AGUILAR, JEROSS

AGUILON, MARIE GENE

ANDALES, KENT WILSON
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
SET B/SAT. 1:00 - 4:00 PM
ATTY. BUNDAC
ARTICLE XII, SECTION 2 OF 1987 CONSTITUTION
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 fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. 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.

1. JURA REGALIA AND LIMITS ON DOMINIUM

a. Imperium government authority possessed by the state expressed in the

concept of sovereignty.
b. Dominium capacity of the state to own and acquire property. The foundation
for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia that all
lands were held from the Crown, is also the foundation of the first sentence of
section 2.
Jura Regalia ownership is vested in the State.
Lee Hong Hok v. David [150-C Phil. 542 [1972]
No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or
implied from the government; it is indispensable that there be a showing of a title from
the state.
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari from the Court of Appeals which affirms the
decision of the lower court, to grant the Torrens Title to respondent Aniano David, which
was greatly opposed by the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant claiming its
ownership to the Naga Cadastre with lot No.2863, a portion of which is the source of the
disputed lot No.2892 containing an area of 226 sq hectares.
This lot was occupied by the wife of Aniano David since 1938. The wife applied
for registration of the said lot, but she died, then respondent renewed the application. On
June 18, 1958 the respondents acquired a lawful title grant from the government
represented by the Director of Lands, on this basis the Undersecretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources issued on August 26, 1959 a miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209
pursuant to which an OCT No.510 was issued by the Registry of Deeds of Naga City to
the defendant on October 21, 1959.
The auction sale of land and the awarding of the land to the defendant were all
done publicly but the plaintiff-appellant failed to put up an opposition thereto. They rely
on their theory that the said lot came into being through accretion brought by the
reclaimation they did to their land, this was rejected by the court of appeals.
Issue: Whether or not the grant granted by the government to the defendant was
valid?
Held: Yes, it is valid. Notwithstanding the rejection of the Court of Appeals to the
source of the disputed lot, the Supreme Court held that the theory is untenable.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court said that only the government, represented by
the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, can bring
an action to cancel a void certificate of title pursuant to a void patent. In this case, this
was initiated by the private parties like the plaintiff, who claims to be the owner of the
Naga Cadastre. It must also be noted that the constitution adopted the regalia doctrine
wherein the state is the owner of all lands, it can be disposed to anybody provided that it
complied with the essential requisites provided by the law.

The fatal error committed by the plaintiff-appellant is that they did not put up any
opposition or adverse claim from all the proceedings in connection to the acquisition of
the lot by the respondent, David. Thereby automatically it come to the operation of RA
496 subject to the safeguards provided under sec 38 of RA 496. Any questions
concerning the validity of the Certificate of Title based on fraud should be raised within
one (1) year from the date of issuance of the patent, which had already prescribed.

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.

Cario v. Insular Government [GR No 2869; 1907]

Any person claiming ownership of the portion of the public domain must be able to
show title from the state according to any of the recognized modes of acquisition of title
(Cario v. Insular Government)
Facts: Mateo Cario, on February 23, 1904 filed his petition in the Court of Land
Registration for a title to a parcel of land consisting 40 hectare, 1 are, and 13 centares in
the town of Baguio, Province of Benguet. This was heard with a petition for a title for a
portion of the land. The Insular Government opposed the granting of these petitions,
because they alleged that the whole parcel of land is public property of the Government
and that the same was never acquired in any manner of through any title of egression
from the State.
According to Cario, in 1884, he erected and utilized as a domicile a house on
the property situated to the north of that property. They said that during the year 1893 he
sold the said house to one Cristobal ramos, who in turn sold the same to Donaldson
Sim. Cario abandoned the house and lived on the land in question. The Court of Land
Registration ruled against their favour. They also ruled that the land was used for
pasture and sowing, and belongs to the class called public land.
Issue: Is Cario the rightful possessor of the land?
Held: No, petition was denied. Under the express provisions of law, a parcel of
land being of common origin, presumptively belonged to the State during its sovereignty,
and in order to perfect the legitimate acquisition of such land by the private persons, it
was necessary that the possession of the same pass from the State. There was no proof
of title of egression of this land from the domain of the Spanish Government.
In accordance of the preceding provisions, the right that remained to Cario, if it
be certain that he was the true possessor of the land in question, was the right of

average in case the Government or State could have sold the same within the period of
five years.

In absence of proof that property is privately owned, the presumption is that it

belongs to the State (Republic v. Sayo)
When, as far back as testimony or memories goes, the land has been held by
individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in
the same way from the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.

