8/13/2019 ConstiCompiledDigests.091107

1/3

THE IPRA CASE

Art 12 Sec 2Cruz v. Sec. of DENR et al.(The facts of the case are relatively short and simple. Theseparate opinions made it long. Ironically, the justice whomade the longest separate opinion this matter concerningnatural resources was none other than Chief Justice Puno[then Associate Justice.)

Facts:Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa assail theconstitutionalit o! the" RA #$%& a.'.a. Indigenous PeoplesRights Act o! #% (IPRA) and its Ipleenting Rules andRegulations (IRR):

Sections $a" " *" %" +" %" and + aount to anunlawful deprivation of the States ownershipover lands of the public doain as well asinerals and other natural resources.

Section $a and $," , pro-iding an allencopassingde!inition o! /ancestral doains0 and /ancestrallands"0 violate the ri!hts of private land owners.

The 1CIP" 2ith regard to its po2ers and 3urisdiction"a'ing custoar la2 applica,le to the settleento! disputes concerning ancestral doain andancestral lands -iolate the due process clause ofthe Constitution

Rule 4II part II Section & o! 1CIP Adinistrati-e 5rder1o. & 2hich pro-ides that /the adinistrati-erelationship o! the 1ational Coission onIndigenous Peoples (1CIP) to the 5!!ice o! thePresident is characterized as lateral ,ut autonoousrelationship !or purposes o! polic and progracoordination0 infrin!es upon the "residentspower of control over e#ecutive departentsunder Sec1$ Art$ of the Constitution.

Issue:671 the assailed sections o! the IPRA and the IRR -iolate theentioned pro-isions and principles o! the Constitution.

Held:The petition 2as disissed. The initial -ote 2as tied. %8ustices -oted to disiss the petition 2hile % other 3ustices

-oted to grant it. Since the necessar -ote 2as not o,tained"the case 2as redeli,erated upon. A!ter the redeli,eration" the-otes reained the sae. Pursuant to Rule *" Section % o!the Rules o! Ci-il Procedure" the petition 2as disissed.

Separate opinionsP915 (9pholding the IPRA):

Re. 1ati-e title -s. Regalian octrine

1ati-e title re!ers to the ICCs7IPs precon;uest rights to landsand doains held under a clai o! pri-ate o2nership as !ar,ac' as eor reaches. Follo2ing this concept" the landso2ned , the ICCs7IPs are pri-ate lands and are ne-erdeeed to ,e pu,lic lands. A !oral recognition o! the landshall ,e e,odied in a Certi!icate o! Ancestral oain Title

(CAT)

The concept o! a nati-e title is !irst applied in the case o!Cariortgage ?a2 alleging that heculti-ated the land and his ancestors o2ned the land sincetie ieorial. The case 2as ,rought to the 9nited StatesSupree Court. The Philippine go-ernent in-o'ed theReglian doctrine 2hile Cari

8/13/2019 ConstiCompiledDigests.091107

2/3

due process clause ust copl 2ith the re;uireents o!pu,lication in Tanada -. Tu-era..

A?IE1ATI51 5F 1AT9RA? RES59RCES

Santa Rosa %inin! Co. &. 'eido (r.

Facts: Santa Rosa >ining Co. holds D ining clais inCaarines 1orrte the Philippine ill o! 8ul &" D@. P &@&2as issued in %% re;uiring holders o! su,sisting and -alidpatenta,le ining clais to !ile a lease application 2ithin oneear !ro appro-al o! decree. Santa Rosa did so 2ithreser-ations" that it 2as not 2ai-ing its rights o-er its iningclais until the -alidit o! P &@& passes upon this Court. CFIalread rendered SR>CGs ining shares as its o2n pri-ate andeBclusi-e propert.

Respondents allege that SR>C has no standing to !ile thispetition as it did not !ull eBhaust adinistrati-e reedies.Secretar o! 1ational Resources !ound that o! the Dining clais 2ere -oid !or lac' o! -alid /tie points0 and thereaining clais had alread ,een a,andoned and cancelled!or noncopliance 2ith legal re;uireents o! Phil ill o!D@.

Issue: 671 P &@& is unconstitutional. 671 S>RCGs iningclais still su,sist ,e!ore challenging the constitutionalit o!P &@& e-en i! petitioner 2as not ,ound to eBhaust all

adinistrati-e reedies.

Held: The petition is disissed. P&@& is notunconstitutional. P&@& is in accord to Sec +" Art & o! %$constitution and Sec @" Art &@ o! +% constitution.

Ratio: Petitioner does ha-e a right o-er the ining clais"ho2e-er" this right is not a,solute. It is erel a possessorright. >ore so in this case 2here their clais are unpatented.The can ,e lost through a,andonent or !or!eiture orre-o'ed !or -alid legal grounds.

