You are on page 1of 7

c

ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony c


Section 1.
ccc c
 
c 
 ccc c c    
cc 
c
 c
c c
c 
c
c
c c 
ccc
c c cc c
 
cc c
 cc c
c
c
c

c  cc cc c 
c c cc ccc c c

  cc
c  cc  c
    
c
cc  
cc
c
c  c 
c

c 
c c c
  c  c cc
c 
ccc 
c
c
 c c

c cc   c
c c  c
c 
c  cc c  cc  c  
c

 c
 c
 c 
c   
c
c c cc

c c cc ccc cc c 
 c
cc 
cc c 
ccc 
c
  c 
c cc!  c
 c

c  
c  c
c c
 c
 
ccc
c c
c ccc  c
 cc
 Three fold goals of the national economy:
^c ? ity, a more e itable distribtion of opportnities, income and wealth
^c urowth, a sstained increase in the amont of goods and services prodced by a nation
for the benefit of the people
^c 2rodctivity, capacity or degree of effectiveness for making greater otpt ot of every
nit of inpt employed.
 @trategies to accomplish goals:
1.c To develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by
Filipinos
2.c 2romote indstrialization and fll employment
3.c 2rotect Filipino enterprises against nfair foreign competition
4.c To give all economic sectors optimm opportnity to develop
5.c ?ncorage private enterprises, cooperatives and similar collective organizations
c The Regalian Doctrine
^c |mperim, government ahoroity expressed throgh sovereignty
^c Dominim, capacity of the state to own or ac ire property
^c ÿra Regalia, that all lands were held from the crown  Ownership is vested in the state,
not in the head of the state.
^c ll lands that were not ac ired from the government, either by prchase or by grant,
belong to the pblic domain. n exception to the rle wold be any land that shold
have been in the possession and occpant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time
immemorial
^c p| |T@
c Only agricltral lands of the pblic domain may be alienated
c ?xploration, development and tilization of natral resorces shall be nder the
fll control and spervision of the state either by directly ndertaking sch ?DU
or throgh co-prodction, joint ventre or prodction sharing agreements
c ll agreements with alified private sector may be for a period not exceeding
25 years, renewable for another 25 years
c The se and enjoyment of the marine wealth of the archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, territorial sea, and exclsive economic zone shall be reserved for
Filipino citizens
c Utilization of natral resorces in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons may be allowed
on a ͞small scale͟ to Filipino citizens or cooperatives

THE IPRA CASE ʹ CRUZ V. SEC. OF DENR, et al.

