CHAVEZ vs PEA G.R. No.

133250 FACTS: This petition asked the Court to legitimize a government contract that conveyed the private entity 157.84 hectares of reclaimed public lands along Roxas Boulevard in Metro Manila at the negotiated price of P1,200 per square meter. However, published reports place the market price of land near that area at that time at a high of P90,000 per square meter. The difference in price is a staggering P140.16billion, equivalent to the budget of the entire Judiciary for seventeen years and more than three times the Marcos Swiss deposits that this Court forfeited in favor of the government. Public Estates Authority (PEA), under the JVA, obligated itself to convey title and possession over the Property, consisting of approximately One Million Five HundredSeventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred Forty One (1,578,441) Square Meters for atotal consideration of One Billion Eight Hundred Ninety Four Million One Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred (P1,894,129,200.00) Pesos, or a price of One Thousand Two Hundred (P1,200.00) Pesos per square meter. ISSUE: Whether or not stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands,reclaimed or to be reclaimed on portions of Manila Bay, violate the Constitution and be subject of registration? DECISION: Submerged lands, like the waters (sea or bay) above them, are part of the State’s inalienable natural resources. Submerged lands are property of public dominion,absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of man. This is also true with respect to foreshore lands. Any sale of submerged or foreshore lands is void being contrary to the Constitution as it violates Section 2, Article XII. In the instant case,the bulk of the lands subject of the Amended JVA are still submerged lands even tothis very day, and therefore inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Of the750 hectares subject of the Amended JVA, 592.15 hectares or 78% of the total areaare still submerged, permanently under the waters of Manila Bay. Under theAmended JVA, the PEA conveyed to Amari the submerged lands even before theiractual reclamation, although the documentation of the deed of transfer andissuance of the certificates of title would be made only after actual reclamation. This Resolution does not prejudice any innocent third party purchaser of thereclaimed lands covered by the Amended JVA. Neither the PEA nor Amari has soldany portion of the reclaimed lands to third parties. Title to the reclaimed landsremains with the PEA. As held in the 9 July 2002 Decision, the Amended JVA"violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution."

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful