NRELTD MIDTERM EXAMS POINTERS the idea of Governance with democracy (authority with the people).
Rome
A. Definitions
1. Natural Resources
Material objects of economical value and utility to man produced by nature.
They constitute the patrimony of the nation.
Resources occurring in nature that can be used to create the wealth of nation
for the nation's benefit and not only one person.
All substances organically produced by nature without human intervention. It
is the wealth of the nation.
Refers to material objects with economic value. It is considered national
patrimony.
2. Territorial sea
The belt of the sea located between the coast and the internal waters of the
coastal state on the other hand, and the high seas on the other, extending up
to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark, or in the case of archipelagic
states, from the baselines.
12 nautical miles from the shoreline outward.
Internal waters are all the waters around between and connecting the islands
of the Philippine archipelago.
3. Jure Regalia
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to
the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership of
land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony. The doctrine has
been consistently adopted under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
Western Doctrine that all land belongs to the State. All lands belonging to the
crown as represented by the king.
God has imperium on all creation in the world. God gave Man dominium over
its creation. Man asked for a ruler, God "gave" man a king. Greece started
created the representative democracy through the Senate. Thus, the control
and possession of natural resources transferred to the State.
4. Imperium
Government authority possessed by the State which is appropriately
embraced in the concept of sovereignty.
Possess, own and dispose.
State’s authority to govern. Covers such activities as passing laws, governing
territory, maintaining peace and order over it, and defending against foreign
invasion. This is the authority possessed by the State embraced in the
concept of sovereignty. (Lee Hong Hok vs David, Gr. No. L-30389, 1972)
(Constitutional Law)
The right to command, which includes the right to employ the force of the
state to enforce the laws; this is one of the principal attributes of the power of
the executive. (Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. 2007. William C. Burton)
5. Dominium
Capacity of the State to own or acquire property such as lands and natural
resources. (Separate Opinion, Kapunan, J., in Isagani Cruz v. Secretary of
DENR, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000)
Authority to take possession and use (right of usufruct). It is not ownership
because cannot dispose.
6. Agricultural lands
Refers to lands devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil, planting of
crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the
harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices
performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by a
person whether natural or juridical, and not classified by the law as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. (Source: RA 6657 and RA
8435)
7. Forest and Timber land
Forest
 Large tract of land covered with natural growth of trees and underbrush;
a large wood.
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J
 It is a tract of land covered with trees, usually of considerable extent.
 (From Comm. Soriano) Large tract of land usually covered with trees,
bushes, wild trees and grasses. It grows by itself and sustains by itself.
Timberland
 Large tract of land planted with trees that can be used as wood; pruned,
harvested and processed to finished product.
8. Mineral lands
Lands containing deposits of valuable, useful, or precious minerals in such
quantities as to justify expenditures in the effort to extract them, and which
are more valuable for the minerals they contain than for agricultural or other
uses.
9. Mineral oil
A distillation product of petroleum, especially one used as a lubricant,
moisturizer or laxative
Mineral, and not vegetables as the sources of this specific type of oil.
Petroleum is the actual source, making this term an imprecise alternative.
(Black's Law Dictionary)
RA 8479, Section 4
(m) Petroleum shall refer to the naturally occurring mixture of compounds of
hydrogen and carbon with a small proportion of impurities and shall include
any mineral oil, petroleum gas, hydrogen gas, bitumen, asphalt, mineral wax,
and all other similar or naturally-associated substances, with the exception of
coal, peat, bituminous shale and/or other stratified mineral fuel deposits
10. National parks
Any land declared by the law as a national park. (According to Comm.
Soriano)
Land maintained by the national government as a place of beauty or of public
recreation, or forested land reserved from settlement and maintained in its
natural state for public use, or as wildlife refuge
Any public land with the purpose of enjoyment as declared by law.
Refers to a forest reservation essentially of natural wilderness character
which has been withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or any form of
exploitation except in conformity with approved management plan and set
aside as such exclusively to conserve the area or preserve the scenery, the
natural and historic objects, wild animals and plants therein and to provide
enjoyment of these features in such areas (Source: RA 7586)
11. Public Lands
Refers to such lands of the public domain as are subject to alienation and
disposal by the State in accordance with the Public Land Act.
