7 7

#e% #he leases above provided for shall be disposed of to the highest and bestbiddertherefore, su"jet to suh regulations and safeguards as the Fovernor'Feneral may"y e7eutive order presri"e.$ #Emphasis supplied%

At No. 84 mandated that the government should retain title to all lands reclaimed by thegovernment. The At also vested in the government ontrol and disposition of foreshore lands.Private parties ould lease lands relaimed "y the government only if these lands were no longer

needed for pu"li purpose. At No. 84 mandatedpublic biddingin the lease of governmentrelaimed lands. At No. 84 made government relaimed lands sui generisin that unli!e otherpu"li lands whih the government ould sell to private parties, these relaimed lands were availa"leonly for lease to private parties.

At No. 84, however, did not repeal =etion 8 of the =panish >aw of ?aters of 5. At No. 84did not prohi"it private parties from relaiming parts of the sea under =etion 8 of the =panish >awof ?aters. >ands relaimed from the sea "y private parties with government permission remainedprivate lands.

*ct ;o. =97< of the (hilippine egislature

+n Novem"er /, //, the Philippine >egislature enated At No. 504, the Pu"li >and At.4

Thesalient provisions of At No. 504, on relaimed lands, were as follows;

$=e. . #he -overnor%-eneral upon the recommendation of the &ecretary of*griculture and ;atural 4esources shall from time to time classify the lands of thepublic domain into

#a%*lienable or disposable,

#"% Tim"er, and

#% Mineral lands, 7 7 7.

=e. 0. 3or the purposes of the government and disposition of aliena"le or disposa"le pu"lilands, the -overnor%-eneral upon recommendation by the &ecretary of *gricultureand ;atural 4esources shall from time to time declare what lands are open todisposition or concession under this *ct.$

=e. 5. 1nly those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession whichhave been officially delimited or classified7 7 7.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

26/180

7 7 7

=e. 88. Any trat of land of the pu"li domain whih, "eing neither tim"er nor mineral land,shall "e lassified as suitable for residential purposes or for commercial industrial orother productive purposes other than agricultural purposes, and shall "e open todisposition or onession, shall "e disposed of under the provisions of this hapter, and not

otherwise.

=e. 8. #he lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows;

>a? ands reclaimed by the -overnment by dredging filling or other means G

>b? Foreshore@

>c? arshy landsor lands overed with water "ordering upon the shores or "an!s ofnaviga"le la!es or riversG

#d% >ands not inluded in any of the foregoing lasses.

7 7 7.

=e. 85. #he lands comprised in classes >a? >b? and >c? of section fifty%si' shall bedisposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise , as soon as the-overnor%-eneral upon recommendation by the &ecretary of *griculture and ;atural4esources shall declare that the same are not necessary for the public service andare open to dispositionunder this hapter. #he lands included in class >d? may bedisposed of by sale or lease under the provisions of this *ct.$ #Emphasis supplied%

=etion of At No. 504 authoried the Fovernor'Feneral to $lassify lands of the pu"li domaininto 7 7 7 aliena"le or disposa"le$40lands. =etion 0 of the At empowered the Fovernor'Feneral to

$delare what lands are open to disposition or onession.$ =etion 5 of the At limited aliena"le ordisposa"le lands only to those lands whih have "een $offiially delimited and lassified.$

=etion 8 of At No. 504 stated that lands $disposa"le under this title45shall "e lassified$ asgovernment relaimed, foreshore and marshy lands, as well as other lands. All these lands,however, must "e suita"le for residential, ommerial, industrial or other produtive non%agriculturalpurposes. These provisions vested upon the Fovernor'Feneral the power to lassifyinaliena"le lands of the pu"li domain into disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain. These provisionsalso empowered the Fovernor'Feneral to lassify further suh disposa"le lands of the pu"li domaininto government relaimed, foreshore or marshy lands of the pu"li domain, as well as other non'agriultural lands.

