NATRES LTD Reviewer Gallant Soriano Concise Version
NATRES LTD Reviewer Gallant Soriano Concise Version
NATRES LTD Reviewer Gallant Soriano Concise Version
National Territory
CONSTITUTIONAL The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and
PROVISIONS aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions,
form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Environmental Clearance
Certificate (ECC) (§ 70)
• A document issued by
the gov’t agency concerned
certifying that the project
under consideration will
not bring about an
unacceptable
environmental impact and
that the proponent has
complied with the
requirements of the
environmental impact
statement system
SETTLEMENT OF
CONFLICTS
Panel of Arbitrators (§ 77)
• Exclusive and original
jurisdiction over:
(a) Disputes involving
rights to mining areas;
(b) Disputes involving
mineral agreements or
permits;
(c) Disputes involving
surface owners, occupants
and
claimholders/concessionai
res; and
(d) Disputes pending
before the Bureau and the
Department at the date of
the effectivity of this Act.
• Decision is appealable to
the MAB
INCENTIVES
• Fiscal and non-fiscal
incentives under the
Omnibus Investments
Code of 1987 (§ 90)
• Pollution control devices
shall not be subject to real
property and other taxes
or assessment (does not
include payment of mine
wastes and tailing fees) (§
91)
RESEARCH E-Vehicles in Manila Marilao River Aquaculture in Taal Lake Baguio City Forest Reserve Quarrying in Norzagaray San Mateo Sanitary Mt. Banahaw-San Cristobal Mampueng Tribe
Landfill Protected Landscape (Olongapo City)
JURISPRUDENCE (1) MMDA v. JANCOM (1) MMDA v. Concerned (1) LLDA v. CA: The power (1) Ysmael v. Exec. Sec.: (1) La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal (1) Prov. of Rizal v. Exec. (1) PICOP Resources v. Base (1) Cruz v. Sec. of DENR:
Environmental Corp.: The Residents of Manila Bay: of the LLDA for effective Timber licenses, permits, Assn. v. Ramos: Since Sec.: Proc. 635, setting Metals Minerals Resources: Since the required
ban on incineration under Mandamus lies to compel regulation and monitoring and license agreements foreign corporations aside parts of the Marikina Sec. 19(f) of RA 7586 does majority vote cannot be
Sec. 20 of RA 8749 refers the MMDA to clean or activities in the are not contracts within cannot own, manage, or Watershed Reservation for not disallow mining obtained (7-7 [Buena, De
only to those burning rehabilitate Manila Bay. management of Laguna the purview of the non- participate in mining use as a sanitary landfill applications in all forest Leon, Gonzaga-Reyes,
processes which emit Lake, an exercise of police impairment clause in the agreements except to and similar waste disposal reserves but only those Melo, Panganiban, Pardo,
poisonous and toxic fumes, (2) Alexandra power, reigns supreme Constitution. render financial or applications, is declared proclaimed as watershed and Vitug ― Davide, Jr.,
which means that not all Condominium v. LLDA: RA over the power granted to technical assistance, an illegal for, among others, forest reserves. Bellosillo, Kapunan,
burning processes are 4850, specifically the local government units (2) Yngson v. Sec. of FTAA entered into by a violating Sec. 40 of RA Mendoza, Puno,
prohibited. mandating the LLDA to under the LGC, the same Agriculture and Natural foreign corporation should 9003, providing that the Quisumbing, and
carry out and make for mere revenue, and Resources: The Bureau of be limited to technical or site of landfills must be Santiago]), even after the
(2) Technology Developer’s effective the declared therefore, the power to Fisheries has no financial assistance only. located in an area where redeliberation, the
Inc v. CA: While it is true national policy of issue permits and grant jurisdiction to administer the landfills operation will constitutionality of IPRA is
that the matter of promoting and privileges concerning and dispose of (2) Lepanto Consolidated not detrimentally affect upheld.
determining whether accelerating the Laguna Lake rests with the swamplands or mangrove Mining Co. v. WMC environmentally sensitive
there is a pollution of the development and balanced LLDA, to the exclusion of lands forming part of the Resources: RA 7942, resources such as aquifers, (2) Atitiw v. Zamora: The
environment that requires growth of Laguna Lake, LGUs. public domain while such requiring the approval of groundwater reservoirs or special provisions in the
action is essentially empowers the LLDA to lands are still classified as the Pres. for the transfer or watershed areas. GAA, as well as the IRR of
addressed to the DENR- compel petitioner to (2) Roldan v. Arca: Search forest land or timberland assignment of an FTAA, said special provisions,
EMB, it must be recognized control and abate its waste and seizure without and not released for cannot be applied providing the deactivation
that the mayor of a town effluents and impose fines warrant of vessels, which fishery or other purposes. retroactively to Columbio of CAR bodies and the
has as much responsibility on the latter therefor. is a traditional exception FTAA (which was executed reduction of its budgetary
to protect its inhabitants of the warrant (3) Tan v. Dir. of Forestry: prior to the effectivity of allocation, did not have the
from pollution, and by (3) Ortigas & Co. v. Feati requirement because of its While under the RAC, the Act) as it would be effect of abolishing the
virtue of his police power, Bank: A contract mobility to be moved out timber licenses are to be tantamount to a CAR, only the
he may deny the restricting the use of a of the locality, applies to issued by the Dir. of substantial impairment of discontinuance of its
application for a permit to building to only residential fishing vessels breaching Forestry, still, since he is an obligation under the programs and activities.
