MALACAÑANG

Manila

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1151

PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

WHEREAS, the individual and, at times, conflicting, demands of population growth, urbanization, industrial
expansion, rapid natural resources utilization and increasing technological advances have resulted in a
piecemeal-approach concept of environmental protection;

WHEREAS, such tunnel-vision concept is not conducive to the attainment of an ideal environmental situation
where man and nature can thrive in harmony with one another; and

WHEREAS, there is now an urgent need to formulate an intensive, integrated program of environmental
protection that will bring about a concerted effort towards the protection of the entire spectrum of the
environment through a requirement of environmental impact assessments and statements:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree:

Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and
improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each
other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos,
and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well-being.

Section 2. Goal. In pursuing this policy, it shall be the responsibility of the Government, in cooperation with
concerned private organizations and entities, to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential
considerations of national policy, in promoting the general welfare to the end that the Nation may (a) recognize,
discharge and fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for
succeeding generations, (b) assure the people of a safe, decent, healthful, productive and aesthetic
environment, (c) encourage the widest exploitation of the environment without degrading it, or endangering
human life, health and safety or creating conditions adverse to agriculture, commerce and industry, (d)
preserve important historic and cultural aspects of the Philippine heritage, (e) attain a rational and orderly
balance between population and resource use, and (f) improve the utilization of renewable and non-renewable
resources.

Section 3. Right to a Healthy Environment. In furtherance of these goals and policies, the Government
recognizes the right of the people to a healthful environment. It shall be the duty and responsibility of each
individual to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the Philippine environment.

Section 4. Environmental Impact Statements. Pursuant to the above enunciated policies and goals, all
agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, as well as private corporations firms and entities shall prepare, file and include in every action,
project or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of the environment a detail statement on

(a) the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking

(b) any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;

(c) alternative to the proposed action;

(d) a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the environment are consistent with the
maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the same; and
 (e) whenever a proposal involve the use of depletable or non-renewable resources, a finding must be
made that such use and commitment are warranted.

Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all agencies having jurisdiction over, or
special expertise on, the subject matter involved shall comment on the draft environmental impact statement
made by the lead agency within thirty (30) days from receipt of the same.

Section 5. Agency Guidelines. The different agencies charged with environmental protection as enumerated in
Letter of Instruction No. 422 shall, within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Decree, submit to the
National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), their respective guidelines, rules and regulations to carry
out the provisions of Sec. 4 hereof on environmental impact assessments and statements.

Section 6. Repealing Clause. All Acts, Presidential Decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts
thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed, amended or modified
accordingly.

Section 7. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila this 6th day of June in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine

MALACAÑANG
Manila

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1152

PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE

WHEREAS, the broad spectrum of environment has become a matter of vital concern to the
government;

WHEREAS, the national leadership has taken a step towards this direction by creating the National
Environmental Protection Council under Presidential Decree No. 1121;

WHEREAS, it is necessary that the creation of the Council be implemented with the launching of a
comprehensive program of environmental protection and management;

WHEREAS, such a program can assume tangible and meaningful significance only by establishing
specific environment management policies and prescribing environment quality standards in a
Philippine Environment Code:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by

virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree:

Section 1. Short Title. This Decree shall be known and cited as the "Philippine Environment Code."

TITLE I
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Section 2. Purposes. The purposes of this Title are:

 (a) to achieve and maintain such levels of air quality as to protect public health; and

(b) to prevent to the greatest extent practicable, injury and/or damage to plant and animal life
and property, and promote the social and economic development of the country.

Chapter I
Standards

Section 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards. There shall be established ambient air quality standards
which shall prescribe the maximum concentration of air pollutants permissible in the atmosphere
consistent with public health, safety and general welfare.

In the establishment of ambient air quality standards, factors such as local atmospheric conditions,
location and land use, and available technology, shall be considered among others.

Section 4. National Emission Standards. There shall be established national emission standards for
new and existing stationary and mobile sources of pollution which shall consider among others such
factors as type of industry, practicable control technology available, location and land use, and the
nature of pollutants emitted.

Section 5. Community Noise Standards. Appropriate standards for community noise levels shall be
established considering, among others, location, zoning and land use classification.

Section 6. Standards for Noise-Producing Equipment. There shall be established a standard for
noise producing equipment such as construction equipment, transportation equipment, stationary
engines, and electrical or electronic equipment and such similar equipment or contrivances. The
standards shall set a limit on the acceptable level of noise emitted from a given equipment for the
protection of public health and welfare, considering among others, the magnitude and condition of
use, the degree of noise reduction achievable through the application of best available technology
and the cost of compliance.

The Installation of any noise-producing equipment shall conform with the requirements of
Presidential Decree No. 1096 and other applicable laws as well as their implementing rules and
regulations.

Section 7. Aircraft Emission and Sonic Booms. Appropriate government agencies shall encourage
research studies on the harmful effects of aircraft emissions in the environment in order to establish
permissible emission standards.

Research and studies shall also be undertaken to mitigate and/or minimize the effects of sonic
booms in the environment.

Chapter II
Regulation and Enforcement

Section 8. Air Quality and Noise Standards. The National Pollution Control Commission in
coordination with appropriate government agencies shall be responsible for the enforcement of
ambient air quality emission and noise standards, including the monitoring and surveillance of air
pollutants, licensing and permitting of air pollution control facilities, and the promulgation of
appropriate rules and regulations.
Existing air quality emission and noise standards may be revised and/or modified consistent with
new development and technology.

Section 9. Aircraft Noise. Community noise standards around airports shall be implemented by the
Civil Aeronautics Administration in coordination with the National Pollution Control Commission.

Section 10. Vehicular Emissions. The Land Transportation Commission, in coordination with the
National Pollution Control Commission, shall implement emission standards for motor vehicles and
may deputize other appropriate law enforcement agencies for the purpose.

Section 11. Radioactive Emissions. The release and emission of radioactivity into the environment
incident to the establishment or possession of nuclear energy facilities and radioactive materials,
handling, transport, production, storage, use and disposal of radioactive materials shall be regulated
by the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission in coordination with other appropriate government
agencies.

Chapter III
Monitoring

Section 12. Air Quality Monitoring. The National Pollution Control Commission, in coordination with
appropriate government agencies, shall establish to the greatest extent practicable an air quality
monitoring network. Such air quality monitoring network shall put to maximum use the capabilities of
these agencies.

The National Environmental Protection Council shall be furnished with the results of air quality
monitoring activities.

Section 13. Weather Modification. The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical
Services Administration shall monitor regularly meteorological factors affecting environmental
conditions in order to effectively guide air pollution monitoring activities.

Activities relating to weather modification such as rainfall stimulation and storm seeding experiments
shall be undertaken in consultation and/or in coordination with the Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical and Astronomical Service Administration.

TITLE II
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Section 14. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Title to prescribe management guidelines aimed to
protect and improve the quality of Philippine water resources through:

(a) classification of Philippine waters;

(b) establishment of water quality standards;

(c) protection and improvement of the quality of the Philippine water resources, and

(d) responsibilities for surveillance and mitigation of pollution incidents.

Chapter I
Classification and Standards
Section 15. Classification of Philippine Waters. The National Pollution Control Commission, in
coordination with appropriate government agencies, shall classify Philippine waters, according to
their best usage. In classifying said waters, the National Pollution Control Commission shall take into
account, among others, the following:

(a) the existing quality of the body of water at the time of classification;

(b) the size, depth, surface area covered, volume, direction, rate of flow, gradient of stream;
and

(c) the most beneficial uses of said bodies of water and lands bordering them for residential,
agricultural, commercial, industrial, navigational, recreational, and aesthetic purposes.

Section 16. Reclassification of Waters Based on Intended Beneficial Use. Where the public interest
so requires, the National Pollution Control Commission, in coordination with appropriate government
agencies, shall reclassify a body of water based on the intended beneficial use and take such steps
as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of said water. Other government agencies may adopt
higher standards for a particular body of water, subject to the approval of the National Pollution
Control Commission.

Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality. Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree
where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take
such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed
water quality standards.

Section 18. Water Quality Standards. The National Pollution Control Commission shall prescribe
quality and effluent standards consistent with the guidelines set by the National Environmental
Protection Council and the classification of waters prescribed in the preceding sections, taking into
consideration, among others, the following:

(a) the standard of water quality or purity may vary according to beneficial uses; and

(b) the technology relating to water pollution control.

Chapter II
Protection and Improvement of Water Quality

Section 19. Enforcement and Coordination. The production, utilization, storage and distribution of
hazardous, toxic and other substances such as radioactive materials, heavy metals, pesticides,
fertilizers, and oils, and the disposal, discharge and dumping of untreated wastewater, mine tailings
and other substances that may pollute any body of water of the Philippines resulting from normal
operations of industries, water-borne sources, and other human activities as well as those resulting
from accidental spills and discharge shall be regulated by appropriate government agencies
pursuant to their respective charters and enabling legislations. In the performance of the above
functions, the government agencies concern shall coordinate with the National Environmental
Protection Council and furnish the latter with such information as may be necessary to enable it to
attain its objectives under Presidential Decree No. 1121.

Section 20. Clean-up Operations. It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and
clean up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government
agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and expenses
incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for such
pollution.

Section 21. Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance. The various government agencies
concerned with environmental protection shall establish to the greatest extent practicable a water
quality surveillance and monitoring network with sufficient stations and sampling schedules to meet
the needs of the country. Said water quality surveillance network shall put to maximum use the
capabilities of such government agencies. Each agency involved in such network shall report to the
National Environmental Protection Council the results of these monitoring activities as the need
arises.

TITLE III
LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Section 22. Purpose. The purposes of this Title are:

(a) to provide a rational, orderly and efficient acquisition, utilization and disposition of land
and its resources in order to derive therefrom maximum benefits; and

(b) to encourage the prudent use and conservation of land resources in order to prevent and
imbalance between the nation's needs and such resources.

Section 23. National Land Use Scheme. The Human Settlements Commission, in coordination with
the appropriate agencies of the government, shall formulate and recommend to the National
Environmental Protection Council a land use scheme consistent with the purpose of this Title.