Government lands are not synonymous to public lands. The first is more
extensive and embraces not only the second but also other lands of the
government already reserved or devoted to public use or subject to private
right. In other words, government owns real estate which is part of PUBLIC
LABDS and other real estate which is not part thereof. (Montano v. Insular
Government)
12. Private lands
Refers to any land belonging to any private person which includes alienable
and disposable land being claimed by a holder, claimant, or occupant who
has already acquired a vested right thereto under the law, although the
corresponding certificate or evidence of title or patent has not been actually
issued.
Land belonging to and owned by the State as a private individual, without
being devoted for public use, public service or to the development of the
national wealth.
13. Ancestral domains
Refer to all areas generally belonging to Indigenous Cultural Communities
(ICCs)/ Indigenous Peoples (IPs) comprising lands, inland waters, coastal
areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership,
occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their
ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to
the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement
by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any
other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private
individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic,
social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture,
residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable
and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas,
bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may
no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they
traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities.
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J
(Source: Sec. 3 (a), R.A. 8371, An Act to recognize, protect and promote the
rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities and Indigenous People)
14. Ancestral lands
Land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who
are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional
group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by
war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a
consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered
into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not
limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden
farms and tree lots. (Source: RA 8371)
15. National heritage
In the case of Manila Prince Hotel Corporation vs. Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), the court explained that in its plain and ordinary
meaning, patrimony pertains to heritage, therefore national patrimony or
national heritage refers not only to natural resources of the Philippines but
also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. It also includes our intelligence in
arts, sciences, and letters.
Additional (Found in previous samplex):
Foreshore land – a string of land margining a body of water; the part of a
seashore between the low-water line usually at the seaward margin of a low
tide terrace and the upper limit of wave wash at high tide usually marked by a
beach scarp or berm
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 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.
B. Essay/Enumerations
1. General Economic Policy (Art. XII, Sec. 1)
Three-fold goal:
1. More equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
2. Sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the
nation for the benefit of the people; and
3. Expanding productivity, as the key to raising the quality of life for all.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment
1. It should be based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform
2. It should be through industries that make full and efficient use of human
and natural resources. Industries should also be competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets.
Protection of Filipino enterprises
The State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition
and trade practices.
Role of Private Enterprises
Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar
collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their
ownership
2. Classification of public lands (Art. XII, Sec. 3)
1. Agricultural
2. Forest or Timber
3. Mineral lands
4. National parks
*Notes from Comm. Soriano:
Who has authority to classify? Executive Department (President)
- Director of Lands vs. CA: SC declared classification of agricultural lands
belong to the executive
How classified? Alienable or inalienable
- Declare if free for dispossession for private individuals
- Congress later on allowed to classify declared alienable lands
- Unless declared by President as alienable, it cannot be further classified
May agricultural land of public domain be further classified by law according
to usage? Yes (Section 3)
Who may further classify? Congress by law
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J
- Congress authorized to determine the size of public domain that may be
acquired or developed
When will alienable public land commence to private land? Secretary of
DENR vs. Yap
Case Doctrine: Sec. of DENR v Mayor Jose Yap
There must be a positive act from the executive department before an
alienable public land becomes private land. The authority to classify belongs
to the Executive Department, Land classification or re-classification cannot
be assumed they call for proof.The burden of proof lies on the person filling
for title. The proof presented must be incontrovertible.
3. Exploration, Development and Utilization (Art. XII, Sec. 2)
The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly
undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of
the grant.
Section 2. REGALIAN DOCTRINE
Scope:
The following are owned by the State:
 Lands of the public domain:
 Waters
 Minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils;
 All sources of potential energy;
 Fisheries;
 Forests or timber;
 Wildlife;
 Flora and fauna; and
 Other natural resources.
