ARTICLE XII SECTION 2: REGALIAN DOCTRINE

STA. ROSA MINING V. LEIDO, 156 SCRA 1 (1987)

FACTS:
PD No. 1214 was issued requiring holders of subsisting and valid
patentable mining under Philippine bill of 1902 to fle a mining lease of
appliation within one !ear from the approval of the deree. "he sta. #osa
mining ompan! assailed the onstitutionalit! of PD 1214 laiming that it
amounts to deprivation of propert! without due proess of law.
ISSUE:
$hether the PD 1214 is unonstitutional.
HELD:
N%. "he onstitutional mandate of PD 1214 is found in se. 2& 'rt.()) of
the 19*+ onstitution. )t is a valid e,erise of the sovereign power of the
state& as owner over lands of the publi domain of whih petitioner-s mining
laims still form a part.
.osephre!/eli0a1umabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION : LANDS OF !U"LIC DOMAIN
DIR. OF LANDS V. IAC, 1#6 SCRA 5$9 (1986)
FACTS:
"he tamba island in 1inga!en 2ulf is situated in the muniipalit! of
bani& pangasinan& whih onsists of more or less 1*+&2** square meters. "he
initial appliation for registration was fled for paif farms& )n. 3nder the
provisions of the land registration at 44956. "he diretor of lands opposed
the appliation alleging that the paif farms& )n. Does not possess a fee
simple title to the land nor did its predeessors possess the land for at 70
!ears immediatel! after fling the appliation. )n an amended appliation&
paif farms& in. fled a manifestation8motion to hange the appliant from
paif farms& )n. "o 9. 'ntonio 'raneta. Despite the supposed amendment&
there was no republiation. :o& the diretor of lands alleged that the land is
within the unlassifed publi land and inalienable.
ISSUE:
$hether or not the land ;nown as <"amba )sland< an be sub9et to
registration.
HELD:
"he amendment of the appliation from the name of paif farms )n.
"o the name of 9. 'ntonio 'raneta in. was a mere attempt to evade
disqualifation. %ur onstitution prohibits private orporations or
assoiations from holding alienable lands of the publi domain e,ept b!
lease. "he ourt ruled to release the sub9et propert! from the unlassifed
ategor!& whih is be!ond their ompetene and 9urisdition. "he! reiterate
that the lassifation of publi lands is an e,lusive prerogative of the
e,eutive department of the government and not of the ourts. )n the
absene of suh lassifation& the land remains unlassifed until released
and rendered open to disposition.
.osephre!/eli0a1umabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 7: !RIVATE LANDS
FREN%EL V. CATITO, GR NO. 1#958, &UL' 11, 2$$
FACTS:
'lfred frit= fren=el& an 'ustralian iti=en of 2erman desent& was
married to "eresita :antos> while ?derlina @atito& a Ailipina& was married to
Blaus Culler. 'lfred and ?derlina met and later ohabited in a ommon8law
relationship& during whih 'lfred aquired real properties> and sine he was
disqualifed from owning lands in the Philippines& ?derlinaDs name appeared
as the vendee in the deeds of sale. $hen their relationship turned sour&
'lfred fled an ation for the reover! of the real properties registered in the
name of ?derlina& laiming that he was the real owner.
ISSUE:
$hether or not 'lfred is entitled to ompensation for the propertiesE
HELD:
No. "he ourt refused to delare 'lfred as the owner mainl! beause of
the onstitutional prohibition. "he ourt added that being a part! to an illegal
ontrat& he ould not ome to ourt and as; to have his illegal ob9etive
arried out. ?ven if& as laimed b! 'lfred& the sales in question were entered
into b! him as the real vendee& the said transations are in violation of the
onstitution> hene& are null and void ab initio. ' ontrat that violates the
onstitution and the law& is null and void and vests no rights and reates no
obligations. )t produes no legal eFet at all. 'lfred& being a part! to an
illegal ontrat& annot ome into a ourt of law and as; to have his illegal
ob9etive arried out. %ne who loses his mone! or propert! b! ;nowingl!
engaging in a ontrat or transation whih involves his own moral turpitude
ma! not maintain an ation for his losses. "o him who moves in deliberation
and premeditation& the law is un!ielding. "he law will not aid either part! to
an illegal ontrat or agreement> it leaves the parties where it fnds them.