The Land Use Scheme shall include among others, the following:

(a) a science-based and technology-oriented land inventory and classification system;

(b) a determination of present land uses, the extent to which they are utilized, underutilized,
rendered idle or abandoned;

(c) a comprehensive and accurate determination of the adaptability of the land for community
development, agriculture, industry, commerce and other fields of endeavor;

(d) a method of identification of areas where uncontrolled development could result in

irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or aesthetic values, or natural systems or
processes of national significance;

(e) a method for exercising control by the appropriate government agencies over the use of
land in areas of critical environmental concern and areas impacted by public facilities
including, but not limited to, airports, highways, bridges, ports and wharves, buildings and
other infrastructure projects;

(f) a method to ensure the consideration of regional development and land use in local
regulations;

(g) policy for influencing the location of new communities and methods for assuring
appropriate controls over the use of land around new communities;
 (h) a system of controls and regulations pertaining to areas and development activities
designed to ensure that any source of pollution will not be located where it would result in a
violation of any applicable environmental pollution control regulations; and

(i) a recommended method for the periodic revisions and updating of the national land use
scheme to meet changing conditions.

Section 24. Location of Industries. In the location of industries, factories, plants, depots and similar
industrial establishments, the regulating or enforcing agencies of the government shall take into
consideration the social, economic, geographic and significant environmental impact of said
establishments.

TITLE IV
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION

Section 25. Purposes. The purposes of this Title are:

(a) to provide the basic policy on the management and conservation of the country's natural
resources to obtain the optimum benefits therefrom and to preserve the same for the future
generations; and

(b) to provide general measures through which the aforesaid policy may be carried out
effectively.

Chapter I
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Section 26. Management Policy. The National government, through the Department of Natural
Resources, shall establish a system of rational exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources within
the Philippine territory and shall encourage citizen participation therein to maintain and/or enhance
the optimum and continuous productivity of the same.

Section 27. Measures for National Exploitation. Measures for the national exploitation of fisheries
and other aquatic resources may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(a) undertaking manpower and expertise development;

(b) acquiring the necessary facilities and equipment;

(c) regulating the marketing of threatened species of fish or other aquatic resources;

(d) reviewing all existing rules and regulations on the exploitation of fisheries and aquatic
resources with a view of formulating guidelines for the systematic and effective enforcement
thereof; and

(e) conserving the vanishing species of fish and aquatic resources such as turtles, sea
snakes, crocodiles, corals, as well as maintaining the mangrove areas, marshes and inland
waters, coral reef-areas and islands serving as sanctuaries for fish and other aquatic life.

Chapter II
Wildlife
Section 28. Management Policy. The national government through the Department of Natural
Resources, shall establish a system of rational exploitation and conservation of wildlife resources
and shall encourage citizen participation in the maintenance and/or enhancement of their continuous
productivity.

Section 29. Measures for Rational Exploitation. Measures for rational exploitation of wildlife
resources may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(a) regulating the marketing of threatened wildlife resources.

(b) reviewing all existing rules and regulations on the exploitation of wildlife resources with a
view of formulating guidelines for the systematic and effective enforcement thereof; and

(c) conserving the threatened species of fauna, increasing their rate of reproduction,
maintaining their original habitat, habitat manipulation, determining bag/creel limits,
population control in relation to the carrying capacity of any given area, banning of
indiscriminate and/or destructive means of catching or hunting them.

Chapter III
Forestry and Soil Conservation

Section 30. Management Policy for Forestry. The national government, through the Department of
Natural Resources, shall undertake a system of rational exploitation of forest resources and shall
encourage citizen participation therein to keep the country's forest resources at maximum
productivity at all time.

Section 31. Measures for Rational Exploitation of Forest Resources. Measures for the rational
exploitation of forest resources may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(a) regulating the marketing of threatened forest resources;

(b) reviewing all existing rules and regulations on the exploitation of forest resources with a
view of formulating guidelines for the systematic and efficient enforcement thereof;

(c) conserving threatened species of flora as well as increasing their rate of propagation; the
banning of destructive modes of exploitation, kaingin making or shifting cultivation,
indiscriminate harvesting of minor forest products the recycling methods of waste materials,
and

(d) carrying out a continuing effect on reforestation; timber stand improvement; forest
protection; land classification; forest occupancy management; agri-silviculture; range
management; agri-silvicultural/kaingin management; industrial tree plantation; parks and
wildlife management; multiple use forest; timber management and forest research.

Section 32. Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides. The use of fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture shall
be regulated prescribing therefor a tolerance level in their use. Their use shall be monitored by
appropriate government agencies to provide empirical data for effective regulation.

Section 33. Management Policy on Soil Conservation. The national government, through the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture, shall likewise undertake a soil
conservation program including therein the identification and protection of critical watershed areas,
encouragement of scientific farming techniques, physical and biological means of soil conservation,
and short-term and long-term researches and technology for effective soil conservation.

Chapter IV
Flood Control and Natural Calamities

Section 34. Measures in Flood Control Program. In addition to the pertinent provisions of existing
laws, the following shall be included in a soil erosion, sediment and flood control program;

(a) the control of soil erosion on the banks of rivers, the shores of lakes, and the seashores;

(b) the control of flow and flooding in and from rivers and lakes;

(c) the conservation of water which, for purposes of this Section shall mean forms of water,
but shall not include captive water;

(d) the needs of fisheries and wildlife and all other recreational uses of natural water;

(e) measures to control the damming, diversion, taking, and use of natural water, so far as
any such act may affect the quality and availability of natural water for other purposes; and

(f) measures to stimulate research in matters relating to natural water and soil conservation
and the application of knowledge thereby acquired.

Section 35. Measures to Mitigate Destructive Effects of Calamities. The national government,
through the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, shall
promote intensified and concerted research efforts on weather modification, typhoon, earthquake,
tsunami, storm surge, and other tropical natural phenomena in order to bring about any significant
effect to mitigate or prevent their destructive effects.

Chapter V
Energy Development

Section 36. Policy. Consistent with the environmental protection policies, the national government,
through the Energy Development Board, shall undertake an energy development program
encouraging the utilization of invariant sources such as solar, wind and tidal energy.

Section 37. Measures for Energy Development. Measures for energy development program may
include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(a) setting up of pilot plants utilizing invariant sources of energy;

(b) training of technical personnel for purposes of energy development; and

(c) conducting researches aimed at developing technology for energy development.

Section 38. Safety Measures on Energy Development. Rules and regulations shall be promulgated
to prevent or mitigate the adverse effects of energy development on the environment. For this
purpose, all nuclear powered plants exploring and utilizing geothermal energy, whether owned or
controlled by private or government entities shall:
 (a) observe internationally accepted standards of safety; and

(b) provide safety devices to ensure the health and welfare of their personnel as well as the
surrounding community.

Chapter VI
Conservation and Utilization of Surface and Ground Waters

Section 39. Management Policy. In addition to existing laws, the national government through the
National Water Resources Council in coordination with other appropriate government agencies, shall
prescribe measures for the conservation and improvement of the quality of Philippine water
resources and provide for the prevention, control and abatement of water pollution.

Chapter VII
Mineral Resources

Section 40. Management Policy. - The national government, through the Department of Natural
Resources, shall undertake a system of gainful exploitation and rational and efficient utilization of
mineral resources and shall encourage citizen participation in this endeavor.

Section 41. Measures for Exploitation and Utilization of Mineral Resources. Measures for the gainful
exploitation and rational and efficient utilization of such mineral resources may include, but shall not
be limited to the following:

(a) increasing research and development in mineral resources technology;

(b) training of additional technical manpower needed in geology, geophysics, mining

engineering, and related fields;

(c) regulating the exploitation of identified mineral reserves;

(d) accelerating the exploration of undiscovered mineral deposits; and

(e) encouraging the establishment of processing plants for refined metals.

TITLE V
WASTE MANAGEMENT

Section 42. Purpose. The purposes of this Title are:

(a) to set guidelines for waste management with a view to ensuring its effectiveness;

(b) to encourage, promote and stimulate technological, educational economic and social
efforts to prevent environmental damage and unnecessary loss of valuable resources of the
nation through recovery, recycling and re-use of wastes and waste products; and

(c) to provide measures to guide and encourage appropriate government agencies in

establishing sound, efficient, comprehensive and effective waste management.
 Chapter I
Enforcement and Guidelines

Section 43. Waste Management Programs. Preparation and implementation of waste management
program shall be required of all provinces, cities and municipalities. The Department of Local
Government and Community Development shall promulgate guidelines for the formulation and
establishment of waste management programs.

Every waste management program shall include the following:

(a) an orderly system of operation consistent with the needs of the area concerned;

(b) a provision that the operation will not create pollution of any kind or will constitute public
nuisance;

(c) a system for a safe and sanitary disposal of waste;

(d) a provision that existing plans affecting the development, use and protection of air, water
or natural resources shall be considered;

(e) schedules and methods of implementing the development, construction and operation of
the plan together with the estimated costs; and

(f) a provision for the periodic revision of the program to ensure its effective implementation.

Section 44. Responsibility of Local Governments. Each province, city or municipality shall provide
measures to facilitate the collection, transportation, processing and disposal of waste within its
jurisdiction in coordination with other government agencies concerned. For this purpose, the national
government shall provide the necessary subsidy, to local governments upon request made through
the National Environmental Protection Council and subject to such terms and conditions as the latter
may provide.

Chapter II
Methods of Solid Waste Disposal

Section 45. Solid Waste Disposal. Solid Waste disposal shall be by sanitary landfill, incineration,
composing, and other methods as may be approved by competent government authority.

Section 46. Sanitary Landfills. Local governments, including private individuals, corporations or
organizations may operate one or more sanitary landfills. Any entity proposing to operate a sanitary
landfill shall submit to the appropriate government agency an operational work plan showing, among
other things, a map of the proposed work location, disposal areas for rubbish, garbage, refuse and
other waste matter; and the equipment or machinery needed to accomplish its operations. In no
case shall landfill or work locations under this Section be located along any shore or coastline, or
along the banks of rivers and streams. lakes throughout their entire length, in violation of any
existing rules and regulations.

Section 47. Incineration and Composting Plants. The installation and establishment of incineration
or composting plants, or the alteration/modification of any part thereof shall be regulated by the local
governments concerned in coordination with the National Pollution Control Commission.
Section 48. Disposal Sites. The location of solid waste disposal sites shall conform with existing
zoning; land use standards, and pollution control regulations.

Section 49. Dumping into the Sea and Other Navigable Waters. The dumping or disposal of solid
wastes into the sea and any body of water in the Philippines, including shorelines and river banks,
where these wastes are likely to be washed into the water is prohibited. However, dumping of solid
wastes or other materials into the sea or any navigable waters shall be permitted in case of
immediate or imminent danger to life and property, subject to the rules and regulations of the
Philippine Coast Guard and the National Pollution Control Commission.