Alienation of Natural Resources
1. General Rule: All natural resources CANNOT be alienated
2. Exception: Agricultural lands
Exploration, Development and Utilization of Natural Resources
1. Shall be under the full control and supervision of the State
2. How may State undertake such? (Means)
a. The state may DIRECTLY UNDERTAKE such activities
b. The state may enter into COPRODUCTION, JOINT VENTURE OR
PRODUCTION-SHARING arrangements with Filipino citizen or
Corporation or association at least 60% of whose capital is owned by
such citizens
3. Limitations:
a. Period: It should not exceed 25 years, renewable for not more than
25 years
b. Under terms and conditions as may be provided by law.
5. In case of water rights/water supply/fisheries/industrial uses other than the
development of water power
6. The beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
Small-scale Utilization of Natural Resources
1. Congress may, by law, authorize small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens
2. Congress may also authorize cooperative fish farming with priority given to
subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in the rivers, lakes, bays and
lagoons.
Large-Scale Exploration, Development and Utilization of
Minerals/Petroleum/Other Mineral Oils
1. The President may enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations
involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration etc. of
minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils. These agreements should be in
accordance with the general terms and conditions provided by law.
2. They should be based on the real contributions to economic growth and
general welfare of the country.
3. In the agreements, the State should promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources.
4. The President should notify Congress of every contract under this
provision within 30 days from its execution.
5. Management and service contracts are not allowed under this rule.
Protection of Marine Wealth
1. The State shall protect its marine wealth in its Archipelagic waters,
Territorial sea &
EEZ
2. The State shall reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
citizens.
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J

4. Authority of the president to enter into executive agreements (Art. XII,
Sec. 2)
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving technical or financial assistance for LARGE SCALE exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision within 30 days from its execution.
5. Disposition of public lands (Art. XII, Sec. 3)
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.
It shall be the Congress who shall determine by law the size of lands of the
public domain which may be acquired, held or leased (taking into account the
requirements of Conservation, Ecology, Development and subject to the
requirements of agrarian reform)
Private corporations:
-may not hold alienable lands of the public domain except through lease
-may lease not more than 1000 hectares
-lease for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25
years
Citizens of the Philippines:
- may lease not more than 500 hectares
- may acquire not more than 12 hectares by purchase, homestead or grant
6. Discretion of Congress in the development of alienable lands (Art.
XII, Sec. 3)
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and
development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the
Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain
which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor.
Congress is not given very much discretional latitude as regards the
Development (Exploration and Utilization) of Lands of The Public Domain.
Unlike the previous Constitutions, the present Constitution (1987) abolished
the leasehold system. Thus, logging or mining concessions are prohibited by
constitutional mandate. What is allowed, however, are partnerships or joint-
ventures with the State.
Limitations on Congress' Discretion:
1. Who may they form partnerships with
2. The scale of the Development
Under Article XII Section 2, Congress is authorized to allow through law
(legislation)
SMALL SCALE Utilization of Natural Resources with Filipino Citizens. As
regards Marine resources, Congress is authorized to allow cooperative fish
farming, prioritizing the fisherfolk.
Congress further classifies alienable agricultural land, It sets the maximum
limit of size that may passed to private ownership.
How may Congress Classify
-> according to its use
a. Residential
b. Industrial
c. Commercial
7. Congress' power to prohibit logging (Art. XII, Sec. 4)
The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, by law, the specific
limits of forest lands and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on
the ground. Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be
conserved and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The
Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine, measures to
prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
8. Eligible individuals to own private lands (Art. XII, Secs. 7-8)
SECTION 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall
be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
SECTION 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship
may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
It’s clear from this provision that private land may be transferred only to
persons or entitles who/which has the capacity “to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain.” Those who are qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
public domain are as follows:
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J
1. Filipino citizens.
2. Corporations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos.
Aliens, as a general rule, are not allowed to own real property in the
Philippines. By “aliens”, we don’t mean creatures from outer space, but
persons who are citizens of other countries. By “general rule”, we mean that
there are certain exceptions, and two of such exceptions are discussed
below.