=etion 85 of At No. 504 ategorially mandated that disposa"le lands of the pu"li domainlassified as government relaimed, foreshore and marshy lands shall be disposed of to privateparties by lease only and not otherwise.The Fovernor'Feneral, "efore allowing the lease ofthese lands to private parties, must formally delare that the lands were $not neessary for the pu"liservie.$ At No. 504 reiterated the =tate poliy to lease and not to sell government relaimed,foreshore and marshy lands of the pu"li domain, a poliy first enuniated in /-0 in At No. 84.Fovernment relaimed, foreshore and marshy lands remained sui generis, as the only aliena"le ordisposa"le lands of the pu"li domain that the government ould not sell to private parties.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

27/180

The rationale "ehind this =tate poliy is o"vious. Fovernment relaimed, foreshore and marshypu"li lands for non'agriultural purposes retain their inherent potential as areas for pu"li servie.This is the reason the government prohi"ited the sale, and only allowed the lease, of these lands toprivate parties. The =tate always reserved these lands for some future pu"li servie.

At No. 504 did not authorie the relassifiation of government relaimed, foreshore and marshy

lands into other non'agriultural lands under =etion 8 #d%. >ands falling under =etion 8 #d% werethe only lands for non'agriultural purposes the government ould sell to private parties. Thus, under

At No. 504, the government ould not sell government relaimed, foreshore and marshy lands toprivate parties unless the legislature passed a law allowing their sale.4/

At No. 504 did not prohi"it private parties from relaiming parts of the sea pursuant to =etion 8 ofthe =panish >aw of ?aters of 5. >ands relaimed from the sea "y private parties withgovernment permission remained private lands.

ispositions under the 835 +onstitution

+n May 4, /18, the /18 Constitution too! effet upon its ratifiation "y the 3ilipino people. The

/18 Constitution, in adopting the )egalian dotrine, delared in =etion , Artile K***, that

$=etion . All agriultural, tim"er, and mineral lands of the pu"li domain, waters, minerals,oal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all fores of potential energy and other naturalresoures of the Philippines "elong to the =tate, and their disposition, e7ploitation,development, or utiliation shall "e limited to itiens of the Philippines or to orporations orassoiations at least si7ty per entum of the apital of whih is owned "y suh itiens,su"jet to any e7isting right, grant, lease, or onession at the time of the inauguration of theFovernment esta"lished under this Constitution. ;atural resources with the e'ception of

public agricultural land shall not be alienated, and no liense, onession, or lease forthe e7ploitation, development, or utiliation of any of the natural resoures shall "e grantedfor a period e7eeding twenty'five years, renewa"le for another twenty'five years, e7ept asto water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than thedevelopment of water power, in whih ases "enefiial use may "e the measure and limit ofthe grant.$ #Emphasis supplied%

The /18 Constitution "arred the alienation of all natural resoures e7ept pu"li agriultural lands,whih were the only natural resoures the =tate ould alienate. Thus, foreshore lands, onsideredpart of the =tate&s natural resoures, "eame inaliena"le "y onstitutional fiat, availa"le only forlease for 8 years, renewa"le for another 8 years. The government ould alienate foreshore landsonly after these lands were relaimed and lassified as aliena"le agriultural lands of the pu"lidomain. Fovernment relaimed and marshy lands of the pu"li domain, "eing neither tim"er normineral lands, fell under the lassifiation of pu"li agriultural lands.8-2owever, governmentrelaimed and marshy lands, although su"jet to lassifiation as disposa"le pu"li agriulturallands, ould only "e leased and not sold to private parties "eause of At No. 504.

The prohi"ition on private parties from a6uiring ownership of government relaimed and marshylands of the pu"li domain was only a statutory prohi"ition and the legislature ould thereforeremove suh prohi"ition. The /18 Constitution did not prohi"it individuals and orporations froma6uiring government relaimed and marshy lands of the pu"li domain that were lassified asagriultural lands under e7isting pu"li land laws. =etion , Artile K*** of the /18 Constitutionprovided as follows;

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

28/180

$=etion . ;o private corporation or association may acquire lease or hold publicagricultural lands in e'cess of one thousand and twenty four hectares nor may anyindividual acquire such lands by purchase in e'cess of one hundred and fortyhectares or by lease in e'cess of one thousand and twenty%four hectares , or "yhomestead in e7ess of twenty'four hetares. >ands adapted to graing, not e7eeding twothousand hetares, may "e leased to an individual, private orporation, or assoiation.$

#Emphasis supplied%

=till, after the effetivity of the /18 Constitution, the legislature did not repeal =etion 85 of At No.504 to open for sale to private parties government relaimed and marshy lands of the pu"lidomain. +n the ontrary, the legislature ontinued the long esta"lished =tate poliy of retaining forthe government title and ownership of government relaimed and marshy lands of the pu"li domain.

