Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

Miners Association vs.

Factoran EO 211Prescribing the interim procedures in the processing and approval of applications for exploration, development and utilization (EDU) of minerals to ensure the continuity of mining operations and activities to hasten the development of mineral resources. EO 279President Aquino authorized the DENR Secretary to negotiate and conclude joint venture and co-production or production-sharing agreements for the EDU of mineral resources and prescribing guidelines for such agreements and those agreements involving technical or financial assistance of foreign-owned corporations for large-scale EDU. AO 57Guidelines of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement under EO279 Art. 9all existing mining leases/agreements which were granted after 1987 Constitution pursuant to EO 211, except small-scale mining leases and those pertaining to sand and gravel and quarry shall be converted to PSA within 1year. AO 82Procedural Guidelines on the Award of MPSA enumerates persons or entities required to submit LOI and MPSA w/in 2yrs. Failure shall cause abandonment of mining quarry. Questioned administrative orders are reasonably directed to the accomplishment of the purposes of the law. (To secure paramount interest of the public.) Principle of Administrative officials to promulgate order, rules and regulations is limited only to take effect what is provided for by law. No showing that DENR Secretary transcended the bounds demarcated by EO 279 which specifically authorizes him to promulgate such supplementary rules and regulations. AOs do not pre-terminate existing mining leases. Does not apply retroactively.

San Miguel Corporation vs Court of Appeals Tax declaration receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or right of possession. They are mere indicia of the claim. Tax declarations only become strong evidence when accompanied by proof actual possession, under the concept of ownership.

Alfredo Almeda vs Court of Appeals Possession while the land was still inalienable cannot ripen into private ownership and should be excluded from the computation of 30-yr open and continuous possession in the concept of ownership required for acquisitive prescription.

Director of Lands vs Court of Appeals The release of the subject property from the unclassified category by the lower court is beyond their jurisdiction. Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to classify lands not the courts. The recommendation of the District Forester for release of subject property from the unclassified region is not the ultimate word on matter. The failure to present the map showing that the subject property was within the unclassified region cannot operate against the State. State cannot be stopped by mistakes/omissions of its officials Since subject property is still unclassified, possession of applicants cannot ripen into private ownership.

Conversion of the property into a fishpond does not automatically render the property alienable and disposable.

Director of Lands vs. Hon. Aquino Forest lands/reserves are incapable of private appropriation and possession, however long, cannot convert them into private properties. Land must first be released from its classification as forest land and reclassified as agricultural lands. A positive act of the government, through the executive department, is needed to declassify forest land into alienable or disposable land. The classification of the land as forest land is descriptive of its LEGAL NATURE or STATUS and not of what the land actually looks like. Applicant for registration bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be registered is part of the public domain. Changing the location of a communal forest does not amount to a declassification of a forest reserve into A&D land.

Republic of the Phil. Vs Court of Appeals The legal effect of a valid location of a mining claim is not only to segregate the area from the public domain, but to grant to the locator the beneficial ownership of the claim and the right to a patent. The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain. By such act, the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even the government, w/o need of any further act such as purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. It is a well-settled principle that the owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height. The rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. If a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals w/o the permission of the State to w/c such minerals belong.(Regalian Doctrine)

Director of Lands vs IAC The purely accidental circumstance that the confirmation proceedings were brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids corporations from owning lands of the public domain cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate transactions then perfectly valid and proper. The Constitution cannot impair vested rights. The alienable public land held by a possessor, personally or throughhis predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period of 30 years is converted to private property by the mere lapse or completion of said period. The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title. The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private land, but only confirm such a conversion already affected by operation of lawfrom the moment the required period of possession became complete.