Government agencies and private entities which are undertaking solid waste management programs
shall make consultations with the government agencies concerned with respect to the effects of such
dumping to the marine environment and navigation.

Chapter III
Methods of Liquid Waste Disposal

Section 50. Liquid Waste Disposal. Wastewater from manufacturing plants, industries, community,
or domestic sources shall be treated either physically, biologically or chemically prior to disposal in
accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by proper government authority.

Section 51. Applicability of Sec. 8. The provisions of Sec. 8 hereof shall likewise apply to the
dumping or disposal of liquid waste into the sea and other bodies of water.

TITLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 52. Population-Environment Balance. In the assessment of development projects, the

National Environmental Protection Council, hereinafter referred to in this Title as the "Council" shall
take into consideration their effect on population with a view to achieving a rational and orderly
balance between man and his environment.

Section 53. Environmental Education. The Department of Education and Culture shall integrate
subjects on environmental education in its school curricula at all levels. It shall also endeavor to
conduct special community education emphasizing the relationship of man and nature as well as
environmental sanitation and practices.

The Council and other government agencies implementing environmental protection laws in
coordination with public information agencies of the government shall undertake public information
activities for the purpose of stimulating awareness and encouraging involvement in environmental
protection.

Section 54. Environmental Research. The Council shall undertake and/or promote continuing
studies and research programs on environmental management and shall, from time to time,
determine priority areas of environmental research.

Section 55. Monitoring and Dissemination of Environmental Information of Foreign Origin. The
Council shall keep itself informed of current environmental developments by obtaining information
and literature from foreign sources through the Department of Foreign Affairs, government agencies
and other entities, both domestic and foreign. Such information and literature shall be given the
widest dissemination possible.
Section 56. Incentives. To operate the installation and the utilization of pollution control facilities, the
following incentives are hereby granted:

(a) exemption to the extent of fifty (50) per cent of tariff duties and compensating tax for the
importation of pollution control equipment, devices, spare parts and accessories for a period
of five (5) years from the effectivity of this Decree subject to the conditions that will be
imposed by the Council.

(b) a tax credit equivalent to fifty (50) per cent of the value of the compensating tax and tariff
duties that would have been paid on the pollution control equipment, devices, spare parts
and accessories had these items been imported shall, within a period of seven (7) years from
the effectivity of this Decree be given to the person or firm who or which purchases them
from a domestic manufacturer, and another tax credit equivalent to twenty-five (25) per cent
thereof shall be given to the said manufacturer subject to such conditions as may be
imposed by the Council; and

(c) deductions equivalent to fifty (50) per cent of the expenses actually incurred on research
projects undertaken to develop technologies for the manufacture of pollution control
equipment which have been proven effective and commercially reproducible, from the
taxable income of the person or firm actually undertaking such projects subject to the
conditions that may be imposed by the Council.

The pollution control equipment, devices, spare parts and accessories acquired under this Section
shall not be sold, transferred or disposed of within five (5) years from the date of acquisition without
the prior approval of the Council otherwise the importer or purchaser shall pay twice the amount of
the tax exemption or tax credit granted.

Section 57. Financial Assistance/Grant. Financial assistance/grant for the study, design and
construction of environmental protection facilities especially for waste disposal in favor of cities,
municipalities, small and medium-scale industries may be granted on a case to case basis subject to
such conditions as may be imposed by the Council.

Section 58. Participation of Local Government Units and Private Individuals. It shall be the
responsibility of local government units as well as private individuals to actively participate in the
environmental management and protection programs of the government.

Section 59. Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources and Heritage. It shall be the duty of
every person to help preserve the historic and cultural resources of the country such as sites,
structures, artifacts, documents, objects, memorials and priceless trees.

Section 60. Government Offices Performing Environmental Protection Functions. Government

agencies vested by law to exercise environmental management powers, shall continue to function as
such within their respective jurisdictions. The Council may, however, in the exercise of its powers
and functions under Presidential Decree No. 1121, inquire into any action or issue of environmental
significance.

Section 61. Public Hearings. The Council may, whenever it deems necessary, conduct public
hearings on issues of environmental significance.

Section 62. Definition of Terms. As used in this Code:

 (a) "Ambient Air Quality" means the average atmospheric purity as distinguished from
discharge measurements taken at the source of pollution. It is the general amount of
pollution present in a broad area.

(b) "Emission" means the act of passing into the atmosphere an air contaminant, pollutant,
gas stream and unwanted sound from a known source.

(c) "Water Quality" means the characteristics of water which define its use in terms of
physical, chemical and biological contents; hence the quality of water for domestic use is
different from industrial use.

(d) "Water Quality Surveillance" means a close and continuous supervision of the water
quality to detect development movements or changes in the characteristics of the water.

(e) "Water Quality Standard" means a plan that is established by governmental authority as a
program for water pollution prevention and abatement. Such a standard may include water
use classification and the criteria to support the uses of the water.

(f) "Effluent Standards" means restrictions established to limit levels of concentration of

physical, chemical and biological constituents which are discharged from point sources.

(g) "Clean-up Operations" refers to activities conducted in removing the pollutants

discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill condition.

(h) "Accidental Spills" refers to spills of oil or other hazardous substances in water that result
from accidents involving the carriers of such substance such as collisions and grounding.

(i) "Areas of Critical Environmental Concern" are areas where uncontrolled development
could result in irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or aesthetic values or
natural systems or processes of national significance.

(j) "Hazardous Substances" means elements or compounds which when discharged in any
quantity present imminent or substantial danger to public health and welfare.

(k) "Areas Impacted by Public Facilities" refers to areas where the introduction of public
facilities may tend to induce development and urbanization of more than local significance or
impact.

(l) "Environmental Impact" is the alteration, to any degree, of environmental conditions or the
creation of a new set of environmental conditions, adverse or beneficial, to be induced or
caused by a proposed project.

(m) "Government Agencies" refers to national, local and regional agencies and
instrumentalities including government-owned and controlled corporations.

TITLE VII
FINAL PROVISIONS

Section 63. Separability of Provisions. If any provision of this Code, or the application of such
provisions to any person or circumstance, is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the Code or
the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such
declaration.

Section 64. Effectivity. This Code shall take effect upon its approval.

Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of June in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-seven.

CHAPTER 2 TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

1. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

 the concept of 'needs,' in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority
should be given; and
 the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's
ability to meet present and future needs.
2. Thus the goals of economic and social development must be defined in terms of sustainability in all countries
— developed or developing, market-oriented or centrally planned. Interpretations will vary, but must share
certain general features and must flow from a consensus on the basic concept of sustainable development and
on a broad strategic framework for achieving it.
3. Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society. A development path that is
sustainable in a physical sense could theoretically be pursued even in a rigid social and political setting. But
physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay attention to such considerations as
changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and benefits. Even the narrow notion of physical
sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be
extended to equity within each generation.

Philippine Agenda 21
by Alan S. Cajes

"Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between
and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of
the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development
concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for
all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on
its own; but together we can-- in a global partnership for sustainable development."
- from the Preamble of Agenda 21

1. Introduction

On 22 December 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted a resolution calling for a UN
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The call was sounded based on the widely accepted need
to take a "balanced and integrated approach to environment and development questions."

The historic Earth Summit, as the UNCED came to be known, resulted in the adoption of Agenda 21, which contains
certain principles of sustainable development. Agenda 21 "reflects a global consensus and political commitment at
the highest level on development and environment cooperation (Preamble 1.3, Agenda 21)."
The Philippine Government is a signatory to the Global Program of Action for Sustainable Development (Agenda
21). In 1995, Pres. Fidel V. Ramos issued Memorandum Order No. 288 entitled "Directing the Formulation of the
Philippine's Agenda 21 and Activating its Formulation Process." The said Memorandum Order declared that it is "the
avowed policy of the State, in pursuit of its key objectives of global competitiveness and poverty alleviation, to
bring about sustainable development, for the benefit of present and future generations of Filipinos." The following
year, Pres. Ramos signed Memorandum Order No. 399 which directed the operationalization of the Philippine
Agenda 21 (PA 21) and monitoring its implementation. In this Memorandum Order, the government adopted PA 21
as the national action agenda for sustainable development.

2. Meaning of Sustainable Development in PA 21

Sustainable development is derived from "an image of society and a shared vision of the development path of that
society." It takes off from an understanding of the "state" of Philippine society and proceeds towards an agreed
upon development objective. Three key actors define the goal of development, namely, government, business and
civil society. Thus, to promote sustainable development, "there must be an interplay of market forces, state
intervention, and civil society participation."

The recognition of the three key actors points to three essential dimensions of Philippine society -- economy,
polity, and culture. These dimensions are the "realms where the key actors are active and from which the actors
derive the substance for their dialogue interaction with each other." The figure below illustrates the relationship
between the key actors, dimensions and vision of Philippine society[1].

Within the context of this illustration, a "harmonious integration of a sound and viable economy, responsible
governance, social cohesion/harmony, and ecological integrity" is essential to promote sustainable development.
Thus, the "ultimate aim of development is human development now and through future generations[2]." Short of
this, development becomes economically 'jobless' and 'ruthless,' culturally 'rootless,' politically 'voiceless,' and
ecologically 'futureless.'