+ommonwealth *ct ;o. 8

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

29/180

Thus, "efore the government ould alienate or dispose of lands of the pu"li domain, the Presidentmust first offiially lassify these lands as aliena"le or disposa"le, and then delare them open todisposition or onession. There must "e no law reserving these lands for pu"li or 6uasi'pu"liuses.

The salient provisions of CA No. 4, on government relaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the

pu"li domain, are as follows;

$=e. 85.*ny tract of land of the public domain which being neither timber normineral land is intended to be used for residential purposes or for commercialindustrial or other productive purposes other than agricultural and is open todisposition or concession shall be disposed of under the provisions of this chapterand not otherwise.

=e. 8/. #he lands disposable under this title shall be classified as follows;

>a? ands reclaimed by the -overnment by dredging filling or other means@

>b? Foreshore@

>c? arshy landsor lands overed with water "ordering upon the shores or "an!s ofnaviga"le la!es or riversG

#d% >ands not inluded in any of the foregoing lasses.

=e. -. Any trat of land omprised under this title may "e leased or sold, as the ase may"e, to any person, orporation, or assoiation authoried to purhase or lease pu"li landsfor agriultural purposes. 7 7 7.

=e. . #he lands comprised in classes >a? >b? and >c? of section fifty%nine shall be

disposed of to private parties by lease only and not otherwise , as soon as the(resident, upon reommendation "y the =eretary of Agriulture, shall declare that thesame are not necessary for the public serviceand are open to disposition under thishapter. #he lands included in class >d? may be disposed of by sale or lease under the

provisions of this *ct.$ #Emphasis supplied%

=etion of CA No. 4 readopted, after the effetivity of the /18 Constitution, =etion 85 of AtNo. 504 prohi"iting the sale of government relaimed, foreshore and marshy disposa"le lands ofthe pu"li domain. All these lands are intended for residential, ommerial, industrial or other non'agriultural purposes. As "efore, =etion allowed only the lease of suh lands to private parties.The government ould sell to private parties only lands falling under =etion 8/ #d% of CA No. 4, orthose lands for non'agriultural purposes not lassified as government relaimed, foreshore and

marshy disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain. 3oreshore lands, however, "eame inaliena"le underthe /18 Constitution whih only allowed the lease of these lands to 6ualified private parties.

=etion 85 of CA No. 4 e7pressly states that disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain intended forresidential, ommerial, industrial or other produtive purposes other than agriultural $shall bedisposed of under the provisions of this chapter and not otherwise .$ @nder =etion - of CANo. 4, the term $disposition$ inludes lease of the land. Any disposition of government relaimed,foreshore and marshy disposa"le lands for non'agriultural purposes must omply with Chapter *K,Title *** of CA No. 4,84unless a su"se6uent law amended or repealed these provisions.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

30/180

*n his onurring opinion in the landmar! ase of 4epublic 4eal )state +orporation v. +ourt of*ppeals,88ustie )eynato =. Puno summaried suintly the law on this matter, as follows;

$3oreshore lands are lands of pu"li dominion intended for pu"li use. =o too are landsrelaimed "y the government "y dredging, filling, or other means. At 84 mandated thatthe ontrol and disposition of the foreshore and lands under water remained in the national

government. =aid law allowed only the &leasing& of relaimed land. The Pu"li >and Ats of// and /1 also delared that the foreshore and lands relaimed "y the governmentwere to "e $disposed of to private parties "y lease only and not otherwise.$ Before leasing,however, the Fovernor'Feneral, upon reommendation of the =eretary of Agriulture andNatural )esoures, had first to determine that the land relaimed was not neessary for thepu"li servie. This re6uisite must have "een met "efore the land ould "e disposed of. !uteven then the foreshore and lands under water were not to be alienated and sold to

private parties. #he disposition of the reclaimed land was only by lease. #he landremained property of the &tate.$ #Emphasis supplied%