La Bugal vs. Ramos *Spanish Regime and The Regalian Doctrine - Jura Regalia refers to royal rights, or those rights which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives. - King was regarded as the original proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source of title, and from him all lands were held. - The Regalian doctrine extends not only to land but also to "all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth." *The American Occupation and Concession Regime - Unlike Spain, the United States considered natural resources as a source of wealth for its nationals and saw fit to allow both Filipino and American citizens to explore and exploit minerals in public lands, and to grant patents to private mineral lands. - A person who acquired ownership over a parcel of private mineral land pursuant to the laws then prevailing could exclude other persons, even the State, from exploiting minerals within his property. - The discovery of minerals in the ground by one who has a valid mineral location perfects his claim and his location not only against third persons, but also against the Government. - Under the concession system, the concessionaire makes a direct equity investment for the purpose of exploiting a particular natural resource within a given area.95 - concession amounts to complete control by the concessionaire over the country's natural resources - concessionaire either pays rent or royalty, which is a fixed percentage of the gross proceeds.97 *1935 Constitution - The 1935 Constitution adopted the Regalian doctrine, declaring all natural resources of the Philippines, including mineral lands and minerals, to be property belonging to the State. - The nationalization of the natural resources was intended: (1) to insure their conservation for Filipino posterity; (2) to serve as an instrument of national defense, helping prevent the extension to the country of foreign control through peaceful economic penetration; and (3) to avoid making the Philippines a source of international conflicts with the consequent danger to its internal security and independence - the right to utilize and exploit our natural resources is extended to citizens of the United States and business enterprises owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the United States *THE PETROLEUM ACT OF 1949 AND THE CONCESSION SYSTEM - employed the concession system for the exploitation of the nation's petroleum resources which granted to the concessionaire the exclusive right to explore for116 or develop117 petroleum within specified areas. - Concessions may be granted only to duly qualified persons118 who have sufficient finances, organization, resources, technical competence, and skills necessary to conduct the operations to be undertaken.

- Exploration and exploitation concessions did not confer upon the concessionaire ownership over the petroleum lands and petroleum deposits. - Concessions were granted at the complete risk of the concessionaire; the Government did not guarantee the existence of petroleum or undertake, in any case, title warranty. - Exploitation concessionaires, in particular, were obliged to pay an annual exploitation tax,128 the object of which is to induce the concessionaire to actually produce petroleum, and not simply to sit on the concession without developing or exploiting it.129 These concessionaires were also bound to pay the Government royalty. Advantages of Concession 1. the State's financial involvement is virtually risk free and administration is simple and comparatively low in cost 2. revenue accruing to the State under the concession system may compare favorably with other financial arrangements. Disadvantages of Concession 1. Because the Government's role in the traditional concession is passive, it is at a distinct disadvantage in managing and developing policy for the nation's petroleum resource. 2. even though most concession agreements contain covenants requiring diligence in operations and production, this establishes only an indirect and passive control of the host country in resource development *PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 87, THE 1973 CONSTITUTION AND THE SERVICE CONTRACT SYSTEM - PD 87 permitted the government to explore for and produce indigenous petroleum through "service contracts." Service contracts -- is a contractual arrangement for engaging in the exploitation and development of petroleum, mineral, energy, land and other natural resources by which a government or its agency, or a private person granted a right or privilege by the government authorizes the other party (service contractor) to engage or participate in the exercise of such right or the enjoyment of the privilege, in that the latter provides financial or technical resources, undertakes the exploitation or production of a given resource, or directly manages the productive enterprise, operations of the exploration and exploitation of the resources or the disposition of marketing or resources. service and technology are furnished by the service contractor for which it shall be entitled to the stipulated service fee. The contractor must be technically competent and financially capable to undertake the operations required in the contract It also granted the contractor certain privileges, including exemption from taxes and payment of tariff duties,157 and permitted the repatriation of capital and retention of profits abroad. our concept of a service contract, at least in the petroleum industry, was basically a concession regime with a production-sharing element. While Section 9 of the same Article maintained the Filipino-only policy in the enjoyment of natural resources, it also allowed Filipinos, upon authority of the Batasang Pambansa, to enter into service contracts with any person or entity for the exploration or utilization of natural resources. a citizen or private entity could be allowed by the National Assembly to enter into such service contract. prior approval of the National Assembly was deemed sufficient to protect the national interest.166 Notably, none of the laws allowing service contracts were passed by the Batasang Pambansa. Indeed, all of them were enacted by presidential decree. President promulgated Presidential Decree No. 151 which allowed Filipino citizens or entities which have acquired lands of the public domain or which own, hold or control such lands to enter into service