3. Principles of Sustainable Development

PA 21 adheres to the following principles of sustainable development:

1. Primacy of developing the full potential of the human being. People are at the core of
development initiatives.
2. Holistic science and appropriate technology. The search for solutions to the complex milieu of
development problems has to be undertaken with the perspective that situates specific problems in the
larger social and ecological context. This approach facilitates the development and use of appropriate
technology.
3. Cultural, moral and spiritual sensitivity. Nurturing the inherent strengths of local and indigenous
knowledge, practices and beliefs while respecting the cultural diversity, moral norms and spiritual
essence of Filipino society.
4. Self-determination. Respecting the right and relying on the inherent capacity of the country and
its people to decide on the course of their own development.
5. National sovereignty. Self-determination at the national level where the norm of society and the
specifics of the local ecology inform national governance. Includes human and environmental security as
well as achieving and ensuring security and self-reliance in basic staple foods. Recognizing the crucial role
of farmers and fisherfolk in providing the nutritional needs of the nation.
6. Gender sensitivity. Recognizing the important and complementary roles and the empowerment of
both men and women in development.
7. Peace, order and national unity. Securing the right of all to a peaceful and secure existence.
8. Social justice, inter-, intra-generational and spatial equity. Ensuring social cohesion and harmony
through equitable distribution of resources and providing the various sectors of society with equal access
to development opportunities and benefits today and in the future.
9. Participatory democracy. Ensuring the participation and empowerment of all sectors of society in
development decision-making and processes and to operationalize intersectoral and multisectoral
consensus.
10. Institutional viability. Recognizing that sustainable development is a shared, collective and
indivisible responsibility which calls for institutional structures that are built around the spirit of
solidarity, convergence and partnership between and among different stakeholders.
 11. Viable , sound and broad-based economic development. Development founded on s table
economy where the benefits of economic progress are equitably shared across ages, communities, gender,
social classes, ethnicities, geographical units and across generations.
12. Sustainable population. Achieving a sustainable population level, structure and distribution while
taking cognizance of the limited carrying capacity of nature and the interweaving forces of population,
culture, resources, environment and development.
13. Ecological soundness. Recognizing nature as our common heritage and thus respecting the
limited carrying capacity and integrity of nature in the development process to ensure the right of
present and future generations to this heritage.
14. Biogeographical equity and community-based resource management. Recognizing that since
communities residing within or most proximate to an ecosystem of a bio-geographic region will be the
ones to most directly and immediately feel the positive and negative impacts on that ecosystem, they
should be given prior claim to the development decisions affecting that ecosystem, including management
of the resources. To ensure biogeographic equity, other affected communities should be involved in such
decisions.
15. Global cooperation. Building upon and contributing to the diverse capacities of individual
nations.

In summary, the human person has cultural, moral and spiritual dimensions that need to be enhanced by fulfilling
his/her right to determine his/her course of development. The inherent value of the human person cuts across
gender, age, and time. Thus, every human person, both in the present and future generations, share the same
value, which must be enhanced and fulfilled. As a person is sovereign in his/her "pursuit of happines," every State,
to which a person belongs, is sovereign in charting the course of its own development destiny. And the exercise of
such national "self-determination" is only possible if done in an atmosphere of justice, peace and unity, not only
within a State but also in its cooperative dealings with other Sovereign States. At the national level, every State
needs to analyze development-related problems using the best available science and knowledge to ensure that
economic growth and human population do not threaten both the country's and the planet's ecological security.
But this is only possible if State institutions and systems have the capacity to manage the process of development,
especially at the local level, where there's a need to harness the people's potential promote their own type of
development.

4. Parameters and Strategies

PA 21 "contains 67 cross-sectoral strategies to attain an ecologically- and socially-rational economic growth path
for the country."[3] The table below shows the inventory of the cross-sectoral strategies.

Sector No. of Strategies

Economic 13
Political 14
Cultural 5
Science & Technology 4
Ecological 7
Social 14
Institutional 10
Total 67
Source: PA 21 and Malayang, 1999.
Malayang, 1999 summarizes the 67 strategies in the table below.

Summary of the 67 SD strategies in PA21

The Philippines shall...
Be sensitive to
1. To peoples’ needs and aspirations; and
2. Local cultures and traditions
And use
3. The best science;
4. The most appropriate technologies; and
5. The best local knowledge
To improve its
6. Products and productivity;
7. Infrastructure;
8. Markets and marketing systems;
9. Governance; and
10. Institutions
To achieve
11. Higher incomes for all; and
12. Quality ecological and social systems that will support moreincomes to be
had in the future.

United Nations Framework on Climate Change

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our
strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the
Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view
that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in
the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate
change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response
measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a
comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.
2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in
global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with
science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national
emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing
countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty 1 Some Parties listed
above stated in their communications to the secretariat specific understandings on the nature of the
Accord and related matters, based on which they have agreed to be listed here. The full text of the
letters received from Parties in relation to the Copenhagen Accord, including the specific
understandings, can be found at . FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add. eradication are the first and overriding
priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to
sustainable development.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures
is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is
urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the
implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in
developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed
countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide
adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support
the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economywide emissions
targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat
by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto
Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol.
Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in
accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will
ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be
submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January
2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context
of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may
undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and
envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through
national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be
adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or
otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions
taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification
the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex
I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National
Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined
guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation
actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology,
finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II.
These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement,
reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the
need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide
positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including
REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.

7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the
cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low
emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be
provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to
enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and
transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective
commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and
investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012
with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized
for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island
developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on
implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a
year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of
sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New
multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements,
with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries.
A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the
Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including
alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.

10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of
the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities
in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacitybuilding,
technology development and transfer.

11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a
Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on
adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national
circumstances and priorities.

12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including
in light of the Convention’s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the
long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to
temperature rises of 1.5 degrees

Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Oposa vs Factoran
Natural and Environmental Laws; Constitutional Law: Intergenerational Responsibility
GR No. 101083; July 30 1993

FACTS:
A taxpayer’s class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al., representing their generation
and generations yet unborn, and represented by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr.,
Secretary of DENR. They prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:

1. Cancel all existing Timber Licensing Agreements (TLA) in the country;

2. Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing, or appraising new TLAs;
and granting the plaintiffs “such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.” They alleged
that they have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests constitutes a
misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources property he holds in trust for the
benefit of the plaintiff minors and succeeding generations.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against him;

2. The issues raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the
legislative or executive branches of the government.

ISSUE:
Do the petitioner-minors have a cause of action in filing a class suit to “prevent the misappropriation
or impairment of Philippine rainforests?”

HELD:
Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations to come. The
Supreme Court ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation, and for the
succeeding generation, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” which
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and
conservation of the country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and
other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably
accessible to the present as well as the future generations.
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minor’s assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes at the same time, the
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come

ARTICLE XII

National Economy and Patrimony

SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to
raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human
and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.
However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
practices.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be
given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives,
and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their
ownership.

SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral
oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly
undertake such activities, or 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. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be
the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The 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 fishworkers 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. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific
and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this
provision, within thirty days from its execution

CARIÑO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, G.R. No. L-2746

December 6, 1906
MATEO CARIÑO vs THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT

G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906

FACTS: On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cariňo went to the Court of Land Registration to petition his inscription as the
owner of a 146 hectare land he’s been possessing in the then municipality of Baguio. Mateo only presented
possessory information and no other documentation. The State opposed the petition averring that the land is part of
the US military reservation. The CLR ruled in favor of Mateo. The State appealed. Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a
grant should be given to him by reason of immemorial use and occupation as in the previous case Cansino vs Valdez
& Tiglao vs Government.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of his possession of it for some time.
HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run against the government. The government is still the absolute owner
of the land (regalian doctrine). Further, Mateo’s possession of the land has not been of such a character as to require
the presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many years. It was never used for anything but pasturage of
animals, except insignificant portions thereof, and since the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been
used by the petitioner for any purpose.

While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient
length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper administrative officers, and
obtain from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the absolute owner.

Land Titles And Deeds Case Digest: Director Of

Lands V. CA (1984)
G.R. No. L-58867 June 22, 1984
Lessons Applicable: Sec. 3 Art. XII 1987 Constitution (Land Titles and Deeds)

FACTS:
 Land situated in Obando, Bulacan
 May 10, 1976: The Valerianos claimed that they are the co-owners in fee simple of the land applied for partly
through:
 inheritance - 1918; and
 purchase - May 2, 1958
 Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed the application
on the principal ground that the land applied for is within the unclassified region of Obando, Bulacan, per BF Map LC
No. 637 dated March 1, 1927; and that areas within the unclassified region are denominated as forest lands and do not
form part of the disposable and alienable portion of the public domain
 Land was found to be an Unclassified Region of Obando, Bulacan per BF LC Map No. 637,
certified March 1, 1927. However, on-the-spot inspection conducted by a representative of
this Office, disclosed that the same was devoid of any forest growth and forms part of a well-
developed and 100 percent producing fishponds. 2 houses of light materials were erected
within the area for the caretakers temporary dwelling.
 CA Affirmed RTC: in favor of the Valerianos
ISSUES:
1. W/N the Courts can reclassify public land - NO
2. W/N the Valerianos are entitled to judicial confirmation of title - NO
HELD: CA reverse