As o"served "y ustie Puno in his onurring opinion, $Commonwealth At No. 4 has remainedin effet at present.$

The =tate poliy prohi"iting the sale to private parties of government relaimed, foreshore andmarshy aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain, first implemented in /-0 was thus reaffirmed in CANo. 4 after the /18 Constitution too! effet. The prohi"ition on the sale of foreshore lands,however, "eame a onstitutional edit under the /18 Constitution. 3oreshore lands "eameinaliena"le as natural resoures of the =tate, unless relaimed "y the government and lassified asagriultural lands of the pu"li domain, in whih ase they would fall under the lassifiation ofgovernment relaimed lands.

After the effetivity of the /18 Constitution, government relaimed and marshy disposa"le lands ofthe pu"li domain ontinued to "e only leased and not sold to private parties.8These landsremained sui generis, as the only aliena"le or disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain thegovernment ould not sell to private parties.

=ine then and until now, the only way the government an sell to private parties governmentrelaimed and marshy disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain is for the legislature to pass a lawauthoriing suh sale. CA No. 4 does not authorie the President to relassify governmentrelaimed and marshy lands into other non'agriultural lands under =etion 8/ #d%. >ands lassifiedunder =etion 8/ #d% are the only aliena"le or disposa"le lands for non'agriultural purposes that thegovernment ould sell to private parties.

Moreover, =etion - of CA No. 4 e'presslyre6uires ongressional authority "efore lands under=etion 8/ that the government previously transferred to government units or entities ould "e soldto private parties. =etion - of CA No. 4 delares that

$=e. -. 7 7 7 The area so leased or sold shall "e suh as shall, in the judgment of the=eretary of Agriulture and Natural )esoures, "e reasona"ly neessary for the purposesfor whih suh sale or lease is re6uested, and shall not e7eed one hundred and forty'fourhetares; Provided, however, That this limitation shall not apply to grants, donations, ortransfers made to a provine, muniipality or "ranh or su"division of the Fovernment for thepurposes deemed "y said entities onduive to the pu"li interestGbut the land so granteddonated or transferred to a province municipality or branch or subdivision of the-overnment shall not be alienated encumbered or otherwise disposed of in a

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

31/180

manner affecting its title e'cept when authori,ed by +ongress; 7 7 7.$ #Emphasissupplied%

The ongressional authority re6uired in =etion - of CA No. 4 mirrors the legislative authorityre6uired in =etion 8 of At No. 504.

+ne reason for the ongressional authority is that =etion - of CA No. 4 e7empted governmentunits and entities from the ma7imum area of pu"li lands that ould "e a6uired from the =tate.These government units and entities should not just turn around and sell these lands to privateparties in violation of onstitutional or statutory limitations. +therwise, the transfer of lands for non'agriultural purposes to government units and entities ould "e used to irumvent onstitutionallimitations on ownership of aliena"le or disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain. *n the same manner,suh transfers ould also "e used to evade the statutory prohi"ition in CA No. 4 on the sale ofgovernment relaimed and marshy lands of the pu"li domain to private parties. =etion - of CANo. 4 onstitutes "y operation of law a lien on these lands.80

*n ase of sale or leaseof disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain falling under =etion 8/ of CA No.4, =etions 1 and 0 re6uire a pu"li "idding. =etions 1 and 0 of CA No. 4 provide as

follows;

$=e. 1. ?henever it is deided that lands overed "y this hapter are not needed for pu"lipurposes, the (iretor of >ands shall as! the =eretary of Agriulture and Commere #nowthe =eretary of Natural )esoures% for authority to dispose of the same. @pon reeipt ofsuh authority, the (iretor of >ands shall give notie "y pu"li advertisement in the samemanner as in the ase of leases or sales of agriultural pu"li land, 7 7 7.