contracts for financial, technical, management or other forms of assistance with any foreign persons or entity for the exploration, development, exploitation or utilization of said lands. (accdg. to Atty. Pollisco- this is a circumvention of the Constitution. Making valid something that is prohibited by the constitution under the color of a valid presidential decree) *THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS - The 1987 Constitution retained the Regalian doctrine. - The constitutional policy of the State's "full control and supervision" over natural resources proceeds from the concept of jura regalia, as well as the recognition of the importance of the country's natural resources, not only for national economic development, but also for its security and national defense. - State assumes "a more dynamic role" in the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources. - By such omission, the utilization of inalienable lands of public domain through "license, concession or lease" is no longer allowed under the 1987 Constitution. - The State may 1.) directly undertake such activities or; 2.) it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. - Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. - The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. Production sharing agreement (PSA) -- Government participates the least; the Government grants the contractor192 the exclusive right to conduct mining operations within a contract area193 and shares in the gross output. Contractor provides the financing, technology, management and personnel necessary for the agreement's implementation. The total government share is the excise tax on mineral products. Co-production agreement (CA) -- the Government provides inputs to the mining operations other than the mineral resource Joint venture agreement (JVA) -- where the Government enjoys the greatest participation, the Government and the JVA contractor organize a company with both parties having equity shares.200 Aside from earnings in equity, the Government in a JVA is also entitled to a share in the gross output.

Chavez vs. PEA The Regalian Doctrine The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions adopted the Regalian doctrine substituting, however, the State, in lieu of the King, as the owner of all lands and waters of the public domain. The Regalian doctrine is the foundation of the time-honored principle of land ownership that all lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889, which is now Article 420 of the Civil Code of 1950, incorporated the Regalian doctrine.

Ownership and Disposition of Reclaimed Lands the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1654 which provided for the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals. the Public Land Act, which authorized the lease, but not the sale, of reclaimed lands of the government to corporations and individuals.

The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 and the Civil Code of 1889 the shores, bays, coves, inlets and all waters within the maritime zone of the Spanish territory belonged to the public domain for public use. land reclaimed from the sea belonged to the party undertaking the reclamation, provided the government issued the necessary permit and did not reserve ownership of the reclaimed land to the State.

Property devoted to public use property open for public use Property devoted to public service -- property used for some specific public service and open only to those authorized to use the property. Article 341 of the Civil Code of 1889 governed the re-classification of property of public dominion into private property. Art. 341 is not self-executing. The legislature, or the executive department pursuant to law, must declare the property no longer needed for public use or territorial defense before the government could lease or alienate the property to private parties

Act No. 1654 of the Philippine Commission regulated the lease of reclaimed and foreshore lands. mandated that the government should retain title to all lands reclaimed by the government. The Act also vested in the government control and disposition of foreshore lands. Private parties could lease lands reclaimed by the government only if these lands were no longer needed for public purpose unlike other public lands which the government could sell to private parties, these reclaimed lands were available only for lease to private parties. did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Act No. 1654 did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea under Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government permission remained private lands.

Act No. 2874 of the Philippine Legislature 2874 reiterated the State policy to lease and not to sell government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands of the public domain, a policy first Government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy public lands for non-agricultural purposes retain their inherent potential as areas for public service. 2874 did not authorize the reclassification of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands into other non-agricultural lands under Section 56 (d).

government could not sell government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy lands to private parties, unless the legislature passed a law allowing their sale. did not prohibit private parties from reclaiming parts of the sea pursuant to Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Lands reclaimed from the sea by private parties with government permission remained private lands.

Dispositions under the 1935 Constitution The 1935 Constitution barred the alienation of all natural resources except public agricultural lands, which were the only natural resources the State could alienate. The government could alienate foreshore lands only after these lands were reclaimed and classified as alienable agricultural lands of the public domain. Government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain, being neither timber nor mineral lands, fell under the classification of public agricultural lands The prohibition on private parties from acquiring ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain was only a statutory prohibition and the legislature could therefore remove such prohibition. legislature continued the long established State policy of retaining for the government title and ownership of government reclaimed and marshy lands of the public domain.

