Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Nepomuceno
FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and FACTS: A small parcel of land (Lot No. 3786), an alienable or disposable public land.
mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain Covered by Sales Patent No. 257 was issued to Margarita Juanson. The same land
provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s was also issued by Lease No. 49 executed by the Bureau of Lands in favor of Andres
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The de Vera. Juanson’s Sales Patent was inscribed by the Register of Deeds on July 11,
petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these 1927, and the Original Certificate of Title was issued to her. In 1950, Simeon Dagdag
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public bought it from the owner and the corresponding certificate of title was given out. On
domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the the other hand, the lease to de Vera was transferred to Nepomuceno. Dagdag’s title
regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. and those of his predecessors contained no annotation of such lease, neither he had
any knowledge of it. Nepomuceno refused to surrender the land even in the face of
ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution? Dagdag’s patent and title.
HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the ISSUE: Who is entitled to the land and the products thereof?
IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the
natural resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources RULING: The patents when registered in the corresponding Register of Deeds are
in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to indispensible. We regard these as veritable Torrens Title subject to no encumbrance
the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, except those stated therein, plus those specified by the statutes, and lease is not one
as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to of them. In addition, when the lease was renewed in 1949, the portion in question was
the small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their no longer public land subject to the disposition of the Director of Lands because it had
large scale development and exploitation. already been granted to Margarita Juanson and had become private property. In Sec
122 of the Land Registration Law, the documents mentioned wherein lands are
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the “alienated, granted, or conveyed” are documents transferring ownership, not
public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, documents of lease transferring ownership. The Torrens Title of Dagdag must prevail.
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from
the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their
ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to
alienate the same.
HELD: The SC deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and reached
a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same result transpired. Since there was
no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained.
Hence, ancestral domains may include natural resources – somehow against the
regalian doctrine
Chavez v. Pea and Amari submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public
domain, which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. In their
FACT: In 1973, the Commissioner on Public Highways entered into a contract to present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside
reclaim areas of Manila Bay with the Construction and Development Corporation of the commerce of man.
the Philippines (CDCP).
3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation,
PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President Marcos under P.D. 1084, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for
tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were transferred to being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private
the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Cavite Road and Reclamation corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that all future projects
under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA. 4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of
290.156hectares111 of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for
By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands to PEA. being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
It was followed by the transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the Register of alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.
Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the three reclaimed islands known as the
FREEDOM ISLANDS. PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify
the reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer
Subsequently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a Thai- needed for public service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the
Philippine corporation to develop the Freedom Islands. Along with another public domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of
250hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would later transfer said lands the1987Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of
to AMARI. This caused a stir especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the agreement, alienable land of the public domain.
claiming that such lands were part of public domain (famously known as the “mother
of all scams”).
Petitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a taxpayer praying for mandamus, a writ of
preliminary injunction and a TRO against the sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to
AMARI and from implementing the JVA. Following these events, under President
Estrada’s admin, PEA and AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr. Chavez
claim that the contract is null and void.
ISSUE:
WON the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed as part of the
stipulations in the (Amended) JVA between AMARI and PEA violate Sec. 3 Art. XII of
the 1987 Constitution
WON the court is the proper forum for raising the issue of whether the amended joint
venture agreement is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
HELD:
On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the constitution:
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or
transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these
lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987
Constitution and existing laws.
2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open
to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The government can
make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
Republic vs Cortez legislative act or a statute declaring the land as alienable and disposable must be
established.
Facts: Respondent Rev. Claudio R. Cortez, Sr. (Rev. Cortez), a missionary by
vocation engaged in humanitarian and charitable activities, established an orphanage In this case, there is no such proof showing that the subject portion of Palaui Island
and school in Punta Verde, Palaui Island, San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan. He has been declared alienable and disposable when Rev. Cortez started to occupy the
claimed that since 1962, he has been in peaceful possession of about 50 hectares of same. Hence, it must be considered as still inalienable public domain.
land located in the western portion of Palaui Island in Sitio Siwangag, Sta. Ana,
Cagayan with the help of Aetas and other people under his care, cleared and The same goes true even if Proclamation No. 201 and Proclamation No. 447 were
developed for agricultural purposes in order to support his... charitable, humanitarian made subject to private rights.
and missionary works.
As there has been no showing that the subject parcels of land had been segregated
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 201 reserving for military from the military reservation, the respondents had to prove that the subject properties
purposes a parcel of the public domain situated in Palaui Island. Pursuant thereto, were alienable or disposable land of the public domain prior to its withdrawal from
2,000 hectares of the southern half portion of the Palaui Island were withdrawn from sale and settlement and reservation for military purposes under Presidential
sale or settlement and reserved for the use of the Philippine Navy. Proclamation No. 265.
President Fidel V. Ramos issued Proclamation No. 447 declaring Palaui Island and Without first determining the nature and character of the land, all other requirements
the surrounding waters situated in the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as marine such as length and nature of possession and occupation over such land do not come
reserve. into play. The required length of possession does not operate when the land is part of
the public... domain.
According to him, some members of the Philippine Navy, upon orders of Biñas,
disturbed his peaceful and lawful possession of the said 50-hectare portion of Palaui In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Rev. Cortez failed to conclusively
Island when on March 15, 2000, they commanded him and his men, through the use establish his claimed right over the subject portion of Palaui Island as would entitle
of force and intimidation, to vacate the area. him to the issuance of a final injunction.
The OSG pointed out that Rev. Cortez admitted during trial that he filed the Petition Principles:
for injunction on behalf of the indigenous cultural communities in Palaui Island and
not in his capacity as pastor or missionary. An inalienable public land cannot be appropriated and thus may not be the proper
object of possession. Hence, injunction cannot be issued in order to protect one's
He also claimed that he has no interest over the land. Based on these admissions, alleged right of possession over the same.
the OSG argued that the Petition should have been dismissed outright on the grounds
that it did not include the name of the indigenous cultural communities.
Issue: Whether or not Rev. Cortez is entitled to a final writ of mandatory injunction.
Ruling:
While Rev. Cortez relies heavily on his asserted right of possession, he, nevertheless,
failed to show that the subject area over which he has a claim is not part of the public
domain and therefore can be the proper object of possession.
Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State.
Hence, "[a]ll lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership are presumed
to belong to the State. Also, public lands remain part of the inalienable land of the
public domain unless the State is shown to have reclassified or alienated them to
private persons."[45] To prove that a land is alienable, the existence of a positive act
of the government, such as presidential proclamation or an executive order; an
administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a