=e. 0. #he lease or sale shall be made by oral bidding@ and ad"udication shall bemade to the highest bidder. 7 7 7.$ #Emphasis supplied%

Thus, CA No. 4 mandates the Fovernment to put to pu"li aution all leases or sales of aliena"le

or disposa"le lands of the pu"li domain.

85

>i!e At No. 84 and At No. 504 "efore it, CA No. 4 did not repeal =etion 8 of the =panish>aw of ?aters of 5. Private parties ould still relaim portions of the sea with governmentpermission. 2owever, thereclaimed land could become private land only if classified asalienable agricultural land of the public domainopen to disposition under CA No. 4. The /18Constitution prohi"ited the alienation of all natural resoures e7ept pu"li agriultural lands.

#he +ivil +ode of 85A

The Civil Code of /8- readopted su"stantially the definition of property of pu"li dominion found inthe Civil Code of 55/. Artiles 4- and 4 of the Civil Code of /8- state that

$Art. 4-. The following things are property of pu"li dominion;

#% Those intended for pu"li use, suh as roads, anals, rivers, torrents, ports and "ridgesonstruted "y the =tate, "an!s, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar haraterG

#% Those whih "elong to the =tate, without "eing for pu"li use, and are intended for somepu"li servie or for the development of the national wealth.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

32/180

7 7 7.

Art. 4. Property of pu"li dominion, when no longer intended for pu"li use or for pu"liservie, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the =tate.$

Again, the government must formally delare that the property of pu"li dominion is no longer

needed for pu"li use or pu"li servie, "efore the same ould "e lassified as patrimonial propertyof the =tate.8/*n the ase of government relaimed and marshy lands of the pu"li domain, thedelaration of their "eing disposa"le, as well as the manner of their disposition, is governed "y theapplia"le provisions of CA No. 4.

>i!e the Civil Code of 55/, the Civil Code of /8- inluded as property of pu"li dominion thoseproperties of the =tate whih, without "eing for pu"li use, are intended for pu"li servie or the$development of the national wealth.$ Thus, government relaimed and marshy lands of the =tate,even if not employed for pu"li use or pu"li servie, if developed to enhane the national wealth,are lassified as property of pu"li dominion.


The /01 Constitution, whih too! effet on anuary 0, /01, li!ewise adopted the )egaliandotrine. =etion 5, Artile K*D of the /01 Constitution stated that

$=e. 5. All lands of the pu"li domain, waters, minerals, oal, petroleum and other mineraloils, all fores of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resoures of thePhilippines "elong to the =tate. ith the e'ception of agricultural industrial orcommercial residential and resettlement lands of the public domain naturalresources shall not be alienated, and no liense, onession, or lease for the e7ploration,development, e7ploitation, or utiliation of any of the natural resoures shall "e granted for aperiod e7eeding twenty'five years, renewa"le for not more than twenty'five years, e7ept asto water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the

development of water power, in whih ases, "enefiial use may "e the measure and thelimit of the grant.$ #Emphasis supplied%

The /01 Constitution prohi"ited the alienation of all natural resoures with the e7eption of$agriultural, industrial or ommerial, residential, and resettlement lands of the pu"li domain.$ *nontrast, the /18 Constitution "arred the alienation of all natural resoures e7ept $pu"liagriultural lands.$ 2owever, the term $pu"li agriultural lands$ in the /18 Constitutionenompassed industrial, ommerial, residential and resettlement lands of the pu"li domain.-*f theland of pu"li domain were neither tim"er nor mineral land, it would fall under the lassifiation ofagriultural land of the pu"li domain. !oth the 835 and 873 +onstitutions therefore

prohibited the alienation of all natural resources e'cept agricultural lands of the publicdomain.