1. NO
 In effect, what the Courts a quo have done is to release the subject property from the unclassified category, which is
beyond their competence and jurisdiction
 The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department of the Government and not
of the Courts.
 In the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land until it is released therefrom and rendered
open to disposition.
2. NO
 Regalian doctrine: all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source of any asserted
right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
 if land is w/in the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forest Development, it would be beyond the jurisdiction of the
Cadastral Court to register it under the Torrens System
 Since the subject property is still unclassified, whatever possession Applicants may have had, and, however long,
cannot ripen into private ownership
 The conversion of subject property into a fishpond by Applicants, or the alleged titling of properties around it, does
not automatically render the property as alienable and disposable.
 Applicants' remedy lies in the release of the property from its present classification
 . In fairness to Applicants, and it appearing that there are titled lands around the subject property, petitioners-officials
should give serious consideration to the matter of classification of the land in question.
Central Mindanao University vs DARAB
FACTS:
CMU is an agricultural university. From its beginning, the school was the answer to the crying need for
training people in order to develop the agricultural potential of the island of Mindanao. Those who
planned and established the school had a vision as to the future development of that part of the
Philippines.
Pres. Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476, withdrawing from sale or settlement and reserving for
the Mindanao Agricultural College, a site which would be the future campus of what is now the CMU.
In the course of the cadastral hearing of the school's petition for registration of the aforementioned
grant of agricultural land, several tribes belonging to cultural communities, opposed the petition
claiming ownership of certain ancestral lands forming part of the tribal reservations. Some of the claims
were granted so that what was titled to the present petitioner school was reduced from 3,401 hectares
to 3,080 hectares.
 In 1984, the CMU approved Resolution No. 160, adopting a livelihood program called "Kilusang Sariling
Sikap Program" under which the land resources of the University were leased to its faculty and
employees. This arrangement was covered by a written contract. Under this program the faculty and
staff combine themselves to groups of five members each, and the CMU provided technical know-how,
practical training and all kinds of assistance, to enable each group to cultivate 4 to 5 hectares of land for
the lowland rice project. Each group pays the CMU a service fee and also a land use participant's fee.
The contract prohibits participants and their hired workers to establish houses or live in the project area
and to use the cultivated land as a collateral for any kind of loan. It was expressly stipulated that no
landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the faculty and/or employees. This particular
program was conceived as a multi-disciplinary applied research extension and productivity program to
utilize available land, train people in modern agricultural technology and at the same time give the
faculty and staff opportunities within the confines of the CMU reservation to earn additional income to
augment their salaries.
When petitioner Dr. Leonardo Chua became President of the CMU in July 1986, he discontinued the
Agri-Business Management and Training Project, due to losses incurred while carrying on the said
project. Some CMU personnel, among whom were the complainants, were laid-off when this project
was discontinued.
Another project was launched o develop unutilized land resources, mobilize and promote the spirit of
self-reliance, provide socio-economic and technical training in actual field project implementation and
augment the income of the faculty and the staff. This has the same nature as of the Kilusang Sariling
Sikap Program with an express provision that there would be no tenant-landlord relationship.
The contract expired. Some were renewed, some were not. The non-renewal of the contracts, the
discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar cane project, the loss of jobs due to termination or separation
from the service and the alleged harassment by school authorities, all contributed to, and precipitated
the filing of the complaint.
DARAB found that the private respondents were not tenants and cannot therefore be beneficiaries
under the CARP. At the same time, the DARAB ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of suitable,
compact and contiguous portions of the CMU land and their inclusion in the CARP for distribution to
qualified beneficiaries.
Complainants Obrique, et al. claimed that they are tenants of the CMU and/or landless peasants
claiming/occupying a part or portion of the CMU.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the complainants are tenants of CMU, hence, beneficiaries of CARP
Whether or not CMU is subject to CARP
Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction to hear and decide Case No. 005 for Declaration of Status of
Tenants and coverage of land under the CARP
HELD:
First Issue:
We agree with the DARAB's finding that Obrique, et. al. are not tenants. Under the terms of the written
agreement signed by Obrique, et. al., pursuant to the livelihood program called "Kilusang Sariling Sikap
Program", it was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and
the faculty and staff (participants in the project). The CMU did not receive any share from the
harvest/fruits of the land tilled by the participants. What the CMU collected was a nominal service fee
and land use participant's fee in consideration of all the kinds of assistance given to the participants by
the CMU. Again, the agreement signed by the participants under the CMU-IEP clearly stipulated that no
landlord-tenant relationship existed, and that the participants are not share croppers nor lessees, and
the CMU did not share in the produce of the participants' labor.
Obrique is not a landless peasant. The facts showed he was Physics Instructor at CMU holding a very
responsible position was separated from the service on account of certain irregularities he committed
while Assistant Director of the Agri-Business Project of cultivating lowland rice. Others may, at the
moment, own no land in Bukidnon but they may not necessarily be so destitute in their places of origin.
No proof whatsoever appears in the record to show that they are landless peasants.
In view of the above, the private respondents, not being tenants nor proven to be landless peasants,
cannot qualify as beneficiaries under the CARP.
The portion of the CMU land leased to the Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Phils., Inc.)
was leased long before the CARP was passed. The agreement with the Philippine Packing Corporation
was not a lease but a Management and Development Agreement, a joint undertaking where use by the
Philippine Packing Corporation of the land was part of the CMU research program, with the direct
participation of faculty and students. Said projects were directly connected to the purpose and
objectives of the CMU as an educational institution.
Second Issue:
It is our opinion that the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB and affirmed by the Court of
Appeals in its Decision dated August 20, 1990, is not covered by the CARP because:
1. It is not alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
2. The CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific limits as determined by Congress;
3. It is private land registered and titled in the name of its lawful owner, the CMU;
4. It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A. 6657 because the lands are actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for school site and campus, including experimental farm
stations for educational purposes, and for establishing seed and seedling research and pilot production
centers
Third Issue:
DARAB has no jurisdiction. Under Section 4 and Section 10 of R.A. 6657, it is crystal clear that the
jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to matters involving the implementation of the CARP. More
specifically, it is restricted to agrarian cases and controversies involving lands falling within the coverage
of the aforementioned program. It does not include those which are actually, directly and exclusively
used and found to be necessary for, among such purposes, school sites and campuses for setting up
experimental farm stations, research and pilot production centers, etc
In the case at bar, the DARAB found that the complainants are not share tenants or lease holders of the
CMU, yet it ordered the "segregation of a suitable compact and contiguous area of Four Hundred
hectares, more or less", from the CMU land reservation, and directed the DAR Regional Director to
implement its order of segregation. Having found that the complainants in this agrarian dispute for
Declaration of Tenancy Status are not entitled to claim as beneficiaries of the CARP because they are not
share tenants or leaseholders, its order for the segregation of 400 hectares of the CMU land was
without legal authority.

CHAPTER IV RIGHTS

Sec. 16 Easement Rights. Upon the declaration of People's Sma ll scale Mining Area, the Director, in
consultation with the small-scale miner/s, operator claimowner, landowner or lessor of the affected
area, shall determine the right of the small-scale miners to existing facilities such as mining and logging
roads, private roads port and communication facilities, processing plants which are necessary for the
effective implementation of the People's Small-Scale Mining Program, subject to payment reasonable
fees to the operator, claimowner, landowner or lessor.
Sec. 17 Rights of Claimowner. In case a site declared and set aside a people's small-scale mining area is
covered by an existing mining right, the clampdown and the small-scale miners therein are encouraged
to enter into a voluntary and acceptable contractual agreement with respect to the small-scale
utilization of the mineral values 212 from the area under claim. In case of disagreement, the claimowner
shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges; 17.1 Exemption from the performance of annual
work obligations and payment of occupation fees, rental, and real property taxes; 17.2 Subject to the
approval of the Board, free access to the contract area to conduct metallurgical tests, explorations and
other activities, provided such activities do not unduly interfere with the operations of the small-scale
miners; and, 17.3 Royalty equivalent to one and one half percent (1 1/2%) of the gross value of the
metallic mineral output or one percent (1 %) of the gross value of the non- metallic mineral output to be
paid to the claimowner: Provided, That, such rights and privileges shall be available only if he is not
delinquent in the performance of his annual work obligations and other requirements for the last two
(2) years prior to the effectivity of RA 7076.

Sec. 18 Rights of Private Landowners. The private landowner or lawful possessor shall be notified of
any plan or petition to declare his land as a People's Smallscale Mining Area. Said landowner may
oppose such plan or file petition in an appropriate proceeding and hearing conducted before the Board.
. If a private land is declared as a People's Small-scale Mining Area, the owner and die small-scale mining
contractor are encouraged to enter into a voluntary and acceptable contractual agreement for the
small-scale utilization of the mineral values from the private land within thirty (30) days. Provided, That,
the owner shall, in all cases, be entitled to die payment of actual damages which may occur as a result of
such declaration. Provided, further, that royalties paid to the owner shall in no case exc eed one percent
(1 %) of' the gross value of the minerals recovered as royalty.

Sec. 19 Rights Under a People's Small-Scale Mining Contract. A people's small-scale mining contract
entitles the holder LO a right to mine, extract and dispose of mineral ores for commercial purposes over
the area covered thereby. Provided, That in no case shall the contract be subcontracted, assigned or
otherwise transferred to a second party.

Sec. 20 Ownership of Mill Tailings. The small-scale mining contractor shall be the owner of all mill
tailings produced from the contract area. He may sell the tailings, or have them processed in any custom
mill in the area. Provided, that, if the small-scale mining contractor decides to sell its mill tailings, the
clampdown or mining operator shall have a preemptive right to purchase said mill tailings at the
prevailing market price. 214 22.5 Settles disputes, conflicts or litigations over conflicting claims within
ninety (90) days upon filing of protests or complaints; Provided, That any aggrieved party may appeal
within five (5) days from the Board's decision to the Secretary for final resolution otherwise the same is
considered final and executory; and 22.6 Performs such other functions as may be necessary to achieve
the goals and objectives of RA 7076.

EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATERS

Art. 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without the
intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or earth which
they carry with them. The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will
impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will
increase the burden. (552)
ENUMERATION OF LEGAL EASEMENT RELATING TO WATERS

1. Natural drainage of lands

2. Natural drainage of buildings
3. Easement on riparian banks for navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage
4. Easement of a dam
5. Easement for drawing water or for watering animals
6. Easement of aqueduct
7. Easement for the construction of a stop luck or sluice
WHAT LOWER ESTATES ARE OBLIGED TO RECEIVE

1. Water which naturally and without the intervention of man descends from the higher
estates
2. The stones and earth carried by the waters
DUTIES OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE

> The owner cannot construct works that would impede the easement
DUTIES OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE

1. He cannot make works which will increase the burden

2. But he may construct works preventing erosion
3. If the descending waters are the result of artificial development or proceed from
industrial establishments recently set up, or are the overflow from irrigation dams, the
owner of the lower estate shall be entitled to compensation for his loss or damage
CONTRACT MAY EXTINGUISH LEGAL EASEMENT THERE IS NO NEED FOR INDEMNITY AS LONG AS THERE IS
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS

Art. 638. The banks of rivers and streams, even in case they are of private ownership, are
subject throughout their entire length and within a zone of three meters along their
margins, to the easement of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage, fishing
and salvage.
Estates adjoining the banks of navigable or floatable rivers are, furthermore, subject to the
easement of towpath for the exclusive service of river navigation and floatage. If it be
necessary for such purpose to occupy lands of private ownership, the proper indemnity
shall first be paid. (553a)
EASEMENT ALONG RIPARIAN BANKS RIVER BANK, DEFINED

> A bank is a lateral strip of shore washed by the water during high tides but which cannot
be said to be flooded or inundated
THE EASEMENTS ALLOWED

1. On banks of rivers; a public easement for

a. Navigation
b. Floatage
c. Fishing
d. Salvage
2. On banks of navigable or floatable rivers—also the easement of tow path
PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY

1. If the land be of public ownership—no indemnity

2. If the land be of private ownership—indemnity
WIDTH OF ZONE BURDENED

1. Three meters along the river margins, for navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage
2. Tow path—2 meters if for animals and 1 meter if for pedestrians
Art. 639. Whenever for the diversion or taking of water from a river or brook, or for the use
of any other continuous or discontinuous stream, it should be necessary to build a dam, and
the person who is to construct it is not the owner of the banks, or lands which must support
it, he may establish the easement of abutment of a dam, after payment of the proper
indemnity. (554)
EASEMENT CONCERNING A DAM

Art. 640. Compulsory easements for drawing water or for watering animals can be imposed
only for reasons of public use in favor of a town or village, after payment of the proper
indemnity. (555)
EASEMENTS FOR DRAWING WATER OR FOR WATERING ANIMALS

1. They can be imposed only for reasons of public use

2. They must be in favor of a town or village
3. Proper indemnity must be paid
Art. 641. Easements for drawing water and for watering animals carry with them the
obligation of the owners of the servient estates to passage to persons and animals to the
place where such easements are to be used, and the indemnity shall include this service.
(556)
EASEMENTS COVERED