c 2etitioners |sagani Crz and Cesar ?ropa broght this sit for prohibition and mandams,
assailing constittionality of certain provisions of Repblic ct 8371, otherwise known as the
|ndigenos 2eoples Rights ct of 1997. nd its |mplementing Rles and Reglations
c @ome provisions of the |2R amont to an nlawfl deprivation of the @tate͛s ownersip over
lands of the pblic domain as well as minerals and other natral resorces therein, in violation
of the regalia doctrine embodies in @ec 2, rticle X|| of the Constittion:
1.c @ection 3(a) ʹ defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, @ection 3(b)
defines ancestral lands
2.c @ection 5, ncestral domains, inalienable pblic lands, bodies of water, mineral and
other resorces fond within ancestral domains are private bt commnity property of
the indigenos peoples
3.c @ection 6 defines composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands
4.c @ection 7 rights of |2s over ancestral domains
5.c @ection 8 rights of |2s over ancestral lands
6.c @ection 57 which provides for priority rights of |2s in benefits over natral resorces
within the areas they claim, right to enter into agreements with non-|2s for a period not
exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years
7.c @ection 58 which gives |2s responsibility over the area they claim
c ll encompassing definition of p and D violate rights of private landowners
c 2etitioners estion provision of the |2R defining the powers and jrisdiction of the NC|2 and
making cstomary law applicable to the settlement of disptes involving p and D on the
grond that these provisions violate the de process clase.
^c @ection 51-53, 59, process of delineation and recognition of D, vest on NC|2 the sole
athority to delineate D and p
^c @ection 52 Upon certification from NC|2 that a particlar area is an D, the jrisdiction
of other officials over said land terminates
^c @ection 63, cstomary law shall be applied first, in case of dobt / ambigity in the
interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the |2s
^c Cstomary law shall be sed
^c @ection 66 NC|2 has jrisdiction over all claims and disptes involving rights of the |2s
c 2etitioners assail validity of Rle V||, 2art ||, @ection 1 of the NC|2 administrative order #1, series
of 1998, which provides that the administrative relation of the NC|2 to the office of the
president is characterized as a lateral bt atonomos relationship for prposes of policy and
program coordination.
c s the votes were e ally divided 7 to 7, the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was
redeliberated pon. fter redeliberation, voting remained the same. 2rsant to Tle 56,
@ection 7, of the rles of civil procedre, the petition is dismissed.
c 2UNO ʹ provisions of the |2R do not contravene the constittion
^c ncestral domains refer to all areas generally belonging to |CCs/|2s comprising lands,
inland waters, coastal areas, and natral resorces therein held nder a claim of
ownership throgh their ancestors, commnally or individally since time immemorial
^c ncestral lands refers to lands occpied, possessed and tilized by individals, families
and clans who are members of the |CCs/|2s since time immemorial, by themselves or
throgh their predecessor-in-interest, nder claims of individal or traditional grop
ownership, continosly to the present
^c Native title refers to pre-con est rights to lands and domains which, as far bak as
memory reaches, have been held nder a claim of private ownership by |CCs/|2s, have
never been pblic lands
^c Carino v. |nslar government ʹ Carino was awarded his land. The decision largely rested
on the North merican constittionalist͛s concept of ͞de process͟ as well as the
prononced policy to ͞do jstice to the natives͟, Carino is the only case that specifically
and categorically recognizes native title
^c |n light of the Carino case, p and D are not part of the lands of pblic domain, they are
private
^c 2blic domain: agricltral, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks
^c ?xamining the |2R, there is nothing in the law that grants to the |CCs/|2s ownership
over the natral resorces within their ancestral domains
^c |CCs/|2s are merely granted the right to ͞manage and conserve͟ them for ftre
generations, ͞benefit and share͟ the profits from their allocation tilization, and
͞negotiate the terms and conditions for their exploration͟ for the prpose of ͞ensring
ecological environmental protection and conservation measres͟ ʹ stewardship

Alienation of natural resources

SANTA ROSA MINING CO. V. LEIDO, JR.

c 2etitioner assails validity of 2residential Decree No 1214 which re ires holders of sbsisting
and valid patentable mining claims located nder the provisions of the 2hilippine Bill of 1902 to
file a mining lease application within one year from the approval of the decree.
c 2etitioner accordingly filed a mining lease application, bt ͞nder protest͟
c 2etitioner contends tthat its 50 mining claims had already been declared as its own private and
exclsive property by a jdgment of the CF|. lso, that they already had a vested right over its
mining claims even before 2D1214
c Respondents claim that petitioner did not exhast all administrative remedies. They also cited
the pendency of petitioner͛s appeal with the office of the president, of the rling of the
respondent secretary of natral resorces which stated that 44 of the mining claims were void
for lack of valid ͞tie points͟ as re ired nder the 2hilippine Bill of 1902, and that all the mining
claims have been abandoned and cancelled for petitioner͛s non compliance.
c /N property right is absolte
c Decision: 2roperty right is not absolte bt is merely a possessory right. 2etitioner͛s claims are
still npatented. They can be lost throgh abandonment of forfeitre or they may be revoked
for valid legal gronds.
c /N 2D1214 is nconstittional
c Decision: 2D1214 is constittional. |t is a valid exercise of the sovereign power of the state, as
owner, over lands of pblic domain of which petitioner͛s mining claims still form a part, and over
the patrimony of the nation, which mineral deposits are a valable asset.
c ere location does not mean absolte ownership over the land / mining claim, to rle
otherwise wold imply that location is all that is needed to ac ire and maintain rights over a
located mining claim. The locator shold faithflly and consistently comply with the
re irements for annal work and improvements in the located mining claim.

SMC V. CA

c @ C prchased land from @ilverio 2erez and filed and application for its registration (CF|)
c @olicitor ueneral alleges that said parcel of land was inclded in pblic domain and that @ C
being a private corporation, is dis alified from holding alienable lands of the pblic domain.
c CF| granted the application
c C reversed lower corts decision
c @C: /N the evidence presented by the petitioner is sfficient enogh to warrant a rling that
@ C and/or its predecessor-in-interest has a registrable right to property
c Decision: Open, exclsive and ndispted possession of alienable pblic land for the period
prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land, pon completion of the re isite
period of 30 years ceases to be pblic land and becomes private property. However, it mst be
CONCpU@|V?p ?@TBp|@H?D.
c 2erez͛s docmentary evidence, and testimony, being ncorroborated, is simply self serving and
ndeserving of any weight.