The /01 Constitution, however, limited the alienation of lands of the pu"li domain to individualswho were itiens of the Philippines. Private orporations, even if wholly owned "y Philippineitiens, were no longer allowed to a6uire aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain unli!e in the /18Constitution. =etion , Artile K*D of the /01 Constitution delared that

$=e. . The Batasang Pam"ansa, ta!ing into aount onservation, eologial, anddevelopment re6uirements of the natural resoures, shall determine "y law the sie of landof the pu"li domain whih may "e developed, held or a6uired "y, or leased to, any6ualified individual, orporation, or assoiation, and the onditions therefor. ;o private

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

33/180

corporation or association may hold alienable lands of the public domain e'cept byleasenot to e7eed one thousand hetares in area nor may any itien hold suh lands "ylease in e7ess of five hundred hetares or a6uire "y purhase, homestead or grant, ine7ess of twenty'four hetares. No private orporation or assoiation may hold "y lease,onession, liense or permit, tim"er or forest lands and other tim"er or forest resoures ine7ess of one hundred thousand hetares. 2owever, suh area may "e inreased "y the

Batasang Pam"ansa upon reommendation of the National Eonomi and (evelopmentAuthority.$ #Emphasis supplied%

Thus, under the /01 Constitution, private orporations ould hold aliena"le lands of the pu"lidomain only through lease. +nly individuals ould now a6uire aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain,andprivate corporations became absolutely barred from acquiring any Bind of alienable landof the public domain. The onstitutional "an e7tended to all !inds of aliena"le lands of the pu"lidomain, while the statutory "an under CA No. 4 applied only to government relaimed, foreshoreand marshy aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain.

( ;o. 8A9< +reating the (ublic )states *uthority

+n 3e"ruary 4, /00, then President 3erdinand Maros issued Presidential (eree No. -54reating PEA, a wholly government owned and ontrolled orporation with a speial harter.=etions 4 and 5 of P( No. -54, vests PEA with the following purposes and powers;

$=e. 4. Purpose. The Authority is here"y reated for the following purposes;

#a% #o reclaim land including foreshore and submerged areas by dredging filling orother means or to acquire reclaimed land@

#"% To develop, improve, a6uire, administer, deal in, su"divide, dispose, lease and sell anyand all Binds of lands, "uildings, estates and other forms of real property, owned,managed, ontrolled and

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

34/180

P( No. -54 authories PEA to relaim "oth foreshore and su"merged areas of the pu"li domain.3oreshore areas are those overed and unovered "y the e"" and flow of the tide.=u"mergedareas are those permanently under water regardless of the e"" and flow of the tide.3oreshore andsu"merged areas indisputa"ly "elong to the pu"li domain1and are inaliena"le unless relaimed,lassified as aliena"le lands open to disposition, and further delared no longer needed for pu"liservie.

The "an in the /01 Constitution on private orporations from a6uiring aliena"le lands of the pu"lidomain did not apply to PEA sine it was then, and until today, a fully owned governmentorporation. The onstitutional "an applied then, as it still applies now, only to $private orporationsand assoiations.$ P( No. -54 e7pressly empowers ()* to hold lands of the public domain$even $in e7ess of the area permitted to private orporations "y statute.$ #hus ()* can hold titleto private lands as well as title to lands of the public domain.

*n order for PEA to sell its relaimed foreshore and su"merged aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain,there must "e legislative authority empowering PEA to sell these lands. This legislative authority isneessary in view of =etion - of CA No.4, whih states

$=e. -. 7 7 7G "ut the land so granted, donated or transferred to a provine, muniipality, or"ranh or su"division of the Fovernment shall not "e alienated, enum"ered or otherwisedisposed of in a manner affeting its title, e'cept when authori,ed by +ongressG 7 7 7.$#Emphasis supplied%

?ithout suh legislative authority, PEA ould not sell "ut only lease its relaimed foreshore andsu"merged aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain. Nevertheless, any legislative authority granted toPEA to sell its relaimed aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain would "e su"jet to the onstitutional"an on private orporations from a6uiring aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain. 2ene, suhlegislative authority ould only "enefit private individuals.