> Easements for drawing water and watering animals but there is also an accessory
easement combined with easement of right of way
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH AN EASEMENT TO EXIST

1. It must be for public use

2. It must be in favor of a town or village
3. The right must be sought not by one individual but by the town or village, through its
legal representative
4. The right of way should have a maximum width of 10 meters, which cannot be altered by
the owners of the servient estates although the direction of the path may indeed be
changed, provided that the use of the easement is not prejudiced
Art. 642. Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any water of which he can
dispose shall have the right to make it flow through the intervening estates, with the
obligation to indemnify their owners, as well as the owners of the lower estates upon
which the waters may filter or descend. (557)

Ayala de Roxas vs City of Manila

G.R. No. L-3144 November 19, 1907
Facts: Petitioner applied to the defendant city engineer for a license to construct a terrace over “the
strip of land 3 meters in width between the main wall of her house and the edge of the said canal of
Sibacon or San Jacinto, which strip of land belongs exclusively to her”; but the defendant refused to
grant the license or authorize the plaintiff to build the terrace, because, as the plaintiff has been
informed, the sole reason wherefore the license was denied is because “the said defendants pretend
to compel the plaintiff to leave vacant and without any construction whatever thereon the said strip of
3 meters in width which is a portion of the ground belonging to her, in order to use the same as the
wharf or public way so that the plaintiff will only be able to use the said strip in the same manner and
for the same purposes as the public in general, thus losing the enjoyment, use, and exclusive
possession of the said strip of the property which the plaintiff and the former owners thereof have
enjoyed quietly and peacefully during more than seventy years. Additionally, it was agreed between
both parties that the strip above referred to had not been expropriated in whole or in part by the
municipality of Manila, and that neither had the latter offered any compensation for the same to the
owner thereof.
Issue: Whether the non-issuance of a license to the petitioners is tantamount to a taking that requires
just compensation
Held: Yes.
What the defendants have therefore done is to prevent the plaintiffs from continuing to enjoy, use,
and freely dispose of such strip of their ground, as they had been doing up to the time when they
applied for a license to construct a terrace over said strip, and the defendants prevented it with the
intention of establishing a public easement provided for in an ordinance of their own which they
consider is pursuant to the provisions of the Law of Waters and of the Civil Code in force.

In the decision entered by the court on the 5th of May, 1906, regarding the demurrer, the following
was set forth:

The easement of a zone for public use, authorized by article 73 of the Law of Waters of 1866, is
developed in articles 160 and 161, inclusive, of said law; the general interest on behalf of which the
easement is supported is determined, for navigation, by articles 160 and 161; for flotation, by article
162; for salvage, by article 163; and for fishing, by article 164; in all of them the owner of the
riverside property supports the easement “upon being previously indemnified for loss and damage.”
(Folio 41.)
Said zone for public use, the same as a towpath, is solely available for the purposes of navigation,
flotation, fishing, and salvage, being closed to any other use which be attempted; therefore, it is
erroneous to pretend that the right of the owner of the property bordering upon the stream can be
reduced to the level of the public right; on the contrary he should only be called upon to bear those
burdens which are in the general interest, but not without prior, or subsequently indemnity. (Folio 43.)
If as affirmed in statement No. 4, and accepted by the defendants, the Sibacon Creek is a canal —
let us grant that it is navigable, because it has been held by competent authority — and that under
the name of a public wharf, which is the largest in area, it is desired to establish a towpath, which is
the smallest, it must be remembered that the law does not grant it along navigable canals (art.
157), and, at all events, the establishment thereof must be preceded by the corresponding
indemnity. (Arts. 154 and 157.)
Under section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, no legislation shall be enacted in the
Philippine Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law; and the due process of law in order to deprive a person of his property is, according to the Code
of Civil Procedure, reserved to the judicial authority. The refusal to grant a license or the enactment of
an ordinance whereby a person may be deprived of property or rights, or an attempt thereat is made,
without previously indemnifying him therefor, is not, nor can it be, due process of law.
Considering that the easement intended to be established, whatever may be the object thereof, is
not merely a real right that will encumber the property, but is one tending to prevent the exclusive
use of one portion of the same, by expropriating it for a public use which, be it what it may, can not
be accomplished unless the owner of the property condemned or seized be previously and duly
indemnified, it is proper to protect the appellant by means of the remedy employed in such cases, as
it is the only adequate remedy when no other legal action can be resorted to, against an intent which
is nothing short of an arbitrary restriction imposed by the city by virtue of the coercive power with
which the same is invested. The question involved here is not the actual establishment of an
easement which might be objected to by an action in court, but a mere act of obstruction, a refusal
which is beyond the powers of the city of Manila, because it is not simply a measure in connection
with building regulations, but is an attempt to suppress, without due process of law, real rights which
are attached to the right of ownership.

The imposition of an easement over a 3-meter strip of the plaintiff’s property could not legally be
done without payment to it of just compensation.

The Court commanded the defendant to issue said license.

Timoner vs. People

JOSE "PEPITO" TIMONER, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IV DIVISION,
respondents. 1983

FACTS: Petitioner Timoner was found guilty of crime of grave coercion,

Background:At about 10:00 in the evening of December 13, 1971, petitioner, then Mayor of Daet,
Camarines Norte, accompanied by two uniformed policemen, arrived in front of the stalls along
Maharlika highway
Upon order, laborers proceeded to nail together rough lumber slabs to fence off the stalls which
protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway
Among the structures thus barricaded were the barbershop of PascualDayaon, the complaining witness
and the store belonging to one Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos. These establishments had been recommended
for closure by the Municipal Health Officer, Dra. Alegre, for non-compliance with certain health and
sanitation requirements.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte against
Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos and others for judicial abatement of their stalls.
Timoneralleged that this stall constituted public nuisances as well as nuisances per se. Dayaon was
never able to reopen his barbershop business.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in full the judgment of the trial court. Hence, the present
recourse.
Timoner’s argument was that the sealing off of complainant Dayaon's barbershop was done in
abatement of a public nuisance and, therefore, under lawful authority.

ISSUE:W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is
correct (based on WON complainants were public nuisance) – NO (Yes they were a nuisance)
ART. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of
water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
ART. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger
or damage upon individuals may be unequal A private nuisance is one that is not included in the
foregoing definition.

RATIO:The barbershop occupied a portion of the sidewalk of the poblacion's main thoroughfare and
had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer. In fact, the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Norte, in its decision in Civil Case No. 2257, declared said barbershop as a nuisance per-
se.
Under the facts of the case, as well as the law in point, there is no semblance of any legality or right
that exists in favor of the defendants to build a stall and conduct their business in a sidewalk,
especially in a highway where it does not only constitute a menace to the health of the general public
passing through the street and also of the unsanitary condition that is bred therein as well as the
unsightly and ugly structures in the said place.
But even without this judicial pronouncement, petitioner could not have been faulted for having fenced
off said barbershop. Paragraph 3, Article 699 of the Civil Code authorizes the abatement of a public
nuisance without judicial proceedings.
ART. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
[l] A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance; or
[2] A civil action; or
[3] Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
In the case at bar, petitioner, as mayor of the town, merely implemented the aforesaid
recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of
his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability.
On Crim issue: Third element of Grave coercion was absent. (that the person who restrained the will
and liberty of another had no right to do so, or, in other words, that the restraint was not made under
authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right)

Decision: Acquitted

PLEASANTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CA, GR No. 79688, 1996-02-01

Facts:
Edith Robillo purchased from petitioner a parcel of land designated as Lot 9, Phase II and
located at Taculing Road, Pleasantville Subdivision, Bacolod City. In 1975, respondent Eldred
Jardinico bought the rights to the lot from Robillo. At that time, Lot 9 was vacant.
Upon completing all payments, Jardinico secured from the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City on
December 19, 1978 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106367 in his name. It was then that he
discovered that improvements had been introduced on Lot 9 by respondent Wilson Kee, who
had... taken possession thereof.
It appears that on March 26, 1974, Kee bought on installment Lot 8 of the same subdivision from
C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. (CTTEI), the exclusive real estate agent of petitioner.
After discovering that Lot 9 was occupied by Kee, Jardinico confronted him. The parties tried to
reach an amicable settlement, but failed.
On January 30, 1981, Jardinico's lawyer wrote Kee, demanding that the latter remove all
improvements and vacate Lot 9. When Kee refused to vacate Lot 9, Jardinico filed with the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Bacolod City (MTCC), a complaint for ejectment
with... damages against Kee.
Kee, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against petitioner and CTTEI.
The MTCC held that the erroneous delivery of Lot 9 to Kee was attributable to CTTEI.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, Bacolod City (RTC) ruled that petitioner and
CTTEI were not at fault or were not negligent, there being no preponderant evidence to show
that they directly participated in the delivery of Lot 9 to Kee.
The appellate court ruled that Kee was a builder in good faith, as he was unaware of the "mix-
up" when he began construction of the improvements on Lot 8.
Issues:
(1) Was Kee a builder in good faith?
(2) What is the liability, if any, of petitioner and its agent, C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc.? and
(3) Is the award of attorney's fees proper?
Ruling:
On issue no. 1

Petitioner fails to persuade this Court to abandon the findings and conclusions of the Court of
Appeals that Kee was a builder in good faith.
The roots of the controversy can be traced directly to the errors committed by CTTEI, when it
pointed the wrong property to Wilson Kee and his wife. It is highly improbable that a purchaser
of a lot would knowingly and willingly build his residence on a lot owned by... another,
deliberately exposing himself and his family to the risk of being ejected from the land and losing
all improvements thereon, not to mention the social humiliation that would follow.
"Under the circumstances, Kee had acted in the manner of a prudent man in ascertaining the
identity of his property.
Upon Kee's receipt of the map, his wife went to the subdivision site accompanied by CTTEI's
employee, Octaviano, who authoritatively declared that the land she was pointing to was indeed
Lot 8. Having full... faith and confidence in the reputation of CTTEI, and because of the
company's positive identification of the property, Kee saw no reason to suspect that there had
been a misdelivery.
Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his
ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.[9] And as good faith is presumed, petitioner has the
burden of proving bad faith on the part of Kee.[10]
At the time he built improvements on Lot 8, Kee believed that said lot was what he bought from
petitioner. He was not aware that the lot delivered to him was not Lot 8. Thus, Kee's good faith.
Petitioner failed to prove otherwise.
On issue no. 2

The rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done within the scope of his
authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons.[14] On the other hand, the agent
who exceeds his authority is personally liable for the... damage.
CTTEI was acting within its authority as the sole real estate representative of petitioner when it
made the delivery to Kee. In acting within its scope of authority, it was, however, negligent. It is
this negligence that is the basis of petitioner's liability, as principal... of CTTEI, per Articles
1909 and 1910 of the Civil Code.
For such negligence, the petitioner should be held liable for damages. Now, the extent and/or
amount of damages to be awarded is a factual issue which should be determined after evidence is
adduced.
However, there is no showing that such evidence was actually presented in the trial court; hence
no damages could now be awarded.
On issue no. 3

The MTCC awarded Jardinico attorney's fees and costs in the amount of P3,000.00 and P700.00,
respectively, as prayed for in his complaint. The RTC deleted the award, consistent with its
ruling that petitioner was without fault or negligence. The Court of Appeals, however,...
reinstated the award of attorney's fees after ruling that petitioner was liable for its agent's
negligence.
The award of attorney's fees lies within the discretion of the court and depends upon the
circumstances of each case.[19] We shall not interfere with the discretion of the Court of
Appeals. Jardinico was compelled to litigate for the protection of his... interests and for the
recovery of damages sustained as a result of the negligence of petitioner's agent.
Principles:
The rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done within the scope of his
authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons.[14] On the other hand, the agent
who exceeds his authority is personally liable for the... damage.