The prohibition on foreigners owning Philippine lands is embodied in no less
than the Philippine Constitution. This, in fact, is one of the usual reason cited
by those who want to revise or amend the Constitution. The Constitution
provides:
“Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred
or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.” (Article XII, Section 7)
In other words, the Constitution explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from
acquiring or holding title to private lands. Among the exceptions are as
follows:
(1) transfer to an alien by way of legal succession; or
(2) if the acquisition was made by a former natural-born citizen.
The 1987 Constitution provides that:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.” (Art. XII,
Sec. 8)
The Supreme Court reiterated this general rule in a recent case (Borromeo
vs. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, 24 February 2009). The Court also reiterated
the consistent ruling that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who
subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in
the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is
rendered valid.
9. Recognized rights of the people under the Clean Air Act
According to Section 4, Article 1 of the Republic Act No. 8749 or the Clean
Air Act, the following are the recognized rights of the citizens:
a. The right to breathe clean air.
b. The right to utilize and enjoy all natural resources according to the
principles of sustainable development.
c. The right to participate in the formulation, planning, implementation
and monitoring of environmental policies and programs and in the
decision-making process.
d. The right to participate in the decision-making process concerning
development policies, plans and programs projects or activities that
may have adverse impact on the environment and public health.
e. The right to be informed of the nature and extent of the potential
hazard of any activity, undertaking or project and to be served timely
notice of any significant rise in the level of pollution and the
accidental or deliberate release into the atmosphere of harmful or
hazardous substances.
f. The right of access to public records, which a citizen may need to
exercise his or her rights effectively under this Act.
g. The right to bring action in court or quasi-judicial bodies to enjoin all
activities in violation of environmental laws and regulations, to
compel the rehabilitation and cleanup of affected area, and to seek
the imposition of penal sanctions against violators of environmental
laws.
h. The right to bring action in court for compensation of personal
damages resulting from the adverse environmental and public health
impact of a project or activity.
C. Cases
Carino vs. Insular Government
Facts: The appellant, on the 23d of June, 1903, by his attorney in fact,
Metcalf A. Clarke, filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration asking that
he be inscribed as the owner of a tract of land in the municipality of Baguio,
in the province of Benguet, containing 146 hectares. The Government of the
Philippine Islands appeared in the Court of Land Registration and opposed
the petition. The Government of the United States argued that the land was
part of the military reservation of Baguio. Judgment was entered in the Court
of Land Registration in favor of the petitioner, from which judgment the
respondents appealed in accordance with the law then in force to the Court
of First Instance of the province of Benguet. Judgment was entered
dismissing the petition. Hence, this petition. The petitioner presented no
documentary evidence of title, except possessory information obtained in
1901. By the provisions of the Mortgage Law, under which this possessory
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J
information was obtained (art. 394), it produced only those effects which the
laws give to mere possession. The petition did not show any title from the
Government and the land being agricultural. The petitioner, however, insists
that although the statute of limitations as such did not run against the
Government of Spain in the Philippine Islands, yet a grant is to be
conclusively presumed from immemorial use and occupation.
Issue: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of his
possession of it for some time.
Held: No. As we understand it, it is well settled that prescription does not run
against the Government as to its public lands - in other words, that if a
person desires to obtain title to the public lands of the United States situated
within the boundaries of the States, he must do so in the way pointed out by
the law. Mateo’s possession of the land has not been of such a character as
to require the presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many
years. It was never used for anything but pasturage of animals, except
insignificant portions thereof, and since the insurrection against Spain it has
apparently not been used by Cariño for any purpose. The occupation of the
petitioner is therefore, unlawful. There is no showing that he had used to
proper remedies under the law in order for him to claim ownership over the
land in question. Absent any proof, the State remains the lawful owner of the
agricultural land.
Meralco vs. Castro-Bartolome
FACTS:
 Manila Electric Company
- a domestic corporation under Phil laws, more than 60% of capital
stock is owned by Filipino citizens
- filed an application in Makati branch of CFI Rizal for confirmation
of its title to 2 lots located at Tanay, Rizal
 Republic of the Philippines
 Opposed the application on the following grounds:
1. Applicant, as a private corporation, is disqualified to hold
alienable lands
2. Applicant and predecessors-in-interest have not been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land for at least 30 years immediately
preceding the application
 Province of Rizal & Municipality of Tanay filed a joint opposition to
the application, on the ground:
 One of the lots would be needed for the widening and
improvement of 2 streets in Tanay
 The land was formerly possessed by Olimpia Ramos and sold the
land to spouses Piguing. The Piguig spouses constructed a
house thereon and because Meralco had installed the “anchor
guy” of its steel post on the land, the Piguing spouses sold the lot
to Meralco.