The /50 Constitution, li!e the /18 and /01 Constitutions "efore it, has adopted the )egaliandotrine. The /50 Constitution delares that all natural resoures are $owned by the &tate,$ ande7ept for aliena"le agriultural lands of the pu"li domain, natural resoures annot "e alienated.=etions and 1, Artile K** of the /50 Constitution state that

$=etion . All lands of the pu"li domain, waters, minerals, oal, petroleum and othermineral oils, all fores of potential energy, fisheries, forests or tim"er, wildlife, flora and fauna,and other natural resources are owned by the &tate. ith the e'ception of agriculturallands all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The e7ploration, development,and utiliation of natural resoures shall "e under the full ontrol and supervision of the=tate. 7 7 7.

=etion 1. >ands of the pu"li domain are lassified into agriultural, forest or tim"er, minerallands, and national par!s. Agriultural lands of the pu"li domain may "e further lassified "ylaw aording to the uses whih they may "e devoted.*lienable lands of the publicdomain shall be limited to agricultural lands. (rivate corporations or associationsmay not hold such alienable lands of the public domain e'cept by lease for a periodnot e'ceeding twenty%five years renewable for not more than twenty%five years andnot to e'ceed one thousand hectares in area . Citiens of the Philippines may lease notmore than five hundred hetares, or a6uire not more than twelve hetares thereof "ypurhase, homestead, or grant.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

35/180

Ta!ing into aount the re6uirements of onservation, eology, and development, andsu"jet to the re6uirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, "y law, thesie of lands of the pu"li domain whih may "e a6uired, developed, held, or leased andthe onditions therefor.$ #Emphasis supplied%

The /50 Constitution ontinues the =tate poliy in the /01 Constitution "anning private

orporations fromacquiring any Bind of alienable land of the public domain. >i!e the /01Constitution, the /50 Constitution allows private orporations to hold aliena"le lands of the pu"lidomain only through lease. As in the /18 and /01 Constitutions, the general law governing thelease to private orporations of relaimed, foreshore and marshy aliena"le lands of the pu"lidomain is still CA No. 4.

#he 4ationale behind the +onstitutional !an

The rationale "ehind the onstitutional "an on orporations from a6uiring, e7ept through lease,aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain is not well understood. (uring the deli"erations of the /5Constitutional Commission, the ommissioners pro"ed the rationale "ehind this "an, thus;

$3). BE)NA=; Mr. Die'President, my 6uestions have referene to page 1, line 8 whihsays;

No private orporation or assoiation may hold aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain e7ept"y lease, not to e7eed one thousand hetares in area.&

*f we reall, this provision did not e7ist under the /18 Constitution, "ut this was introduedin the /01 Constitution. *n effet, it prohi"its private orporations from a6uiring aliena"lepu"li lands. !ut it has not been very clear in "urisprudence what the reason for this is .*n some of the ases deided in /5 and /51, it was indicated that the purpose of thisis to prevent large landholdings. *s that the intent of this provisionO

M). D*>>EFA=; * thin! that is the spirit of the provision.

3). BE)NA=; *n e7isting deisions involving the *glesia ni Cristo, there were instaneswhere the *glesia ni Cristo was not allowed to a6uire a mere 11's6uare meter land wherea hapel stood "eause the =upreme Court said it would "e in violation of this.$ #Emphasissupplied%

*n*yog v. +usi,4the Court e7plained the rationale "ehind this onstitutional "an in this way;

$*ndeed, one purpose of the onstitutional prohi"ition against purhases of pu"li agriulturallands "y private orporations is to e6uita"ly diffuse land ownership or to enourage &owner'ultivatorship and the eonomi family'sie farm& and to prevent a reurrene of ases li!e

the instant ase. 2uge landholdings "y orporations or private persons had spawned soialunrest.$

2owever, if the onstitutional intent is to prevent huge landholdings, the Constitution ould havesimply limited the sie of aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain that orporations ould a6uire. TheConstitution ould have followed the limitations on individuals, who ould a6uire not more than 4hetares of aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain under the /01 Constitution, and not more than hetares under the /50 Constitution.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

36/180

*f the onstitutional intent is to enourage eonomi family'sie farms, plaing the land in the nameof a orporation would "e more effetive in preventing the "rea!'up of farmlands. *f the farmland isregistered in the name of a orporation, upon the death of the owner, his heirs would inherit sharesin the orporation instead of su"divided parels of the farmland. This would prevent the ontinuing"rea!'up of farmlands into smaller and smaller plots from one generation to the ne7t.

