In
G.R. No. L-12691. February 27, 1959 Sec 122 of the Land Registration Law, the
documents mentioned wherein lands are
Facts: A small parcel of land (Lot No. 3786), alienated, granted, or conveyed are
an alienable or disposable public land. documents transferring ownership, not
Covered by SalesPatent No. 257 was issued to documents of lease transferring ownership.
Margarita Juanson. The same land was also The Torrens Title of Dagdag must prevail.
issued by Lease No.49 executed by the Bureau
of Lands in favor of Andres de Vera. Juansons Chavez vs. Public Estate Authority and
Sales Patent was inscribed by the Register of AMARI
Deeds on July 11, 1927, and the Original Facts: The Public Estates Authority (PEA) is
Certificate of Title was issued to her. In the central implementing agency tasked to
1950,Simeon Dagdag bought it from the undertake reclamation projects nationwide. It
owner and the corresponding certificate of title took over the leasing and selling functions of
was given out. On the other hand, the lease to the DENR (Department of Environmental and
de Vera was transferred to Nepomuceno. Natural Resources) insofar as reclaimed or
Dagdags title and those of his predecessors about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are
contained no annotation of such lease concerned.
neither he had any knowledge of it. PEA sought the transfer to the Amari Coastal
Nepomuceno refused to surrender the land Bay and Development Corporation, a private
even in the face of Dagdags patent and title. corporation, of the ownership of 77.34
hectares of the Freedom Islands. PEA also
Issue: Who is entitled to the land and the sought to have 290.156 hectares of
products thereof? submerged areas of Manila Bay to Amari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid.
Ruling: The patents when registered in HELD: No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed
the corresponding Register of Deeds are lands of the public domain to be transferred to
indispensible. Weregard these as veritable Amari as private lands will sanction a gross
Torrens Title subject to no encumbrance violation of the constitutional ban on private
except those stated therein, plusthose corporations from acquiring any kind of
specified by the statutes, and lease is not one alienable land of the public domain.
of them. In addition, when the lease The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84
was renewedin 1949, the portion in question hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the
was no longer public land subject to the Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates
disposition of the Director ofLands because it of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands
had already been granted to Margarita of the public domain. The 592.15 hectares of
ON QUESTION OF LAW. The decision of clear error of law resulted in not considering
the Director of Lands approved by the petitioner a Philippine citizen and so qualified
The constitutional provision allowing the When parts of a statute are so mutually
President to enter into FTAAs is an exception dependent and connected as conditions,
to the rule that participation in the nations considerations, inducements or
natural resources is reserved exclusively to compensations for each other as to warrant a
Filipinos. Accordingly, such provision must be belief that the legislature intended them as a
HELD:
jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2207 even the second paragraph of section 80, which is
(Section 222, Code of Civil Procedure.) The declaration of nullity of the Free Patent and
interest and thus that Agunoy had municipal council had other concern with
acquired free patent over the subject cockpits and billiards rooms than the mere
2. WON the title over the subject lands is division ( j) of section 40 of Act No. 82 with
valid for having been acquired in good the prohibition and closing of them, which is
faith and for value. (Yes) in the nature of a police power regulation
rather than of one revenue. In other words,
Petition denied. CA affirmed although municipal councilors may not now
raise revenue from places of amusement of
THE UNITED STATES vs SARMIENTO
this character, they may, nevertheless, police
(1908)
and control them. Therefore, the councilman
926, that all the necessary requirements for a the barrio of Lucnab, Itogon, Benguet.
rural land and the latter for urban land and parcel of land.
improvement therein.
C. He had paid tax declaration of the said land
Whether or not the said parcel of land is a It is evident that Atok had registered the land
mineral land or an agricultural land. prior than Tuktukan but still the SC ruled in
favor of Tuktukan for the reasons:
History of mining Act
A. Payment of annual assessment fee is not
1. Spanish Mining Law of 1867 enough proof. There must be an annual
performance of labor or undertaking of
2. Philippine Bill Of 1902 (American time) improvements in the mine.
when the subject land had been registered
B. When an ocular survey was made, it was
3. Commonwealth Act No. 137 (under the evident that there was No improvements being
1935 Constitution) made in the said land and there is any sign of
mining had happened in the land. Hence, the
4. Executive Order 141 (Pres. Marcos 1968)
petition is DENIED.