operate a business or purposes cannot prevail our fishery laws. under the authority of the contract, and since
otherwise close the same over a municipal Sec. of Agriculture and nowhere in the Act is it (3) Acting Registrars v.
unless appropriate resolution passed thru a (3) Hizon v. CA: Search of Natural Resources, the stated that it can be RTC: A decision, denying a
measures are taken to valid exercise of police vessels and high-speed latter has the authority to applied retroactively. petition for reconstitution
control and/or avoid power, declaring an area boats are well within the revoke, on valid grounds, of lost duplicate owner’s
injury to the health of the (where the buildings are exceptions of the timber licenses issued by (3) Carpio v. Sulu copy because the mother
residents of the located) to be an industrial constitutional requirement the former. Resources Dev’t Corp.: title has been duly
community from the and commercial zone of a search warrant, for Decisions and final orders cancelled, is conclusive not
emissions in the operation practicality, because of its (4) Paat v. CA: Under Sec. of the Mines Adjudication only as to the parties
of the business (4) Shell Pilipinas v. Jalos: A ability to elude the 68-A of the DENR charter, Board (MAB) are therein but also as to the
13 | T R A X notes
valid judgment for authorities. the Sec. and his duly appealable to the CA under existing status of the
(3) AC Enterprises v. damages can be made in authorized representatives Rule 43 of the 1997 ROC. property subject therein.
Frabelle Properties Corp.: favor of Jalos, et al., if the (4) Comm. of Customs v. are given the authority to
The PAB has no primary construction and CA: The BOC, by virtue of confiscate and forfeit any
jurisdiction over the noise operation of the pipeline warrants of seizure and conveyances utilized in
of the blowers of the indeed caused fish decline detention, may detain or violating the RFC, or other
airconditioning system and eventually led to the impound vessels violating forest laws, rules and
complained of, since the fishermen’s loss of income, rules and laws applicable, regulations.
case is more of an as alleged in the complaint. to the exclusion of any
abatement of a nuisance, courts which may take (5) Mustang Lumber v. CA:
cognizable under the RTC, jurisdiction. Lumber is a processed log
rather than a pollution or timber, and is thus not
case. excluded from the
coverage of Sec. 68 of the
RFC, on penalizing
possession thereof without
the required legal
documents.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS/OTHERS
(1) Magallona v. Ermita: RA 9552, enacted to comply with UNCLOS III, which shortened 1 baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the archipelago, and classified adjacent territories (like the Kalayaan Island Group and
Scarborough Shoal) as regimes of islands whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones, is constitutional, and in fact, increased the Philippines’ total marine space by 145,216 sq. nautical miles.
(2) Henares v. LTFRB: LTFRB and DOTC cannot be compelled to require PUVs to use CNG through mandamus, since the Constitution and the Clean Air Act are both general mandates that do not specifically prescribe the use of any kind of
fuel, particularly the use of CNG by public vehicles.
(3) Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.: Petitioners’ personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility (i.e., every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that
rhythm and harmony for full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology) insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
(4) Cariño v. Insular Gov’t: When, as far back as testimony or memory 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 before the Spanish conquest,
and never to have been public land (native title).
(5) SJS v. Atienza: Mandamus lies to compel a City Mayor to enforce an ordinance reclassifying an area from industrial to commercial and directing the owners and operators of businesses disallowed therein to cease and desist from
operating their businesses within 6 months from the date of effectivity of the ordinance
(6) Chavez v. PEA: A stipulation in a joint venture agreement that would transfer the subject reclaimed lands to a private corporation is void for being contrary to Sec. 3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution.
(7) Tano v. Socrates: Since one of the devolved powers of LGUs under the LGC is the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters, the ordinance banning the shipment of all live fish and lobster outside Puerto Prinsesa for 5 years and a
resolution prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling, and shipment of several species of live marine coral-dwelling aquatic organisms for 5 years, are valid.
(8) Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS: Art. XII, Sec. 10, par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, providing for the preference to qualified Filipinos, in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, is a self-
executing provision.
(9) Miner’s Association of the Philippines v. Factoran, Jr.: The State, in the exercise of its police power, may not be precluded by the constitutional restriction on non-impairment of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining
leases or agreements granted.
(10) Alvarez v. PICOP Resources: Licenses concerning the harvesting of timber in the country's forests are but a mere privilege granted by the State, and cannot be considered contracts.