- Land was included in the 1968 cadastral survey and was divided
into two lots so that one of which would be segregated to be
used to widen the 2 streets in Tanay
- Land was declared for realty tax purposes and such taxes had
been paid
- It is residential in character
- Since 1927, it has formed part of the alienable portion of the
public domain
 RULING OF THE LOWER COURT: DISMISSED
- Meralco is not qualified for the registration of said land because
according to Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law only Filipino
citizens or natural persons can apply for judicial confirmation of
their imperfect titles to public land.
 MERALCO APPEALED TO THIS COURT, contending:
- After having possessed in the concept of owner by Ramos and
the Piguing Spouses for more than 30 years, the land had
BECOME PRIVATE LAND in the hands of the latter
- It has invoked Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Law, not for
itself, but for the Piguing spouses, who as citizens, can secure a
judicial confirmation
 SOLICITOR GENERAL COUNTERS:
- The land is NOT PRIVATE LAND
- Meralco and predecessors-in-interest have no composition title
nor possessory information title or any other means for the
acquisition of public lands such as grants or patents
ISSUE/s:
 Whether or not subject land is private land
 Whether or not Meralco can appy judicial confirmation of title for the
subject lots
RULING:
1. SAID LAND IS STILL PUBLIC LAND
 It would cease to be public land ONLY upon the issuance of the
certificate of title to any Filipino citizen claiming it under Section
48(b) of Public Land Law.
 “All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain.”
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J
  Until the certificate of title is issued, a piece of land, over which an
imperfect title is sought to be confirmed, REMAINS PUBLIC
LAND
2. MERALCO’S APPLICATION HAS TO BE DISMISSED
 Meralco contends that if the Piguing spouses could ask for the
confirmation of their imperfect title to the said lands, then why
should Meralco, as their transferee, be denied the same right?
 Before they could be given the benefits provided in Public Land Act
and before they could acquire any right under such benefits, the
applicant’s immediate predecessors-in-interest SHOULD
COMPLY with the CONDITIONS PRECEDENT for the grant of
such benefits.
 Condition precedent is to apply for the registration of the land which
the applicant’s immediate predecessors-in-interest (the Piguing
spouses) failed to do.
 They did not have any vested right in the lot amounting to title which
was transmissible to Meralco, the applicant.
Garcia vs. J. G. Summit
Facts: Respondent JG Summit Petrochemical Corporation is a new domestic
producer of polyethylene and polypropylene resins. In May 1994, it has
manifested that it will establish its plant in Negros Oriental but 2 years later, it
advised the BOI that it will locate it in Batangas City.
Petitioner objected to the Batangas plant site, citing as basis the 1990
decision in the second Garcia case (Garcia vs. BOI and Luzon
Petrochemical Corporation, et al.), which annulled the Board’s approval of
the change of plant site from Bataan to Batangas, and of feedstock from
naphtha only to naphtha and/or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). He argued
that by the said decision, this Court declared the Bataan petrochemical zone
as the only possible site for petrochemical plants as provided for under P.D.
Nos. 949 and 1803.
BOI dismissed petitioner’s opposition, reconfirmed respondent’s registration,
and approved the amendment of the latter’s certificate, with Batangas as the
plant site. It ruled that this Court’s Resolution in the first Garcia case in 1989
(Garcia vs. BOI and Bataan Petrochemical Corporation, et al.) clarified
that the establishment of a petrochemical plant in Batangas does not violate
P.D. Nos. 949 and 1803; that in evaluating herein respondent’s choice of
Batangas as plant site, the Board considered other important factors such as
project viability and costs as well as the government’s effort towards
industrialization and development in the various regions; and that locating a
petrochemical project in Batangas would be to the national interest as shown
by a 1995 report of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which was
commissioned by the BOI to undertake a study of the petrochemical industry
in the country. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, thereby affirming
the BOI decision.