Commonwealth Act No. 141 of the Philippine National Assembly remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands empowers the President to classify lands of the public domain into "alienable or disposable" lands of the public domain authorizes the President to "declare what lands are open to disposition or concession states that the government can declare open for disposition or concession only lands that are "officially delimited and classified. before the government could alienate or dispose of lands of the public domain, the President must first officially classify these lands as alienable or disposable, and then declare them open to disposition or concession. There must be no law reserving these lands for public or quasi-public uses. CA No. 141 readopted Section 58 of Act No. 2874 prohibiting the sale of government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy disposable lands of the public domain CA No. 141 did not repeal Section 5 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866. Private parties could still reclaim portions of the sea with government permission. However, the reclaimed land could become private land only if classified as alienable agricultural land of the public domain open to disposition under CA No. 141

The Civil Code of 1950 readopted substantially the definition of property of public dominion found in the Civil Code of 1889 government reclaimed and marshy lands of the State, even if not employed for public use or public service, if developed to enhance the national wealth, are classified as property of public dominion.

Dispositions under the 1973 Constitution The 1973 Constitution prohibited the alienation of all natural resources with the exception of "agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, and resettlement lands of the public domain limited the alienation of lands of the public domain to individuals who were citizens of the Philippines. Private corporations, even if wholly owned by Philippine citizens, were no longer allowed to acquire alienable lands of the public domain unlike in the 1935 Constitution under the 1973 Constitution, private corporations could hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. The constitutional ban extended to all kinds of alienable lands of the public domain, while the statutory ban under CA No. 141 applied only to government reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain.

PD No. 1084 Creating the Public Estates Authority PD No. 1084 authorizes PEA to reclaim both foreshore and submerged areas of the public domain.

Foreshore areas -- are those covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide. Submerged areas -- are those permanently under water regardless of the ebb and flow of the tide. - Foreshore and submerged areas indisputably belong to the public domain 63 and are inalienable unless reclaimed, classified as alienable lands open to disposition, and further declared no longer needed for public service. - The ban in the 1973 Constitution on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain did not apply to PEA since it was then, and until today, a fully owned government corporation. - In order for PEA to sell its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain, there must be legislative authority empowering PEA to sell these lands. - Without such legislative authority, PEA could not sell but only lease its reclaimed foreshore and submerged alienable lands of the public domain. - legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain would be subject to the constitutional ban on private corporations - such legislative authority could only benefit private individuals. Dispositions under the 1987 Constitution - The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution banning private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. - the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to hold alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. The Rationale behind the Constitutional Ban the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of alienable lands of the public domain. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the constitutional limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of the public domain. The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public domain to a qualified individual.

Absent two official acts a classification that these lands are alienable or disposable and open to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not needed for public service, lands reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable lands of public domain. Only such an official classification and formal declaration can convert reclaimed lands into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, open to disposition under the Constitution, Title I and Title III 83 of CA No. 141 and other applicable laws. PEAs charter expressly tasks PEA to develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all kind of lands owned, managed, controlled and/or operated by the government. There is, therefore, legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its lands, whether patrimonial or alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may sell to private parties its patrimonial properties in accordance with the PEA charter free from constitutional limitations. The constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring alienable lands of the public domain does not apply to the sale of PEAs patrimonial lands. PEA may also sell its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private individuals since, with the legislative authority, there is no longer any statutory prohibition against such sales and the constitutional ban does not apply to individuals. PEA, however, cannot sell any of its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private corporations since Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits such sales. The legislative authority benefits only individuals. Private corporations remain barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain, including government reclaimed lands. The grant of legislative authority to sell public lands in accordance with Section 60 of CA No 141 does not automatically convert alienable lands of the public domain into private or patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of