Digests created by other users

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 185535 January 31, 2011

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner,

vs.
REYNALDO (REYMUNDO1 ) AVILA, CALIXTO AGUIRRE, and SPS. ROLANDO and ANGELITA
QUILANG,Respondents.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
seeking to reverse and set aside the June 16, 2008 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
97536 which annulled the August 7, 20063 and the November 13, 20064 Resolutions of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasay City, Branch 117 (RTC), in Civil Case No. 05-0399-CFM.

From the records, it appears that in June 1968, the late Tereso Tarrosa (Tarrosa) leased a 4,618 square meter
parcel of land located along the MIAA Road in Pasay City from its owner, MIAA. Before the expiration of the
lease sometime in 1993, Tarrosa filed a case against MIAA to allow him to exercise his pre-emptive right to
renew the lease contract. Finding that Tarrosa violated certain provisions of its contract with MIAA, the trial
court dismissed the case. Tarrosa appealed before the CA but to no avail. When Tarrosa passed away, he was
substituted by his estate represented by his heirs’ attorney-in-fact, Annie Balilo (Balilo). On June 9, 1998, the
CA decision became final and executory.5

Thereafter, MIAA sent letters of demand to the heirs asking them to vacate the subject land. Unheeded, MIAA
instituted an ejectment suit against the Estate of Tarrosa (Estate) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay
City, Branch 47 (MeTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 64-04-CFM. On February 18, 2005, the MeTC rendered its
decision6ordering the Estate and all persons claiming rights under it to vacate the premises, peacefully return
possession thereof to MIAA and pay rentals, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

The Estate, through Balilo, appealed the case to the RTC, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 05-0399-
CFM. In its July 22, 2005 Decision,7 the RTC gave due course to the appeal and affirmed the MeTC decision in
toto.

The Estate then filed a motion for reconsideration while MIAA sought the correction of a clerical error in the
MeTC decision as well as the issuance of a writ of execution. On September 20, 2005, the RTC issued an
omnibus order8denying the Estate’s motion for reconsideration, granting MIAA’s motion to correct a clerical
error and granting the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.

On the strength of the writ of execution issued by the RTC, a notice to vacate was served on the occupants of
the subject premises. The RTC Sheriff partially succeeded in evicting the Estate, Balilo and some other
occupants. Still, others remained in the premises.9

Among the remaining occupants were respondents Calixto E. Aguirre (Aguirre), Reymundo Avila (Avila), and
spouses Rolando and Angelita Quilang (Quilangs), who filed separate special appearances with motions to
quash the writ of execution.10 In essence, all of them interposed that they were not covered by the writ of
execution because they did not derive their rights from the Estate since they entered the subject premises only
after the expiration of the lease contract between MIAA and Tarrosa. They further stated that the subject
premises had already been set aside as a government housing project by virtue of Presidential Proclamation
No. 595 (Proclamation No. 595).11

On May 5, 2006, the RTC granted the motion to quash filed by the remaining occupants, including Avila and
the Quilangs.

On August 4, 2006, the RTC denied the motion to quash filed by Aguirre. In its August 4, 2006 Resolution,12 the
RTC stated:

It is important to emphasize at this juncture that during the ocular inspection conducted by this court (Thru
Presiding Judge, Henrick F. Gingoyon), records reveal that the area occupied by Mr. Calixto Aguirre, as he
claimed, is more or less 1,000 square meters. Thus, citing the provision of the law pertaining to qualified
occupants or beneficiaries who can avail of the privilege, the area alone possessed by Mr. Calixto Aguirre will
not qualify as beneficiary under Republic Act 7279. Moreover, the result of the ocular inspection revealed
that the area is used by Mr. Calixto Aguirre as business establishment and in fact some of them were even
subject for lease.

Therefore, from the very nature of the utilization of the property the same is beyond doubt not covered and the
same is contrary to the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Presidential Proclamation No. 595.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Set Aside Judgment
filed by Mr. Calixto Aguirre is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. (underscoring supplied)13

On August 7, 2006, a similar finding was made with regard to Avila and the Quilangs when the RTC resolved
MIAA’s motion for reconsideration. In its August 7, 2006 Resolution, the RTC likewise wrote:

Unfortunately, however, the result of the ocular inspection revealed that some of the 28 Oppositors, namely:
Mr. REYMUNDO AVILA; SPS. ROLANDO QUILANG AND ANGELITA QUILANG; ROMEO CAGAS;
JEANETTE LOPEZ, are using the property subject to this case not as family dwelling but rather utilized as
business establishments. Thus, the said occupancy is not covered under Republic Act 7279 in order to be
considered qualified beneficiaries. Relatedly, therefore that the Writ of Execution cannot be implemented
against the afore-named persons on the ground that they are qualified beneficiaries under Presidential
Proclamation No. 595 in relation to the provision of Republic Act 7279 is unwarranted under the circumstances.

It is important to emphasize at this juncture that during the ocular inspection conducted by this court (Thru
Presiding Judge, Henrick F. Gingoyon), records reveal that the area occupied by Mr. REYNALDO
(REYMUNDO) AVILA, is occupying more or less 500 square meters and the same is actually use[d] as an
apartment for lease/ rent; Sps. ROLANDO AND ANGELITA QUILANG; is occupying the premises by virtue of
the rights vested by their father, Calixto Aguirre, and also utilizing the property for rent; ROMEO CAGAS AND
JEANNETE LOPEZ are tenants of Calixto Aguirre.

Thus, citing the provision of the law pertaining to qualified occupants or beneficiaries who can avail of the
privilege, the area alone possessed by Mr. Reynaldo (Reymundo) Avila; Sps. Rolando and Angelita Quilang
will not qualify as beneficiaries under Republic Act 7279. Moreover, the area as shown in the result of the
ocular inspection is used by them as business establishment and in fact some of them were even subject for
lease.

Therefore, from the very nature of the utilization of the property the same is beyond doubt not covered and the
same is contrary to the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Presidential Proclamation No. 595 in relation to
Republic Act 7279.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated May 5, 2006 is hereby MODIFIED in so far as
Oppositors REYNALDO (REYMUNDO) AVILA; Sps. ROLANDO QUILANG and ANGELITA QUILANG;
ROMEO CAGAS AND JEANETTE LOPEZ are concerned. Let the corresponding Writ of Execution against the
afore-mentioned persons be issued.

SO ORDERED. (underscoring supplied)14

The above findings were reiterated in the assailed RTC’s Joint Resolution dated November 13, 2006 which
denied the separate motions for reconsideration of the respondents.

On account of this, Aguirre, Avila and the Quilangs went to the CA on certiorari questioning the propriety of the
RTC’s disposition, more particularly, its finding that they were not qualified beneficiaries under Proclamation
No. 595.

On June 16, 2008, the CA rendered the subject decision annulling the RTC resolutions dated August 7, 2006
and November 13, 2006. According to the CA, there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in
ruling that respondents could not invoke Proclamation No. 595 because the mandate to determine the same
rested with the National Housing Authority (NHA). Thus:

X x x. As provided in said Proclamation No. 595, the National Housing Authority (NHA), under the supervision
of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) and in coordination with the MIAA,
shall be the agency primarily responsible for the administration and disposition of the lots subject thereof in
favor of the bona fide occupants therein, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 12 of Republic Act
7279 and other pertinent laws.15

In a related case, MIAA also went to the CA on certiorari questioning the RTC’s grant of another motion to
quash its writ of execution filed by other remaining occupants. Said occupants are not parties in this case. The
case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 96477.16 In said case, taking note that the occupants themselves
admitted that they had entered the subject premises without the permission of either the MIAA or the Estate,
the CA ruled that the said occupants were mere trespassers or squatters who had no right to possess the
same. Accordingly, the writ of execution issued in the ejectment case could be enforced against them even
though they were not named parties in the ejectment suit. Some of the occupants/aggrieved parties therein,
namely, Alejandro Aguirre (son of Calixto Aguirre) and Norberto Aguirre (brother of Calixto Aguirre), came to
this Court via a petition for review but it was summarily denied for having been filed out of time and for their
failure to show any reversible error on the part of the CA. The denial became final and executory on July 23,
2009.17

Going back to the June 16, 2008 CA Decision, MIAA comes now to this Court questioning its annulment of the
RTC resolutions by raising the following:

ISSUES:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
WHEN HE ARROGATED UPON HIMSELF THE DETERMINATION THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE
NOT QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES UNDER PROCLAMATION NO. 595

WHETHER OR NOT A NAKED CLAIM OF POTENTIAL QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES OF A SOCIALIZED

HOUSING PROGRAM PREVAIL OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON WITH PRIOR PHYSICAL
POSSESSION AND A BETTER RIGHT OVER THE DISPUTED REAL PROPERTY18

The Court finds the petition meritorious.

As mentioned earlier, the controversy stemmed from an ejectment suit filed by MIAA against the Estate
represented by Balilo wherein the MeTC ordered the eviction of the Estate, Balilo and all those claiming rights
under them.

