You are on page 1of 2


Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA

G.R. No. 112526. October 12, 2001

Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the registered owner of two parcels of land
with a total area of 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which
provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community. Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its
rights over the property, thereby destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents
filed a civil case with the Regional Trial Court seeking an easement of a right of way to and from
Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private
respondents. After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian
Reform for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. The landholding of
SRRDC was placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner objected to the compulsory acquisition of
the property contending that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged
in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not
entitled to any land as beneficiaries. The DARAB ruled against the petitioner. On appeal the CA affirmed
the decision of DARAB.
Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the entire property
formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657
Watershed is one of those enumerated by CARP to be exempt from its coverage. We cannot ignore the
fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed
purposes. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and
the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds
is an intergenerational responsibility that needs to be answered now.

Jan. 21, 2004
Facts: R.A. No. 7942 defines the modes of mineral agreements for mining
operations, outlines the procedure for their filing and approval, assignment/transfer
and withdrawal, and fixes their terms. Similar provisions govern financial or
technical assistance agreements.
Petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for
a temporary restraining order alleging that at the time of the filing of the petition,
100 FTAA applications had already been filed, covering an area of 8.4 million
hectares, 64 of which applications are by fully foreign-owned corporations covering
a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at least one by a fully foreign-owned mining
company over offshore areas.
Issue: Are foreign-owned corporations in the large-scale exploration, development,
and utilization of petroleum, minerals and mineral oils limited to technical or
financial assistance only?
Ruling: Only technical assistance or financial assistance agreements may be
entered into, and only for large-scale activities. These are contract forms which
recognize and assert our sovereignty and ownership over natural resources since
the foreign entity is just a pure contractor and not a beneficial owner of our
economic resources. The proposal recognizes the need for capital and technology to
develop our natural resources without sacrificing our sovereignty and control over
such resources by the safeguard of a special law which requires two-thirds vote of
all the members of the Legislature.
It is true that the word technical encompasses a broad number of possible
services. However, the law follows the maxim casus omisus pro omisso habendus
est which means a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be
held to have been omitted intentionally.