Issue: Whether or not PD 949 and 1803, the laws creating petrochemical
complex in Bataan, prohibit establishment of a petrochemical facility outside
it.
Held: No. Petitioner’s submission that second Garcia case has ruled that the
petrochemical industry must be located in the Bataan petrochemical zone is
bereft of merit. What this Court declared in that case was that the plant site of
the LPC should be in Bataan, given the peculiar factual circumstances and
issues related to the proposed transfer, among them the original choice of
Bataan as plant site; the intended partnership of LPC, a foreign investor, with
the PNOC; the fact that the Bataan Refining Corporation can supply naphtha
for the petrochemical plant; and the importance of an independent national
economy. Clearly then, the decision was applicable only to LPC, more so,
since this Court had declared earlier in first Garcia case that P.D. Nos. 949
and 1830 do not prohibit the establishment of a petrochemical plant outside
of the Bataan petrochemical industrial zone.
If only to lay the matter finally to rest, this Court now reiterates that P.D. Nos.
949 and 1830 do not prohibit the establishment of a petrochemical plant
outside of Limay, Bataan. A meticulous perusal of the two decrees reveals
that nowhere in their provisions is it stated or can it be inferred that all
petrochemical plants must be established in Limay, Bataan or, stated
differently, that Bataan is intended to be the only site for all petrochemical
plants.
What is clear then is that the law reserved an area for a petrochemical
industrial zone in Bataan and that PNOC was to operate, manage and
develop it. There is, however, nothing further in the law to indicate that the
choice of Limay, Bataan as a petrochemical zone was exclusive. On the
contrary, the use of the word may in the proviso of Section 2 runs counter to
the exclusivity of the Bataan site because it makes it merely directory, rather
than mandatory, for the PNOC to lease, sell and/or convey portions of the
petrochemical industrial zone to private entities or persons locating their
plants therein.
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J
Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority
Other notes from the case:
Facts:
 Alienable public lands may only be sold to individuals through a public
• The Government, through PEA, contracted with AMARI to reclaim bidding The President declares agricultural lands as alienable through
submerged lands in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay the recommendation of the DENR
• The total landtobereclaimedis700hectares, only 150 hectares are
presently reclaimed  Real property of the Government maybe transferred, conveyed or else
• In the contract, AMARI shall have the title and ownership of, at most, 300 its title be affected only through A LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS
hectares of the total reclaimed land  The President CLASSIFIES in to alienable land; Congress, through a
• Cory issued special and patents transferring there claimed lands in LAW, CONVEYS the land
the Manila Bay to PEA
• Chavez filed with SC a suit to declare the contract void and the
transfer of the reclaimed land void

Issue: WON the transfer of ownership of the reclaimed lands to AMARI is

valid

Held: No.

• All natural resources shall belong to the State, reclaimed lands are
natural resources.
• Seeing as reclaimed lands are not forest, timber, national parks or
mineral lands, they are classified as agricultural lands ONCE
RECLAIMED
• If the reclaimed lands are still underwater, they form part of the
public domain and may not be alienated
• Reclaimed lands are deemed part of the public dominion fort hey are
reclaimed for a public purpose, thus they may only be taken out of the
public domain through a declaration stating that the land is no longer
needed for public use
• The ALREADY RECLAIMED 150 hectares of land is now classified
as agricultural land and was classified as alienable by virtue of the
special patent issued by Cory which authorized the Registry of
Deeds to issue a TCT in the name of PEA. The issuance of the
special patent is a formal declaration stating that the lands are no
longer needed for public purpose
• PRIVATE CORPORATIONS may NOT hold alienable public lands
except by LEASE
• The 500 hectares still to be reclaimed may NOT be transferred to
AMARI for this will violate the Constitution
• The 500 hectares may NOT be classified as alienable since they are not
agricultural lands since they are still underwater
• AMARI is a private corporation, thus may only lease alienable
public lands
Midterms Reviewer/SY2015-2016//Section-2J