Y  
   
c
c
c
  c
c 
c  c c
 
cc 
 
c  c  c 

c cc 
c
 c
c
 
c c

c !c c c" #c$ 
c c%
 c% c c 
c
 
c

c c&'())c
c*
c

c+ ,

'c !
c
 c 
c 
c
c 
c c c
c
 c
c c  c 
c ccc c&-)')))c
c*
c

c
c


c c 
ccc 
 c
&).c! 'c
*
c c 
c!
c c 
c

c/c c


c
c c 
c  c


c 
c 
c% c,c
 c  c c  c 

c c  c c 
c 
 
c
&!c0 
c   c1&02'c 
c 
c/3'c !
c 
 c c 
c  
c c 
 c 
c

c&
 'c   c c  #
c4
c% c 
c+ 
c

c0 c  c c
+ 
c  c4
c1''2c*
c%

c cc c 
  c c4
c$ c0 c
+ 
c5
c c% c4
c+ 
c,
c5
c  c, c+ 
c
1&'-'(-'())))2c&
 'c cc 
c c4
c  c, c+ 
c1&'())))2c&
 c
c*
c


c
c
670c
8

c c c    c c 
c

c/3c c 
c  
c c%"6c c 'c

c c c
!
c

c c   c c% c$'c 
c 
c     9c
c
"7:65;c
!

c 'c
c 
c,
c1
c c!2c! 
c 
'c
c  c c 
c 
<c 
!
c  c

 
c!

c c
c 
 c c !c   'c! 
c 
!
c c  
c 
c
 

c c ccc c 
c, c

 c c 
 
c c c
c c!

c c

 
c cc c!
 c c c 
c     cc c 
c
  c('c 
c=66c6 c 
c
   c
'c 
c!c c 
c c!>
 c c 
c

c/3c
c c!

c c

c c c

c'c c 


c 
!
c c  
c 
c 

c c c4 c 
c)c
 
c!>
 c
c 
c

c/3'c-(c
 
c c?c c 
c c
c
c c!

'c

c
 
c 
c,
c c% c$c7 
c 
c

c/3'c 
c&0c 

c cc 
c
!

c c

c!

c 
c c
  'c  c 
c 
  c c 
c

c c
 
c c 
c c 
c
  
c c  
c, c!
c
c c
c c
  cc
"
   c
c c 
>
c c 
c c  c 
c c 
c

c c 

c!c

c

c/3c5
 
c 
c&0c ccc c c   c c 
c

c c c c
 
c 
c c 
c

c c
 c, c 
c&0cc
c c 
c-c/c())(c@
 'c 
c


c/3cA 
c c
  c(c cB'c 
c=66c c 
c-c     Acc

p p   Y

c 2etitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents from proceeding with the bidding of the
Roponggi property
c 4 properties nder the reparations agreement ʹ Nampeidai, Kobe commercial, Kobe residential,
Roponggi
c 2etitioners raise the ff isses:
÷c Can the Roponggi property and others of its kinds be alienated by the 2hilippine govt?
÷c Does the C?, etc. have the athority and jrisdiction to sell Roponggi property?
÷c thority of the government to alienate the Roponggi property and make it available for
the sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities
÷c Bidding procedres being discriminatory against Filipino citizens by denying them right
to be informed
c Respondents aver that the sbject property is not nder or laws bt nder ÿapanese laws, that
Roponggi has ceased to become property of pblic dominion, that is has become patrimonial
property and that the intention to convert it to private se has been manifested by overt acts
sch as the transfer of embassy to Nampeidai, issance of Os for the alienation of ÿapanese
properties, issance of ?O296, ?nactment of CR2, holding of pblic bidding, acknowledgement
of the senate of government͛s intention to remove Roponggi from pblic prpose, the cort͛s
dismissal of petition in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee
c Decision: Roponggi is of pblic dominion nless it is convincingly shown that the property has
become patrimonial. The respondents failed to do this.
c Roponggi property otside the commerce of man
c The fact that the Roponggi property has not been sed for a long time does not atomatically
convert it to patrimonial property
c There is no formal declaration from the government to withdraw it from being sch
c bandonment cannot be inferred from non-se alone, it mst be a certain and positive act
based on correct legal premises
c pex sits rle is misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienablity of the real properties
procred throgh reparations nor the existence in what body of the athority to sell them
c 2etition granted