The MeTC decision was affirmed by the RTC. Eventually, the Estate, Balilo and some occupants were
evicted.19Respondents Aguirre, Avila and the Quilangs, together with some other remaining occupants, filed
their separate special appearances and sought to quash the RTC’s writ of execution. They claimed that they
did not derive their right to occupy the premises from the Estate or from Balilo but rather from Proclamation No.
595 as they were potential beneficiaries of the same. In its opposition, the MIAA submitted documents
prepared and signed by Balilo showing that the respondents were tenants of Tarrosa or Balilo. 20 The RTC,
through its then Presiding Judge, the late Henrick F. Gingoyon (Judge Gingoyon), conducted an ocular
inspection on the premises. Judge Jesus B. Mupas, who took over from Judge Gingoyon, reproduced the
1âw phi 1

findings of the latter in his August 4, 2006 Resolution.21

The same finding was reached with respect to Avila and the Quilangs in the August 7, 2006 Resolution of the
RTC22and reiterated in its Joint Resolution dated November 13, 2006 which dismissed the separate motions for
reconsideration of the respondents.

Going over the RTC’s findings and disposition, the Court is of the considered view that it acted well within its
jurisdiction. It is settled in ejectment suits that a defendant’s claim of ownership over a disputed property will not
divest the first level courts of their summary jurisdiction. Thus, even if the pleadings raise the issue of
ownership, the court may still pass on the same although only for the purpose of determining the question of
possession. Any adjudication with regard to the issue of ownership is only provisional and will not bar another
action between the same parties which may involve the title to the land. This doctrine is but a necessary
consequence of the nature of ejectment cases where the only issue up for adjudication is the physical or
material possession over the real property.23

Granting that their occupation of the subject premises was not derived from either Tarrosa or Balilo, the
postulation of the respondents makes them mere trespassers or squatters acquiring no vested right whatsoever
to the subject property.24 Thus, to thwart the decision of the court, they claim that they were potential
beneficiaries of Proclamation No. 595. Certainly, this bare anticipation on their part should not be permitted to
defeat the right of possession by the owner, MIAA. Juxtaposed against the evidence adduced by the MIAA
showing that respondents were once tenants of either Tarrosa or Balilo, respondents’ bare claim that they
could be beneficiaries of Proclamation No. 595 cannot be given any consideration.

At any rate, as earlier stated, the ruling on the inapplicability of Proclamation No. 595 is only provisional and will
certainly not bar the NHA or any other agency of the government tasked to implement Proclamation No. 595,
from making a determination of respondents’ qualifications as beneficiaries, 25 in another action.

In Pajuyo v. CA,26 the very case relied upon by the respondents and later cited by the CA in its assailed
decision, the Court reiterated that the determination of the rights of claimants to public lands is distinct from the
determination of who has better right of physical possession. While it was held therein that the CA erred in
making a premature determination of the rights of the parties under Proclamation No. 137, it was emphasized
that the courts should expeditiously resolve the issue of physical possession to prevent disorder and breaches
of peace.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The June 16, 2008 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 97536 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment entered reinstating the August 7, 2006 and the
November 13, 2006 Resolutions of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117, in Civil Case No. 05-
0399-CFM.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1899

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1899 - AN ACT AUTHORIZE THE RECLAMATION OF FORESHORE LANDS BY
CHARTERED CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES

Section 1. Authority is hereby granted to all municipalities, and chartered cities to undertake and carry out
at their own expense the reclamation by dredging, filling, or other means, of any foreshore lands bordering
them, and to establish, provide, construct, maintain and repair proper and adequate docking and harbor
facilities as such municipalities and chartered cities may determine in consultation with the Secretary of
Finance and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

Sec. 2. Any and all lands reclaimed, as herein provided, shall be the property of the respective
municipalities or chartered cities: Provided, however, That the new foreshore along the reclaimed areas shall
continue to be the property of the National Government.

Sec. 3. For the purpose of this reclamation, and of the construction, maintenance and repair of such
wharves, piers, docking and other harbor facilities as may be provided in accordance with section one
hereof, the municipalities and chartered cities are hereby authorized to contract indebtedness with any
person, association, corporation, or lending institution. Upon proper application, a municipality or chartered
city may, for the same purpose, likewise issue bonds in such amounts and under such terms and conditions
as may be fixed by the Secretary of Finance. Such bonds shall be guaranteed by the Government of the
Philippines and their issue, servicing and liquidation shall be undertaken by the Central Bank of the
Philippines.
cralaw

Sec. 4. All lands reclaimed as herein provided, except such as may be necessary for wharves, piers and
embankments, roads, parks and other public improvements, may be sold or leased under such rules and
regulations as the municipality or chartered city may prescribe. All proceeds derived from such sale or lease,
and all berthing and other fees and such other earnings as the municipality or chartered city shall derive
from the use of the port facilities and improvements contemplated under this Act, shall be credited to a
special fund which shall accrue in the first instance to the sinking fund hereafter provided. Any balance
thereof in excess of periodic sinking fund requirements shall be available for other permanent public
improvements of the municipality or chartered city.

Sec. 5. Upon application by a municipality or chartered city to issue bonds, the Secretary of Finance, shall
determine the borrowing and paying capacity of the applicant, the amount of the issue that may be
authorized, and, in consultation with the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines, the form,
rate of interest, and redemption of said bonds. In the redemption of these bonds the Secretary of Finance
may apply the lottery principle by which bonds, drawn by lot, may be redeemed before maturity.

Sec. 6. All laws contracted, and bonds issued, under this Act shall be payable, both as to the principal and
interests, in Philippine currency or in the currency in which the principal has been originally received, which
fact shall be acknowledged on the face of the note or certificate accomplished therefor, free from any tax or
other public impost arising from currency conversion, any existing law to the contrary notwithstanding. cralaw

Sec. 7. Bonds issued under this Act shall be exempt from taxation, which fact shall be stated on the face
of the certificates which shall be issued in accordance with this Act.
cralaw

Sec. 8. Should the receipts accruing under section four be insufficient to service adequately bonds issued
under this Act, the sinking fund deficiency shall be made good by the general funds of the municipality or
chartered city in such manner that the annual contribution shall be sufficient to redeem at maturity the
bonds issued under this Act. The sinking fund shall be under the custody of the Central Bank of the
Philippines which shall invest the same in such manner as the Monetary Board shall approve.

Sec. 9. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, municipalities and chartered cities
are hereby authorized and empowered to execute by administration any reclamation work or any
construction authorized in section one hereof: Provided, That all such works shall be prosecuted on the basis
of plans and specifications approved by the Director of Public Works: And provided, further, That the District
or City Engineer concerned shall certify every statement of accomplished worked that the same is in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications. cralaw

Section 10. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. cralaw

Approved: June 22, 1957

Chavez v. Pea and Amari

Fact:
In 1973, the Comissioner on Public Highways entered into a contract to reclaim areas of Manila Bay with the
Construction and Development Corportion of the Philippines (CDCP).

PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by President Marcos under P.D. 1084, tasked with developing and
leasing reclaimed lands. These lands were transferred to the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila
Cavite Road and Reclamation Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that all future
projects under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA.

By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands to PEA. It was followed by the
transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the Register of Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the three
reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM ISLANDS.

Subsquently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-Philippine corporation to
develop the Freedom Islands. Along with another 250 hectares, PEA and AMARI entered the JVA which would
later transfer said lands to AMARI. This caused a stir especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the agreement,
claiming that such lands were part of public domain (famously known as the “mother of all scams”).

Peitioner 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. Chaves claim
that the contract is null and void.

Issue:
w/n: 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
w/n: 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
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 present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged
areas are inalienable and outside the commerce of man.

3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares110 of
the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of still submerged
areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.

PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the government can classify the reclaimed lands as
alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed for public service. Still, the transfer of such
reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the
1987Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public
domain.

CHAVEZ V. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

last modified Aug 21, 2012 01:57 PM
Case number:

G.R. No. 164527

Country:

Philippines
Date of decision:

15 August 2007
Court / Arbiter:

Supreme Court ( Supreme )

Relevant law :

Constitution ( Constitution )

Decision:

The 1987 Constitution provides that, despite a lack of enabling law that could require government bodies

to publicly disclose information related to government projects and policies, there is a still a duty to

permit access to such information.

Keywords:

Constitution

Contracts / Agreements (use of public funds, negotiations)

Open government principles (including accountability, anti-corruption, democracy, participation in

government, transparency)

Private entities (including entities that perform public functions or receive public funds, entities that

manage privatized assets, state owned enterprises)

Public interest (including public interest override, information of public interest)

Case details:
Facts
In his capacity as taxpayer, Francisco Chavez petitioned the Court directly for, among other things, access

to all documents and information relating to the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project

(the “Project”), including its underlying Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the National Housing

Authority (NHA), a government body, and R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) ( pg. 1-3).

With Congress having approved the Project as a boost to infrastructure through its development of low-

cost housing projects, a private sector joint venture scheme was pursued in accordance with the Build-

Operate-and-Transfer Law whereby “the contractor undertakes the construction . . . [for] the government

agency or local government unit concerned which shall pay the contractor its total investment expended

on the project, plus reasonable rate of return” (pg. 5-10). After multiple design changes, cost overruns,

and corresponding amendments to the JVA, the Project was ultimately suspended, and RBI made demands

for payment. A few years later, the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council initiated a

bidding process for the work remaining on the Project, and the NHA reached a settlement with RBI to

terminate the original JVA (pg.39-47). Raising constitutional issues and asserting his right to all

information related to the Project, Mr. Chavez filed a petition directly with the Court.

Decision

Deciding on the issue of whether the NHA must be compelled to disclose all information related to the

Project, the Court ruled that relief must be granted because the right of the people to information on

matters of public concern is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution (pg. 86). Specifically, Article II, Section 28

and Article III, Section 7 of the Constitution, taken together as “twin provisions,” adopt a policy of full

public disclosure on all transactions involving public interest and acknowledge the people’s right to

information. Case law further elucidates these constitutional tenets by stating that “an essential element of

these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the

government and the people . . . These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in
policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient

information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights” (pg. 86-87). In defining the limits of these

freedoms, the Court noted that such information requests must pertain to definite propositions of the

government and that information might be shielded by applicable privileges (e.g. military secrets and

information relating to national security) (pg. 88-90). Finally, the Court recognized that because no

enabling law exists providing government agencies with the procedural mechanics to disclose such

information, the NHA cannot be faulted for an inability to disclose. Nevertheless, where a duty to disclose

does not exist, there still may exist a duty to permit access, and so the Court ordered the NHA to permit

access to all information related to the Project (pg. 89-90).

Resources:

Judgment of the Court.