the public domain must be transferred to qualified private parties, or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands, before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands. Otherwise, the constitutional ban will become illusory if Congress can declare lands of the public domain as private or patrimonial lands in the hands of a government agency tasked to dispose of public lands. This will allow private corporations to acquire directly from government agencies limitless areas of lands which, prior to such law, are concededly public lands. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. PEA will simply turn around, as PEA has now done under the Amended JVA, and transfer several hundreds of hectares of these reclaimed and still to be reclaimed lands to a single private corporation in only one transaction. This scheme will effectively nullify the constitutional ban in Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which was intended to diffuse equitably the ownership of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipinos, now numbering over 80 million strong. This scheme, if allowed, can even be applied to alienable agricultural lands of the public domain since PEA can acquire any and all kinds of lands. This will open the floodgates to corporations and even individuals acquiring hundreds of hectares of alienable lands of the public domain under the guise that in the hands of PEA these lands are private lands. This will result in corporations amassing huge landholdings never before seen in this country creating the very evil that the constitutional ban was designed to prevent. This will completely reverse the clear direction of constitutional development in this country. The 1935 Constitution allowed private corporations to acquire not more than 1,024 hectares of public lands. The 1973 Constitution prohibited private corporations from acquiring any kind of public land, and the 1987 Constitution has unequivocally reiterated this prohibition. The Regalian doctrine is deeply implanted in our legal system. Foreshore and submerged areas form part of the public domain and are inalienable. Lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas also form part of the public domain and are also inalienable, unless converted pursuant to law into alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Historically, lands reclaimed by the government are sui generis, not available for sale to private parties unlike other alienable public lands. Reclaimed lands retain their inherent potential as areas for public use or public service. Alienable lands of the public domain, increasingly becoming scarce natural resources, are to be distributed equitably among our ever-growing population. To ensure such equitable distribution, the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions have barred private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Those who attempt to dispose of inalienable natural resources of the state, or seek to circumvent the conditional ban on alienation of lands of the public domain to private corporations, do so at their own risks.

Cruz vs DENR CONSTITUTIONAL Based on presumption of constitutionality That the legislature intends to enact good laws in accordance with the Constitution Native Title Subject lands had never been public UNCONSTITUTIONAL All must conform with the Constitution, mother law

Ownership/ Utilization --Provisions of IPRA does not vest ownership Natural resources not included

ICCs/IPs failed to conform with the requirements provided by law (perfection of title) Regalian Doctrine all lands belong to the State (Public domain) -- provisions vests ownership of ancestral domains/lands to ICCs/IPs same

Chavez vs NHA The reclaimed lands were classified alienable and disposable lands of the public domain for the following reasons:
1. there were three (3) presidential proclamations classifying the reclaimed lands across R-10 as alienable or disposable hence open to disposition or concession, to wit:

* MO 415-- directive to transfer the lands once reclaimed to the NHA implicitly carries with it the declaration that said lands are alienable and disposable. Otherwise, the NHA cannot effectively use them in its housing and resettlement project. * Proclamation No. 39-- which the reclaimed lands were conveyed to NHA for subdivision and disposition to qualified beneficiaries and for development into a mixed land use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for port-related activities. Said directive carries with it the pronouncement that said lands have been transformed to alienable and disposable lands. Otherwise, there is no legal way to convey it to the beneficiaries. * Proclamation No. 465-- enlarged the reclaimed area to 79 hectares to be developed and disposed of in the implementation of the SMDRP. The authority put into the hands of the NHA to dispose of the reclaimed lands tacitly sustains the conversion to alienable and disposable lands. 2. Special Patents Nos. 3591, 3592, and 3598 issued by the DENR anchored on Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 issued by President Ramos, without doubt, classified the reclaimed areas as alienable and disposable.

NHA is a government agency not tasked to dispose of public lands under its charter NHA is an "end-user agency" authorized by law to administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. The moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the special patents are transferred to the NHA by the Register of Deeds, they are automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the State which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private corporations, 60% of which are owned by Filipinos. Reason: if the reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial land once transferred to NHA, then it would be useless to transfer it to the NHA since it cannot legally transfer or alienate lands of public domain. More importantly, it cannot attain its avowed purposes and goals since it can only transfer patrimonial lands to qualified beneficiaries and prospective buyers to raise funds for the SMDRP

Oposa vs Factoran Consequences of deforestation (a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and

(k) the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect." Complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right: the right to a balanced and healthful ecology While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter.

Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than selfpreservation and self-perpetuation The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos. Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action.

People vs Dator It must be underscored that the appellant stands charged with the crime of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, a special statutory law, and which crime is considered mala prohibita In the prosecution for crimes that are considered mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated motive or intention underlying the act of the appellant is immaterial Fact of possession and subsequent failure to produce legal documents constitute violation of PD 705 Mere allegation of verbal permission is not sufficient to overturn established fact that he had no legal documents.

Merida vs People PD 705 does not prohibit interested persons from filing a complaint before any qualified officer Sec. 68 of PD 705 penalizes 3 categories: 1. the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing of timber or other forest products from any forest land 2.
without any authority; the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing of timber from alienable or disposable public land, or 26 from private land without any authority; and

3. -

the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations "timber," includes "lumber" or "processed log."

Revaldo vs People -

Warrantless seizure of lumber without legal documents allowed under the plain view doctrine.
There was thus probable cause for the police officers to confiscate the lumber. There was, therefore, no necessity for a search warrant. Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial Forestry Code authorizes the forestry officer or employee of the DENR or any personnel of the PNP to arrest, even without a warrant, any person who has committed or is committing in his presence any of the offenses defined by the Forestry Code and to seize and confiscate the tools and equipment used in committing the offense or the forest products gathered or taken by the offender

DENR vs Daraman RTC covers the confiscation of the timber or forest products as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found DENR that has jurisdiction over the confiscation of forest products and, to stress, all conveyances used in the commission of the offense the original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of all conveyances used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same is vested in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) secretary or a duly authorized representative The DENR secretary has supervision and control over the enforcement of forestry, reforestation, parks, game and wildlife laws, rules and regulations The validity and legality of the Order of Forfeiture falls outside the ambit of the review of the assailed Decision and Order The guilt or the innocence of the accused in the criminal case is immaterial, because what is punished under Section 68 is the transportation, movement or conveyance of forest products without legal documents. the same law takes out of the general jurisdiction of the regional trial courts the confiscation of conveyances used in violation of forestry laws we cannot expect the DENR to rule on the criminal liability of the accused before it impounds such vehicles. Section 68-A covers only the movement of lumber or forest products without proper documents.

Calub vs Valencia Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the seizure was in accordance with law, in our view the subject vehicles were validly deemed in custodia legis. It could not be subject to an action for replevin. For it is property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise. a suit against the petitioners who represent the DENR is a suit against the State. It cannot prosper without the State's consent.

Aquino vs People petitioner was charged by CENRO to supervise the implementation of the permit. He was not the one who cut, gathered, collected or removed the pine trees within the contemplation of Section 68 of PD 705. He was not in possession of the cut trees because the lumber was used by Teachers Camp for repairs. Petitioner could not likewise be convicted of conspiracy to commit the offense because all his co-accused were acquitted of the charges against them

The provision clearly punishes anyone who shall cut, gather, collect or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority. Neither could petitioner be liable under the last paragraph of Section 68 of PD 705 as he is not an officer of a partnership, association, or corporation who ordered the cutting, gathering, or collection, or is in possession of the pine trees.

Cheeseman vs IAC The fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land.
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. the sale as to him was null and void. In any event, he had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property If the property were to be declared conjugal, this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantial interest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not permit him to have. An innocent buyer for value, she is entitled to the protection of the law in her purchase, particularly as against Cheesman, who would assert rights to the property denied him by both letter and spirit of the Constitution itself.

Ramirez vs de Ramirez Notwithstanding the opinion that the Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless, the usufruct in favor of an alien is upheld, because the same, albeit a real right, does not vest title to land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.

Halili vs CA if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. the prior invalid transfer can no longer be assailed. The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our land in Filipino hands has been served. [I]f the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizen by naturalization."