D      

;"c5 c-BB(c/ c.'c--c


c
 cc
c

c&

c  c* c
c0#
 
c4
c5 c(c c(-c c 
c
#

c c
c

 
c ,
c04c5 c(c 
!
c 
c
c  

c c 
c  
 c c  c c
   c c 
c
#    'c

 
c c   c c
c  c c
  c('c
 
c=66c c 
c-c     c04c5 c(-c  
c 
c@05"c

c c
 
c c
 
c>  C

'c C    'c c    Cc c


c c 
c
#    'c


 
'c c   c c
c
 
c
c

c 
c c 
c
 c 

  c!c 
c@05"c c   
c4
c5 cc,c


c  cc
#  c  c

c c


c,c,

c
c
c 
c

  c c 
c
-c     Dc!
c 

c c    C c


c,  c
c12c
c
 c 
c

  c c 

c

Ec c   
c4
c5 c(c,c  
c  cc

c c! c:

c c6
c c%
c&   C c


c,  c(c
c  c

c

  c c 
c@
 
c   
c4
c5 ccc
c 
c!  
c c 
c
  'c*'c c c c
c'c
c 
c

 
c

  c
c 

c 
c
%
c   c c 
c& 
'c6 'c c    c  
c c  c  
 c c
c ,
c cc 
'c c 
c 
c   c
  c c 
c c c
      c!

c c  c
6
ccc

c 
c , c@
 
c   
c4
c9c
c
" cc
c
'
c&
 
Fc 

c c 
c   c c&

c@


c5 c.B'cc

'cc 
c
 
  c,c c 
c
 
c c  c c
  c c   c cc 
c c c
   c c 
c
#    'c

 
'c c   c c
c
 
c  c c
0#
 
c4
c5 c('cc

c&

c@


c5 c.B'cc

'c
  c c 
c c

c c
#    'c

 
c c   c c  c
 
c  cA

'c
 
 c c

Ac,'c ,

'cc!

c ,
c!c 
c=66'c
  c(c c 
c-c
     c$c 
c c 
cc     c 
c c c 

 c,'c0#
 
c
4
c5 c(-c,c


c0#
 
c4
c5 c('c 
c   c
 c cA

'c
 
 c c

Ac c
c
 
c 
c&

c@


c5 c.B'cc

'c c

c
#  c  c,c
c


c


c 'c 


'c

c c

cc 
c 
  c
,c6 c 
c, 'c cc 
c
c c    c c 

c c
c 'c 
c
  c c&

c@


c5 c.B'cc

'c c 
c
#  c  c,'c c 
 c

  cc c0#
 
c4
c5 c(-c  
'c c

ccc   c c&

c@


c5 c.B'cc

'c 
c
#  c  c,'c c

c 

 c
c c
  'c c  c 

'c,c
c c  
c, c 
c
  c c c0#
 
c4
'cc  
c c 
c c

 c
c
8
cC

cc 
c
'c ,

'c  c

c c 
c

  c
'c  c

c c



c
c!c 
c 
'ccc  
c
c  c c0#
 
c4
c5 c(c



c c c
  'c
c!>
 c c
  c  cc
 !
c
#

c c 
c 
c ,
c
c 
c 
c
  'c 
c 
'c c 
c
#

c c c 
c ,
c c c
'cc c!
c 

c!c 
c
     c
   c c C 
c c  c  c
 'c   c c
 c

c  c

c c


c
c 
c&

c@


c5 c.B'cc

'c  c
c0#
 
c4
c5 c(c& 
c& ,
'c!
 c C
#

c, c 
c

 
c c 
c
c c

c
 c c !c

 Gc
#
c cc 
c c !c

c
c 
c c0#
 
c4
c
5 c(-c,c


c0#
 
c4
c5 c(c  
c
c!c c 
c@05"c

c c
c c

 c 
c 
c c 
c=66'c
  c(c c 
c-c     c
c
8+0"0 4"0'c 
c
  cc@6%60@c cc c
 

REPUBLIC V. ROSEMOOR

c 2etitioners discovered marble deposits in the montains of Biak na Bato, BUlacan. 2etitioners
were issed picence No. 33
c ?rnesto aceda, minister of D?NR, Rosemoor͛s license was cancelled by him.