Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY - Private Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Mary Dorothy Talidro
    The Public Estate Authority entered into a joint venture agreement with AMARI, a private corporation, to transfer several hectares of reclaimed land in Manila Bay to AMARI. This included land covered by land titles issued to PEA. However, the Supreme Court ruled the agreement was unconstitutional as reclaimed land is considered alienable public land under the Constitution, which prohibits private corporations from owning such land. While PEA can lease public land, it cannot sell or transfer ownership to private entities like AMARI. The submerged areas also remain inalienable natural resources until reclaimed and classified as alienable by the government.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY - Private Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Mary Dorothy Talidro
    42 views1 page
    The Public Estate Authority entered into a joint venture agreement with AMARI, a private corporation, to transfer several hectares of reclaimed land in Manila Bay to AMARI. This included land covered by land titles issued to PEA. However, the Supreme Court ruled the agreement was unconstitutional as reclaimed land is considered alienable public land under the Constitution, which prohibits private corporations from owning such land. While PEA can lease public land, it cannot sell or transfer ownership to private entities like AMARI. The submerged areas also remain inalienable natural resources until reclaimed and classified as alienable by the government.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Public Estate Authority entered into a joint venture agreement with AMARI, a private corporation, to transfer several hectares of reclaimed land in Manila Bay to AMARI. This included land covered by land titles issued to PEA. However, the Supreme Court ruled the agreement was unconstitutional as reclaimed land is considered alienable public land under the Constitution, which prohibits private corporations from owning such land. While PEA can lease public land, it cannot sell or transfer ownership to private entities like AMARI. The submerged areas also remain inalienable natural resources until reclaimed and classified as alienable by the government.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY - Private Corporation

    Uploaded by

    Mary Dorothy Talidro
    The Public Estate Authority entered into a joint venture agreement with AMARI, a private corporation, to transfer several hectares of reclaimed land in Manila Bay to AMARI. This included land covered by land titles issued to PEA. However, the Supreme Court ruled the agreement was unconstitutional as reclaimed land is considered alienable public land under the Constitution, which prohibits private corporations from owning such land. While PEA can lease public land, it cannot sell or transfer ownership to private entities like AMARI. The submerged areas also remain inalienable natural resources until reclaimed and classified as alienable by the government.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CHAVEZ V.

    PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY


    GR No. 133250 July 9, 2002
    Facts: From the time of Marcos until Estrada, portions of Manila Bay
    were being reclaimed. A law was passed creating the Public Estate
    Authority which was granted with the power to transfer reclaimed
    lands; tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed lands

    Now in this case, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with
    AMARI, a Thai-Philippine private corporation. Under the Joint
    Venture Agreement between AMARI and PEA, several hectares of
    reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands and several
    portions of submerged areas of Manila Bay were going to be
    transferred to AMARI. A transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and
    7312) by the Register of Deeds of Paranaque to PEA covering the
    three reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM ISLANDS was
    then issued.

    Issues: Whether or not the stipulations in the Amended Joint


    Venture Agreement transferring to AMARI reclaimed land is violative
    of the Constitution.

    Ruling: YES. Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended),
    reclaimed lands are classified as alienable and disposable lands of
    the public domain. Section 3 of the Constitution: Alienable lands of
    the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.

    Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable


    lands of the public domain except by lease. The 157.84 hectares of
    reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by
    certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the
    public domain. PEA may lease these lands to private
    corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of these
    lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to
    Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987
    Constitution and existing laws.

    Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article


    XII of the 1987 Constitution. Under Article 1409 of the Civil Code,
    contracts whose “object or purpose is contrary to law,” or whose
    “object is outside the commerce of men,” are “inexistent and void
    from the beginning.” The Court must perform its duty to defend and
    uphold the Constitution, and therefore declares the Amended JVA
    null and void ab initio.

    PEA may reclaim these submerged areas. Thereafter, the


    government can classify the reclaimed lands as alienable or
    disposable, and further declare them no longer needed for public
    service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the
    public domain to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3, Article XII
    of the 1987Constitution which prohibits private corporations from
    acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

    The submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural


    resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or
    disposable lands open to disposition and declared no longer
    needed for public service. The government can make such
    classification and declaration upon reclamation of these
    submerged areas. Only then can these lands qualify as
    agricultural lands of the public domain, which are the only
    natural resources the government can alienate. In their present
    state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable
    and outside the commerce of man.

    You might also like