.osephre!/eli0a1umabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 1$: FILI!INI%ATION
TANADA V. ANGARA, 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
FACTS:
PetitionersG senator "anada et. 'l. Huestioned the onstitutionalit! of
the onurrene b! the Philippine senate of the presidentDs ratifation of the
international agreement establishing the world trade organi=ation. "he!
argued that the $"% agreement violates the mandate of the 19*+
onstitution to develop a self8reliant and independent national eonom!
eFetivel! ontrolled b! Ailipinos b! giving preferene to qualifed Ailipinos
and to promote preferential use of Ailipino labor& domesti materials and
loall! produed goods. Aurther& the! ontended that the national treatment
and parit! provisions of the $"% agreement plaes nationals and produts of
member ountries on the same footing as Ailipinos and loal produts in
ontravention the Ailipino frst poli! of our onstitution and render
meaningless the phrase eFetivel! ontrolled b! Ailipinos.
ISSUE:
$hether the 19*+ onstitution prohibit our ountr! from partiipating
in worldwide trade liberali=ation and eonomi globali=ation and from
integrating into a global eonom! that is liberali=ed& deregulated and
privati=ed.
HELD:
"he ourt dismissed the petition. "he 19*+ onstitution does not
prohibit our ountr! from partiipating in worldwide trade agreements. $hile
indeed the onstitution mandates a bias in favors of Ailipino goods& servies&
labor and enterprise& at the same time& it reogni=ed the need for business
e,hange with the rest of the world on the bases of equalit! and reiproit!.
"he onstitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist poli!. )t did not shut
out foreign investments& goods and servie in the development of the
Philippine eonom!. $hile the onstitution does not enourage the unlimited
entr! of foreign goods& servies and investments into the ountr!& it does not
prohibit them either. )n fat& it allows an e,hange of good& servies and
produts but frowns onl! on foreign ompetition that is unfair and un9ust.
.osephre!/eli0a1umabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 11: !U"LIC UTILITIES
RO'AL CARGO COR!. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS "OARD (CA") #21 SCRA
21
FACTS:
#o!al @argo @orporation is a sto; orporation with a +0I owned b!
Ailipino iti=ens and 70I owned b! foreigners. "he president is a foreigner
married to a Ailipina& while "he @hairman of the board& ?,eutive Jie8
president and all the Jie8presidents are all Ailipinos. @'/ initiall! granted
petitioner an indefnite authorit! to engage in international air freight
forwarding. Petitioner fled a petition& requesting for f, duration of its
authorit!. Permit was e,tended for a period of fve !ears. Petitioner applied
for a renewal& was granted provided that that the position of the president be
transferred to a Ailipino iti=en within thirt! da!s from notie thereof&
otherwise the permit would be anelled.
' petition for review on ertiorari see;ing to reverse and set aside the
deision resolution of @' was fled. the appellate ourt aKrmed the
resolution of the @ivil 'eronautis /oard direting the petitioner to transfer
the top position of its orporation to a Ailipino national.
ISSUE:
$hether the resolution of @'/ direting the petitioner to transfer the top
position of its orporation to a Ailipino national is validE
HELD:
L?:. 3nder :etion 11 last sentene stateM "he partiipation of foreign
investors in the governing bod! of an! publi utilit! enterprise shall be
limited to their orporate share in its apital& and all the e,eutive and
managing oKers of suh orporation or assoiation must be iti=ens if the
Philippines.
.osephre!/eli0a1umabas
ARTICLE XII SECTION 18: NATIONALI%ATION
RE!U"LIC V. !LDT, 26 SCRA 62$ (1968)
FACTS:
Publi petitioner ommened a suit against private respondent pra!ing
for the right of the bureau of teleommuniations to demand interonnetion
between the government telephone s!stem and that of P1D"& so that the
government telephone s!stem ould ma;e use of the lines and failities of
the P1D". Private respondent ontends that it annot be ompelled to enter
into a ontrat where no agreement is had between them.
ISSUE:
$hether or not interonnetion between P1D" and the government
telephone s!stem an be a valid ob9et for e,propriation.
HELD:
Les& in the e,erise of the sovereign power of eminent domain& the
republi ma! require the telephone ompan! to permit interonnetion as
the needs of the government servie ma! require& sub9et to the pa!ment of
9ust ompensation. "he use of lines and servies to allow inter8servie
onnetion between the both telephone s!stems& through e,propriation an
be a sub9et to an easement of right of wa!.
.osephre!/eli0a1umabas