P &@& is a -alid eBercise o! the State" as o2ner o-er landso! the pu,lic doain o! 2hich the petitionerGs ining claistill !or part" and o-er the patrion o! the nation. >erelocation does not ean a,solute o2nership o! the a!!ected

land or the ining clai. It erel segregates the locatedland or area !ro the pu,lic doain.

San %i!uel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

San >iguel Corp see's the re-ersal o! the decision o! thecourt o! appeals dening its application !or registration o! aparcel o! land in -ie2 o! its !ailure to sho2 entitleentthereto.

S>C purchased !ro Sil-erio Perez a parcel o! land in Sta.Anastacia" Sto. Toas" atangas. In claiing o2nership o! theland S>C !iled ,e!ore CFI o! atangas an application !or itsregistration under ?and Registration Act

Solgen opposed the application !or registration contendingthat S>Cs clai o! o2nership on the ,asis o! a Spanish titleor grant could no longer ,e a-ailed o! , the applicant as the*onth period prescri,ed , P +#@ had elapsed

that the parcel o! land in ;uestion is part o! pu,lic doain andS>C ,eing a pri-ate corporation is dis;uali!ied under sec && o!Art I4 !ro holding aliena,le lands o! the pu,lic doain.

There ,eing no opposition to the application S>C 2as allo2edto esta,lish 3urisdictional !acts and to present additionale-idence

8udge A,aa granted the application o! registration andad3udicating the propert in !a-or o! S>C

Sol. =en appealed to court o! appeals and re-ersed thedecision o! the lo2er court and delared the land in-ol-ed aspu,lic land

S>C su,itting the !! alleged Jgra-e errorsJ&. CAs !ailure ti hold that prescription is a ode o! ac;uiringtitle or o2nership o! land and that the title thus ac;uired isRegistra,le@. CAs disregard o! S>Cs e-idence 2ere on the ,asis o!un!ounded suppositions and con3ectures$. CAs re-ersal o! the !actual !indings o! the trial court 2hichhad the opportunit o! o,ser-ing the deeanor and sincerit

o! the 2itnesses

671 the e-idence presented , the petitioner is su!!icient to2arrant a ruling that S>C and7or its predecessorininteresthas a registra,le right

eBclusi-e and undisputed possession o! aliena,le pu,lic land!or the period prescri,ed , la2 creates the legal !iction2here, the land upon copletion o! the re;uisite period ipso3ure and 27o the need o! 3udicial or other sanction ceases to,e pu,lic and ,ecoes pri-ate propert. It ust ho2e-er ,econclusi-el esta,lished to a-oid the erroneous -alidation o!actuall !ictitious clais o! possession o-er the propert indispute

ho2e-er in this case the predecessorininterest 2as not a,leto pro-ide these conclusi-e e-idence

there 2as no proo! o! actual possession

that no docuent e-idenced that the trans!er o! possession!ro Sil-erio Perez !ro his parents

S>C 2as not a,le to present other 2itnesses to corro,oratePerez testion. eing uncorro,orated is sipl ser-ing andhence undeser-ing o! an 2eight

decision o! CA is here, a!!ired

Article )**+ Section 2Chavez vs. "EA and A%AR*(K Fran' I. Cha-ez -s. Pu,lic Estates Authorit and A>ARI

Coastal a e-Gt. Corporation)

Facts:

The go-ernent signed a contract 2ith the Constructionand e-elopent Corporation o! the Philippines (CCP)to reclai certain !oreshores and o!!shore areas o! >anilaa (this contract includes the >anilaCa-ite CoastalRoad and Reclaation Pro3ect (>CCRRP).

Pres. >arcos issued P.. &D+ creating PEA 2ith the tas'/to reclai land" including !oreshore and su,ergedareas and to de-elop" ipro-e" ac;uire" lease and sellan and all 'inds o! lands. >arcos trans!erred to PEA thelands reclaied in the !oreshore and o!!shore o! the>CCRRP.

Pres. A;uino issued special patent no. $&% granting toPEA the parcels o! land that 2ere reclaied under the

>CCRRP. The Register o! eeds o! >unicipalit o!Para

8/13/2019 ConstiCompiledDigests.091107

3/3

Petitioner assails the sale to A>ARI o! lands o! pu,licdoain as a ,latant -iolation o! Sec. $" Art. II o! the+% Constitution prohi,iting the sale o! aliena,le landso! the pu,lic doain to pri-ate corporations.

?ater on" PEA and A>ARI signed the Aended 8oint4enture Agreeent (the agreeent see's to trans!er toA>ARI certain portions o! the reclaied lands7areas)2hich 2as appro-ed , the 5!!ice o! the President underPres. 8oseph Estrada

ue to the appro-al o! the aended 3oint -entureagreeent" petitioner no2 pras that on /constitutionaland statutor grounds the renegotiated contract ,edeclared null and -oid.0

Issue:671 A>ARI" a pri-ate corporation" can ac;uire and

o2n under the Aended 8oint 4enture Agreeent $*%.hectares o! reclaied !oreshore and su,erged areas in>anila a in -ie2 o! Article II o! the +% Constitution" Sec.@ and $.

Held:Petition is granted. The Aended 8oint 4enture Agreeent ishere, declared null and -oid.

Ratio:

The Freedo Islands are aliena,le islands o! the pu,licdoain. PEA a lease these lands to pri-ate

corporations. PEA a onl sell these lands to Philippinecitizens" su,3ect to o2nership liitations in the +%Constitution and eBisting la2s.

The su,erged areas o! >anila a reain inaliena,lenatural resources o! the pu,lic doain until classi!ied asaliena,le or disposa,le lands open to disposition anddeclared no longer needed !or pu,lic ser-ice. In theirpresent state" the su,erged areas are outside thecoerce o! an.

Since the Aended 8oint 4enture Agreeent see's totrans!er to A>ARI" a pri-ate corporation" o2nership o! aportion o! the Freedo Islands" such trans!er is -oid !or,eing contrar to Art. II" Sec. $ o! the +% Constitution2hich prohi,its pri-ate corporations !ro ac;uiring an'ind o! aliena,le land o! the pu,lic doain.

Since the Aended 8oint 4enture Agreeent also see's

to trans!er to A>ARI o2nership o! part o! su,ergedareas o! the >anila a" such trans!er is -oid contrar toArt. II" Sec.@ o! the +% Constitution 2hich prohi,its thealienation o! natural resources other than agriculturallands o! the pu,lic doain. (15TE: E-en i! thego-ernent later on classi!ies the /su,erged areas0 asaliena,le" such trans!er o! o2nership 2ill still ,e in-aliddue to Sec. $" Art. II o! the +% constitution aseBplained in the preceding point).

'aurel v. ,arcia

Facts: 9nder the Reparations Agreeent 2ith the 8apan" thePhil. =o-Gt ac;uired properties in 8apan. As one o! theac;uired properties in 1-/" the Roppon!ipropert 2as thesite !or the Phil. E,ass in 8apan until it 2as trans!erred to1apeidai in 1-$0 2hen the ,uilding at the Roppongipropert needed a3or repairs. Ho2e-er" ,7c o! a lac' o!!unds" the propert has reained unde-eloped since thattie. Pres. A;uino issued E5 @#* entitling nonFil citizens orentities to a-ail o! reparationsG capital goods and ser-ices inthe e-ent o! sale" lease or disposition. Then" the EBecuti-e,ranch decided to sell the reparations properties starting 2ithRoppongi. Petitioners see' to stop the sale o! the propert in1--.

Issue:(&) Can the Roppongi propert and others o! its 'ind ,ealienated , the Phil. =o-GtL

(@) oes the Chie! EBecuti-e ha-e the authorit and3urisdiction to sell itL

Held:The nature o! the Roppongi lot as propert !or pu,lic ser-ice iseBpressl spelled out , the ters o! the ReparationsAgreeent and the corresponding contract o! procureent2hich ,ind ,oth the Phil. =o-Gt and the 8ap. =o-Gt. As properto! pu,lic doinion" the Roppongi lot is outside the coerceo! an. It cannot ,e alienated. The purpose is not to ser-e theState as a 3uridical person" ,ut the citizens it is intended !orthe coon and pu,lic 2el!are and cannot ,e the o,3ect o!

appropriation. Furtherore" said propert is correctlclassi!ied under par. @ o! Art. @D o! the Ci- Code as propert,elonging to the State and intended !or soe pu,lic ser-ice.

The !act that the Roppongi site has not ,een used !or a longtie !or actual E,ass ser-ice does not autoaticallcon-ert it to patrionial propert. An such con-ersionhappens onl i! the propert is 2ithdra2n !ro pu,lic use. Apropert continues to ,e part o! the pu,lic doain" nota-aila,le !or pri-ate appropriation or o2nership until there isa foral declarationon the part o! the go-ernent to2ithdra2 it !ro ,eing such. 9nder Art @@ o! the Ci- Code"an a,andonent o! the intention to use said propert !orpu,lic ser-ice and to a'e it patrionial propert ust bedefinite.

RA 1o. **% (the CARP ?a2)" did not 2ithdra2 the Roppongipropert !ro ,eing classi!ied as one o! pu,lic doinion. Thatla2 re!ers to properties 2hich are aliena,le and not to thosereser-ed !or pu,lic use or ser-ice. There!ore" it does notauthorize the EBecuti-e ept. to sell the Roppongi propert.The su,se;uent appro-al on 5cto,er " ++ , Pres. A;uinoto sell the propert 2as preature and does not ha-e the!orce and e!!ect o! la2 since the President had alread losther legislati-e po2ers (, this tie" Cong. had alreadcon-ened !or ore than a ear). It is not !or the President tocon-e -alua,le real propert o! the go-ernent on his or hero2n sole 2ill. An such con-eance ust ,e authorized andappro-ed , a la2 enacted , the Congress. It re;uireseBecuti-e and legislati-e concurrence.