(11) Alcantara v. Commission on Settlement of Land Problems: The cancellation of an FLGLA that was granted in violation of Sec. 1 of PD No. 410 (which provides that all unappropriated agricultural lands forming part of the public domain
are declared part of the ancestral lands of the indigenous cultural groups occupying the same, and these lands are further declared alienable and disposable, to be distributed exclusively among the members of the indigenous cultural
group concerned) is proper.
(12) Cheesman v. IAC: A land sold to spouses where one is an alien cannot be held to be conjugal property, for to do so would be to give the alien spouse a substantial interest and right over the land which the Constitution prohibits him
from having.
(13) Corpuz v. Sps. Grospe: The voluntary surrender or waiver of land reform rights in favor of the Samahang Nayon is valid because such action is deemed a legally permissible conveyance in favor of the government, pursuant to PD 27,
14 | T R A X notes
which provides that title to land acquired pursuant to the land reform program shall not be transferrable except through hereditary succession or to the government.
(14) People v. Maceren: Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1, penalizing electro-fishing in fresh water fisheries, is void since the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources is without authority to issue the same sans the express
prohibition of electro-fishing under the Fisheries Law (NOTE: this was decided under the old Fisheries Law, the present law [Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, as amended] penalizes electro-fishing).
MIDTERMS
(1) Republic v. Lee: The bare assertion that respondent’s predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the property for more than 20 years found in respondent’s declaration is hardly the “well-nigh incontrovertible” evidence
required in cases of this nature.
(2) Reynante v. CA: An accretion (by alluvion) to registered land does not preclude acquisition of the additional area by another person through acquisitive prescription, should the owner fail to register such within the period prescribed
by law.
(3) Sec. of DENR v. Yap: In keeping with the presumption of state ownership, there must be a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into disposable land for agricultural or
other purposes before such land becomes alienable and disposable.
(4) Junio v. De los Santos: Resort to Sec. 110 (adverse claim) instead of Sec. 57 (annotation of transfer) of the Land Registration Act is proper where there is refusal to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate.
(5) Vda. de Arceo v. CA: PD 1529 confers upon the trial courts the authority to act not only over applications for original registration, but also over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising from such applications or petitions.
(6) Krivenko v. RD: An alien cannot acquire residential lands under the Constitution, since the prohibition therein (Sec. 1, Art. XIII, 1935 Constitution), is construed as including residential lands.
(7) Halili v. CA: A prior invalid transfer of land to an alien, contrary to Sec. 5, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution, can no longer be assailed when the disputed land falls unto the hands of a qualified Filipino.
(8) De Castro v. Tan: A sale of land to an alien can no longer be annulled on the ground of a violation of the Constitution where the subject land has already become the property of a naturalized Filipino.
(9) Republic v. IAC: A conveyance of a residential land to an alien prior to his naturalization is valid upon his acquisition of Philippine citizenship.
(10) Republic v. Manna Properties: The non-compliance of the jurisdictional requirement for original registration on the conduct of hearing, which shall not be earlier than 45 days but not later than 90 days from the issue of order of the
initial hearing (Sec. 23 of PD 1529), attributable not the applicant but to the LRA, does not prejudice said applicant.
(11) Baranda v. Gustilo: The duty of an RD to annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a Torrens certificate of title is ministerial in nature.
(12) Almirol v. RD: The RD is entirely precluded by Sec. 4, RA 1151 from exercising his personal judgment and discretion when confronted with the problem of whether to register a deed or instrument on the ground that it is invalid, and
his recourse is merely to submit and certify the question to the Commissioner of Land Registration, who shall, after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be taken on the question.
(13) Worcester v. Ocampo: Since under the Torrens system, a deed of transfer produces no effect except from the moment of registration (Sec. 51 of Art 496), a levy and sale by the sheriff, conducted after the execution of the deed of sale
but registered first, takes precedence over the latter.
(14) Sps. Vallido v. Sps. Pono: Although it is a recognized principle that a person dealing on a registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title, it is also firmly settled rule that where there are circumstances which would put a party
on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being sold to him, such as the presence of occupants/ tenants thereon, it is expected from the purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or nature of
possession of the occupants; and failure to do so would mean negligence on his part that would preclude him from invoking the rights of a purchaser in good faith.
(15) De Leon v. Ong: A buyer who was not aware of any interest in or a claim on the properties other than a mortgage which she undertook to assume is a buyer in good faith.
(16) Gustilo v. Maravilla: Since the Land Registration Act only protects the holder in good faith and cannot be used as a shield for frauds, a purchaser who was aware of the existence of a lease on the subject property is bound to respect the
same, notwithstanding the absence of annotation of such lease.
(17) Hernandez v. Vda. de Salas: Since registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer, or creates a lien on the land, and because a purchaser, on execution sale, is not required to go behind the registry to determine the
conditions of the property, a purchase made prior to the execution sale but was never registered must give way to the registered execution sale.
(18) Ruiz v. CA: Knowledge of a prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration.
(19) Bureau of Forestry v. CA: Classification or reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department of the government, through the Office of the President,
and not of the courts.
15 | T R A X notes