All of the mining acts have a common VS RAMOS 445 SCRA 1 (2004)
labor or undertaking of improvements on the In 1987, President Aquino issued E.O 2796
FACTS: ISSUE:
On 1958, the Republic of the Philippines filed W/N the power of the government to exercise
with the CFI of Benguet and Baguio a power of imminent domain is barred upon the
complaint for expropriation against ten (10) perfection of the mining claim.
defendants and among them is the Benguet
Consolidated, Inc. The Republic stated that it HELD:
properties of the petitioner; (3) motion to re- petitioner was based on the findings of the
open case on the ground that the issues Board of Commissioners which conducted an
insofar as the petitioner is concerned have not ocular inspection of the mining claims with
been joined since its motion to dismiss has prior notice to all the parties.
the petitioner for its mining claims. facts of the appellate court in the absence of
any contrary evidence pointed to by the
These findings negate the trial court's petitioner.
observation that the commissioners only took
into consideration the surface value of the Moreover, it is to be noted that unlike the
mineral claims. In fact, the lower court plaintiff and other defendants, the petitioner
affirmed the commissioners' report to the did not file any opposition to the
effect that the petitioner herein is only entitled Commissioners' Report in the lower court.
"Other claims" include the petitioner's mining provided for the payment of legal interest from
claims. Thus, the trial court computed the the time the government took over the
amount to be paid to the petitioner as just petitioner's mining claims until payment is
I. THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AND Held: No. The guaranty is merely a collateral
ISSUANCE OF THE MPSA OF BASE METALS inducement.
WILL VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATE AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF An examination of the Presidential Warranty
OBLIGATION IN A CONTRACT at once reveals that it simply reassures PICOP
of the government's commitment to uphold
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the terms and conditions of its timber license
the MAB, ruling that the Presidential and guarantees PICOP's peaceful and
Warranty of September 25, 1968 issued by adequate possession and enjoyment of the
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos merely areas which are the basic sources of raw
shall not be taken except for public use and or color of legal authority;
Republic vs Marcopper
The SC held that the CA erred in ruling that adjudicative responsibility over pollution
from the
In another Resolution the Appellate Court in case of their failure to unanimously agree
likewise denied, for being devoid of legal as to the amount of compensation, all
interest, the Petition for Intervention filed by questions at issue shall be determined by the
the Republic of the Philippines through the Court of First Instance of the province in
right as against the world, from the date of his prospecting shall be carried on in accordance
application. The court in its final judgment, with the provisions of this Act. As appellants
besides determining the corresponding prospecting was done in violation of the law, it
compensation of the damages which may be was an illegal act and the subsequent location
caused by the prospecting, shall make a of the mining claims was also illegal and null
pronouncement as to the value and the and void. For the Mining Act regards a valid
reasonable rental for the occupation and discovery as that which gives the prospector
utilization thereof for mining purposes in case the right to locate a mining claim (Sections 29
the prospector decides to locate and exploit and 30), and the validity of a location depends
The purpose of the law is obvious, which is, to It is clear, of course that the validity of a
prevent trespass on private property. The location depends upon compliance with the
importance of the written permission of the statutes. The law requires that the locator
owner of private land is also apparent from shall act in good faith, and it will not
the forms prescribed by the Bureau of Mines countenance a trespass as the basis of a
for the declaration of location of a mining mining right
claim which require the locator to state that
the landowner has granted written permission SMPIs suggestion that the remedy provided in
for the prospecting and location of the mining Section 67 of the Mining Act be applied to it is
claim if the latter is located on private also unacceptable. It is evident that the
Petitioner opposed the quashal arguing that it Director under existing mining
is error to imply that consent was given by the decrees, laws and regulations to
Government are not the fees required by the belonging to the Government or
Moreover, said receipts merely show payment the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
of taxes pursuant to Provincial Ordinance No. (IPRA) and its implementing rules and
14 and not the authority to extract, remove, regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail
and/or dispose of minerals from the Sumigar certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on
Quarry as required by P.D. No. 463. Those the ground that these amount to an unlawful
ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the
Constitution?
HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene
the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is
nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs
ownership over the natural resources within
their ancestral domain. Ownership over the
natural resources in the ancestral domains
remains with the State and the rights granted
by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural
resources in their ancestral domains merely
gives them, as owners and occupants of the
land on which the resources are found, the
right to the small scale utilization of these
resources, and at the same time, a priority in
their large scale development and exploitation.