Significant application of Regalian Doctirine (Republic v. CA)

Facts: On June 17, 1978 spouses Mario Lapina and Flor De Vega bought a
parcel of lot situated in San Pablo City with lot Nos. 347 and 348 with a total area of
91.77 sq meters, from Cristela Dazo Belen who inherited the lot from his father, who has
been in possession of the lot since 1937 which was corroborated by the sister of
Cristela. On February 5, 1987 the spouses filed an application for registration of title of
the two parcels of land before the RTC of San Pablo City. However, they were no longer
Filipino citizens at the time of the application for registration of the said parcels of lot.
Even with the opposition by the Republic, the court a quo decided to approved the
application for registration to the parcel of lot designated as lot 347 and 348, not satisfied
with the decision of the lower court the Republic appealed the decision to the CA which
affirms the resolution of the lower court. Hence, the Republic filed a petition for certiorari
with the Supreme Court to nullify the decision of the CA.
Issue: Whether or not, the vendee or applicant considering that he is a foreign
national can apply for the registration of title over a parcel of lot.
Held: Yes, he can apply for registration. The Supreme Court held that, it matters
not whether vendee or applicant has been in possession of the subject property for only
a day so long as the period and/ or legal requirements for confirmation of title has been
complied with by his predecessor-in-interest, the said period is tacked to his possession.
In this case, it must be noticed that the predecessor-in-interest has been in
possession of the land since 1937, the public land act requires that the applicant must
prove: (a) the land is alienable public land, (b) his possession, in the concept above
stated, must be either since times immemorial or for the period prescribe in the public
land act. Which was complied with as presented in the evidence, which includes a
certification from the Bureau of land with a letter from the Bureau of Forest
Development, proving that the land in question is alienable public land, and an affidavit
from the vendor Cristela Dazo and her sister, providing that she inherited it from their
father.

Since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution up to the present no other law has
been passed by the legislature on the subject matter, it remains to be BP 185, which
grants to natural born Filipino citizen who has lost his citizenship to own a land.

2. LIMITS ON DOMINIUM
a.

Section 2 limits the power of the State to alienate the natural resources of public
domain. Only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated. All other
natural resources may not be.

3. EXPLORATION,
RESOURCES

DEVELOPMENT

WHO MAY PARTICIPATE

UTILIZATION?

IN

AND

THEIR

UTILIZATION

EXPLORATION,

OF

INALIENABLE

DEVELOPMENT AND

Only Filipinos and Filipino corporations may engage in the development and utilization of
these natural resources.
See Republic v Quasha 46 SCRA 160, 170 (1972)

Former Scheme

The exploration of natural

resources
may
be
granted
by
the
government by license,
concession or lease to a
citizen or to corporation/
association at least 60%
of capital owned by PH
citizen.
Role of government is
merely
to
give
permission.

More active role by the

State

Options available to the

State

Sec 2 now requires State to

take more active role in the
exploration,
development
and utilization of natural
resources.
Such activities fall under the
full control and supervision of
the State.
Consistent with declaration
that all natural resources are
owned by the State.

The State (a) may

undertake such activities
directly or (b) enter into
co-production,
joint
venture, or productionsharing agreements with
citizens or corp/assocs at
60% of capital owned by
PH citizen or agreement
with foreign-own corp for
large-scale exploration.

WHETHER FULL CONTROL MEANT THAT THE STATE COULD REVERSE

DECISIONS MADE BY THE ENTITY RUNNING THE CO- PRODUCTION, JOINT
VENTURE, OR PRODUCTION- SHARING?

Whenever natural resources are involved, particularly in the case of inalienable natural
resource, the State must always have some control of the exploration, development and
utilization even if the individual or corporation engaged in the operation is Filipino.
See Miners Association of the Philippines v Factoran 240 SCRA 100, 104-106 (1995),
La Bugal Blaan Tribual Assoc. v DENR G.R. No. 127882 December 1, 2004, Republic v
Pagadian City Timber G.R. No. 159308 September 16, 2008.
AGREEMENT FOR EXPLORATION, ETC. OF NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED TO
FILIPINOS
60% equity requirement agreement for exploration, development and utilization of
any natural resources of the Philippines is limited to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least 60% of the capital is owned by such citizens. The
requirement is intended for the conservation of indigenous natural resources for Filipino
posterity.
Governing Body the participation of foreigners in the governing bodies of public
utilities is limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof. Such limitation is not
necessary with respect to corporations for the exploration, etc. of any of the natural
resources because the Constitution expressly provides that the activities shall be under
the full control and supervision of the State.
TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN OWNED
CORPORATIONS
Conditions The Constitution imposes the following conditions on such agreements
entered into by the President
1. The agreement must involve only either technical or financial assistance.
2. It must be for large scale exploration, etc of minerals, petroleum and other mineral
oils.
3. Its provisions must be according to the general terms and conditions provided by law,
based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the
country.
4. The President shall subsequently notify Congress of the contract within 30 days from
its execution.
5. The State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
4. OTHER LIMITATIONS
a. Agreements for the exploitation of the natural resources can have a life of only 25
years.
-

25- year period reasonable time to attract capital, local and foreign and to
enable them to recover their investment and make profit.

Not applicable to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial
uses other than the development of water power.
In case of water rights for waterpower, 25 - year limit is applicable.

b. Nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive
economic zone are reserved for the exclusive use and enjoyment of Filipino
citizens.
-

Reserve exclusively to Filipino Citizens.

Corporations are excluded or at least must fully owned by Filipinos.

c. 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 fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons.
-

In favor of subsistence fishermen and fish workers.

d. Limitation on service contracts.

-

Service Contract agreement with foreign- owned corporations involving either

technical or financial assistance for large- scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils.

Foreign- owned corporation corporation owned by foreigners.

Purpose: State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and
technical resources.

Limitations:
1. In accordance with general terms and condition of provided by law.
2. Based on real contribution to the economic growth and general welfare.
3. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into within
30 days from its execution.