*n atual pratie, the onstitutional "an strengthens the onstitutional limitation on individuals froma6uiring more than the allowed area of aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain. ?ithout theonstitutional "an, individuals who already a6uired the ma7imum area of aliena"le lands of thepu"li domain ould easily set up orporations to a6uire more aliena"le pu"li lands. An individualould own as many orporations as his means would allow him. An individual ould even hide hisownership of a orporation "y putting his nominees as sto!holders of the orporation. Theorporation is a onvenient vehile to irumvent the onstitutional limitation on a6uisition "yindividuals of aliena"le lands of the pu"li domain.

The onstitutional intent, under the /01 and /50 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only alimited area of aliena"le land of the pu"li domain to a 6ualified individual. This onstitutional intentis safeguarded "y the provision prohi"iting orporations from a6uiring aliena"le lands of the pu"li

domain, sine the vehile to irumvent the onstitutional intent is removed. The availa"le aliena"lepu"li lands are gradually dereasing in the fae of an ever'growing population. The most effetiveway to insure faithful adherene to this onstitutional intent is to grant or sell aliena"le lands of thepu"li domain only to individuals. This, it would seem, is the pratial "enefit arising from theonstitutional "an.

#he *mended Joint /enture *greement

The su"jet matter of the Amended DA, as stated in its seond ?hereas lause, onsists of threeproperties, namely;

. $9T:hree partially relaimed and su"stantially eroded islands along Emilio AguinaldoBoulevard in Parana6ue and >as Pinas, Metro Manila, with a om"ined titled area of,805,44 s6uare metersG$

. $9A:nother area of ,4,88/ s6uare meters ontiguous to the three islandsG$ and

1. $9A:t AMA)*&s option as approved "y PEA, an additional 18- hetares more or less toregularie the onfiguration of the relaimed area.$ 8

PEA onfirms that the Amended DA involves $the development of the 3reedom *slands and furtherrelamation of a"out 8- hetares 7 7 7,$ plus an option $granted to AMA)* to su"se6uently relaimanother 18- hetares 7 7 7.$

*n short, the Amended DA overs a relamation area of 08- hetares. 1nly 857.9< hectares of the75A%hectare reclamation pro"ect have been reclaimed and the rest of the 5=.85 hectares arestill submerged areas forming part of anila !ay.

@nder the Amended DA, AMA)* will reim"urse PEA the sum of P,5/4,/,--.-- for PEA&s$atual ost$ in partially relaiming the 3reedom *slands. AMA)* will also omplete, at its owne7pense, the relamation of the 3reedom *slands. AMA)* will further shoulder all the relamationosts of all the other areas, totaling 8/.8 hetares, still to "e relaimed. AMA)* and PEA willshare, in the proportion of 0- perent and 1- perent, respetively, the total net usa"le area whih is

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 12-21

37/180

defined in the Amended DA as the total relaimed area less 1- perent earmar!ed for ommonareas. Title to AMA)*&s share in the net usa"le area, totaling 10.8 hetares, will "e issued in thename of AMA)*. =etion 8. #% of the Amended DA provides that

$7 7 7, PEA shall have the duty to e7eute without delay the neessary deed of transfer oronveyane of the title pertaining to AMA)*&s >and share "ased on the >and Alloation

Plan. ()* when requested in writing by **4$ shall then cause the issuance anddelivery of the proper certificates of title covering **4$0s and &hare in the name of

**4$, 7 7 7G provided, that if more than seventy perent #0-Q% of the titled area at anygiven time pertains to AMA)*, PEA shall deliver to AMA)* only seventy perent #0-Q% of thetitles pertaining to AMA)*, until suh time when a orresponding proportionate area ofadditional land pertaining to PEA has "een titled.$ #Emphasis supplied%

$ndisputably under the *mended J/* **4$ will acquire and own a ma'imum of 367.5hectares of reclaimed land which will be titled in its name.

To implement the Amended DA,

Documents

LTD Cases 12-21